Barak Obama - Heir Apparant

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior But here we get to the root issue. If the movie was flawless you still could not get behind it, and would always disagree with the overall message because you don't believe in it to begin with.

That's where you are wrong.

My disdain for Michael Moore has been well documented on IW over the years. I honostly cannot think of enough deragotory comments to describe my feelings for him and the crap-films he touts as "documentaries". However, despite my absolute disgust for Moore and his work, I accepted the challenge years ago to actually watch Bowling for Columbine. I discovered two things when I did. One was that ALL the criticisms I had read about the film were TRUE. He used half-truths, misleading dialogue and spliced film in a deliberate attempt to FORCE the viewer to accept HIS vision of the issue. You chastise me for not watching Al Gore's film? I don't have to. Despite any spin added to the smears, the fact remains that his film DOES contain at least 9 documented material innaccuracies. Add to that the fact that Al Gore has admitted it is common and accepted practice for environmentalist to exaggerate the data and it's impact in order to create "alarm" about environmental issues. He also admitted he, himself, had exaggerated claims of the global warming impact in order to "heighten awareness" of the situation. I watched Moore's film and found out all the flaws he denied actually DID exist in his films. So why do I need to watch Al Gore's film when it has been proven to contain inaccuracies and is narrated by a man who has admitted he has exaggerated data in the past to create extra alarm. The answer is, I don't.

Now then, the second discovery I made while watching BfC surprised me. Despite my personal feelings towards Michael Moore and his mockumentary style of filming, I had to admit he did raise a few valid points in his movie. The sad thing is, the movie would have had a much larger impact if Moore would simply have let the data speak for itself instead of intentionally manipulating it in order to make his viewpoint appear stronger. In fact, his tampering had the opposite effect. A decent message was tainted because the data was very obviously manipulated, so the overall message is denigrated by his actions. The same applies to Al Gore's film and the global warmers consistent cries of "Doom and Gloom! The sky is falling." By routinely exaggerating the data, they impair the message. It's a real life version of the boy who cried "Wolf". Is the danger real? Perhaps. But how can we know the true extent and impact the danger may have when we are constantly fed "alarmingly exaggerated" data? The answer is, we can't.

When you taint the data, you DO taint your overall message.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek That's where you are wrong. My disdain for Michael Moore has been well documented on IW over the years. I honostly cannot think of enough deragotory comments to describe my feelings for him and the crap-films he touts as "documentaries". However, despite my absolute disgust for Moore and his work, I accepted the challenge years ago to actually watch Bowling for Columbine. I discovered two things when I did. One was that ALL the criticisms I had read about the film were TRUE. He used half-truths, misleading dialogue and spliced film in a deliberate attempt to FORCE the viewer to accept HIS vision of the issue. You chastise me for not watching Al Gore's film? I don't have to. Despite any spin added to the smears, the fact remains that his film DOES contain at least 9 documented material innaccuracies. Add to that the fact that Al Gore has admitted it is common and accepted practice for environmentalist to exaggerate the data and it's impact in order to create "alarm" about environmental issues. He also admitted he, himself, had exaggerated claims of the global warming impact in order to "heighten awareness" of the situation. I watched Moore's film and found out all the flaws he denied actually DID exist in his films. So why do I need to watch Al Gore's film when it has been proven to contain inaccuracies and is narrated by a man who has admitted he has exaggerated data in the past to create extra alarm. The answer is, I don't. Now then, the second discovery I made while watching BfC surprised me. Despite my personal feelings towards Michael Moore and his mockumentary style of filming, I had to admit he did raise a few valid points in his movie. The sad thing is, the movie would have had a much larger impact if Moore would simply have let the data speak for itself instead of intentionally manipulating it in order to make his viewpoint appear stronger. In fact, his tampering had the opposite effect. A decent message was tainted because the data was very obviously manipulated, so the overall message is denigrated by his actions. The same applies to Al Gore's film and the global warmers consistent cries of "Doom and Gloom! The sky is falling." By routinely exaggerating the data, they impair the message. It's a real life version of the boy who cried "Wolf". Is the danger real? Perhaps. But how can we know the true extent and impact the danger may have when we are constantly fed "alarmingly exaggerated" data? The answer is, we can't. When you taint the data, you DO taint your overall message.

Well, it's odd that you mention this movie because I just watched BFC there a few days ago for the first time and, despite my bad feelings toward guns and arms readily available in America (which we discussed before in another thread) I do in fact, agree with you on this.

Again, I will come forward and say what I feel no matter who made the movie, or if I like what it preaches, rather than back it blindly regardless of content. And note, I am a fan of Michael Moore for his reputation of tackling the issues that many won't. But yes, in this movie all I kept thinking was he went the wrong way about doing it all. There were some pointless arguments made, I totally agree about the last scene blaming the NRA guy for the girl's death...it was a ridiculous play on audience emotion which in his mind may have been the noble thing, but was in reality, totally misguided. I remember watching that part and thinking "Wtf? Audience manipulation isn't how you solve this issue!". Because I did feel like I was being manipulated when watching it. Not one of my favourites at all.

Now, "Sicko" for example, was a great movie. Maybe it's because I know so intricately the gaping flaws in the US healthcare system, or that I know all the things that are said by the smear campaigns about the European or other Free world systems is inaccurate. Why? because I grew up with them. So I could at once see both sides of the coin and dismiss the lies almost immediately due to personal experience. All the while I watched other people succumb to the notion that "the waiting lists are months long in the UK" or "you have a 30% chance of surviving cancer in the UK". I LOL'ed alot at this BS. But it was odd and somewhat frightening, because I kept thinking to myself that if I hadn't seen the truth with my own eyes I may be buying into this stuff.

Anyways, my point is, do not be discouraged by one movie which I already agree has missed the mark entirely. Moore for example did some good stuff later on, keep an open mind, approach with a level of nuetrality rather than nab all of them with the same brush. Even if you force yourself through a sitting of a movie being discussed it will serve to, at the very least, help give your own personal insights, impressions and criticisms alongside the other ones.

[robertthebard]

Just to point out, as somebody else already did, I believe, all this debate about Gore could have backfired on Obama had he chosen Gore for VP. A seed of doubt would probably be enough.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Well, it's odd that you mention this movie because I just watched BFC there a few days ago for the first time and, despite my bad feelings toward guns and arms readily available in America (which we discussed before in another thread) I do in fact, agree with you on this. Again, I will come forward and say what I feel no matter who made the movie, or if I like what it preaches, rather than back it blindly regardless of content. And note, I am a fan of Michael Moore for his reputation of tackling the issues that many won't. But yes, in this movie all I kept thinking was he went the wrong way about doing it all. There were some pointless arguments made, I totally agree about the last scene blaming the NRA guy for the girl's death...it was a ridiculous play on audience emotion which in his mind may have been the noble thing, but was in reality, totally misguided. I remember watching that part and thinking "Wtf? Audience manipulation isn't how you solve this issue!". Because I did feel like I was being manipulated when watching it. Not one of my favourites at all. Now, "Sicko" for example, was a great movie. Maybe it's because I know so intricately the gaping flaws in the US healthcare system, or that I know all the things that are said by the smear campaigns about the European or other Free world systems is inaccurate. Why? because I grew up with them. So I could at once see both sides of the coin and dismiss the lies almost immediately due to personal experience. All the while I watched other people succumb to the notion that "the waiting lists are months long in the UK" or "you have a 30% chance of surviving cancer in the UK". I LOL'ed alot at this BS. But it was odd and somewhat frightening, because I kept thinking to myself that if I hadn't seen the truth with my own eyes I may be buying into this stuff. Anyways, my point is, do not be discouraged by one movie which I already agree has missed the mark entirely. Moore for example did some good stuff later on, keep an open mind, approach with a level of nuetrality rather than nab all of them with the same brush. Even if you force yourself through a sitting of a movie being discussed it will serve to, at the very least, help give your own personal insights, impressions and criticisms alongside the other ones.

Well Michael Moore has an established reputation for manipulating the audience, or at least trying to, with every film he makes. BfC may have been the most blatant example, but all the others contain the same elements. Even his supporters agree up to a point. Farenheit 911 is another example. Having Senators admit on camera they voted for the Patriot Act even though they never actually read it was a powerful condemnation of the bill. But Moore had to go one step further and drive around in a truck reading the bill over the vehicle's PA system. Theatrics like that actually cheapen the message. One critic summed it up very well in a review of the film - Michael Moore is at his best when he let's the camera do the talking and keeps his own mouth shut. He does tackle important issues, but he just can NOT resist adding his own twist to the message he is presenting. As you said yourself, the audience eventually recognizes this and his manipulations tend to make his whole message suspect.

As for Sicko, I am also intimately aware of the health care system in the U.S. I worked in the healthcare system for 13 years. I also have a chronic illness that has put me in the hospital on numerous occasions and resulted in 7 major surgeries so far. I am limited in the jobs I can pursue because I HAVE to have group insurance. Why? Because my chronic illness makes me automatically INELIGIBLE for individual insurance. Unless I can get on group policy, I simply will NOT be offered insurance at all because of my condition.

As for Universal Healthcare, there are models that work quite well. A former member here lived in France and gave glowing reviews of the universal healthcare available to all members in her country. Canada, on the other hand, falls into the category cited by critics of the universal healthcare. I've spoken directly to citizens there via forums who confirm that they do face waiting periods of up to 18 months for some medical procedures, such as surgery and even routine medical exams. My own personal physician moved here from Canada while I was working in the hospital purchasing department. When we provided him with a list of equipment the hospital would purchase for his office, his reaction was "This is for my office? Here in Canada, I could open my own HOSPITAL with this much equipment." That is straight from the horses' mouth, so to speak. So the actual "truth" about universal healthcare is far from "universal" itself. Some systems are good and some are bad, just like anything else done by the government. I personally would LOVE to see universal healthcare available in the US, IF we can do it the way France and other European countries have. But my fear is that we will end up with a system more like Canada's.

One other point I thought about last night after going to bed. I thought it was interesting that you questioned the article on Snopes, yet held the information on wikipedia up as your source regarding the British trial of Inconvenient Truth. The reason that is interesting is because Snopes exhaustively researches every article they address on their website. Wikipedia, on the other hand, accepts input from readers regarding their topics. Any reader of wikipedia can add to the information on their site. I don't know how thoroughly wiki researches the information they receive. Hopefully, they check it out for themselves before posting it. The point is that the information on wiki could be akin to the information found on any forum where readers submit thier own information. The wiki article on the trial says the judge approved the overall message of the film, but I have to ask if wiki also mentions the ruling of the judge that the film is a political effort that tells only one side of the story and showing the film without adding that disclaimer would be a violation of the Education Code. I left out the part about the judge saying it would be akin to political indoctrination, because that may be part of the spin added by the source I used. But if the judge ruled the disclaimer must be made and that information isn't included on wikipedia, then wiki is also not providing the whole story. I haven't had time to check it myself. It's waay too early in the morning to start googling stuff like that. I'll check it later today as time permits.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by robertthebard Just to point out, as somebody else already did, I believe, all this debate about Gore could have backfired on Obama had he chosen Gore for VP. A seed of doubt would probably be enough.

How dare you try to bring this thread back on topic, RTB. (brings out the wet noodle). lol.

I had said all along I expected Obama to go for the "superticket" and offer the VP job to Hillary. But I agree she also brings too much baggage with her as well. And despite McCain's ads to the contrary, I don't think there is a snowball's chance that Hillary's "18 million" supporters will give their vote to McCain over Obama. I understand they wanted Hillary, but she LOST the nomination fair and square. They need to accept that and move on.

Anyway, I think Obama made an excellent choice with Biden. He brings experience to the office that Obama admittedly lacks. Barak also said he wanted a VP that will challenge his thinking instead of being a "Yes Man". I sincerely hope this is true. Even though I was Bush supporter, we've seen all too well what happens when a President doesn't want to hear an opposing viewpoint from his Cabinet. It behooves ANY world leader to have a strong second-in-command that will say "I'm not certain this is the BEST answer to the situation. Let's look at some other alternatives."

Barak says he stands for change - which is exactly what America wants right now. I still think he is a lock to win the election. I just hope he truly means what he says and will follow the course he has promised when he gets in office.

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

Being a Canadian, I'm quite satisfied with our health care system. As with Moore, you probably hear the worst case scenario and think, "I don't want that"! Moore did put is in a positive light of course. This is the only film of his that I have seen.
Can you really blame a health-care system for not working at maximum efficiency because people eat the crap that's out there, smoke and whatever else that causes them sickness and injury? There's a wait for MRI's because too many people don't need the thing.
When a baby comes into the family, would it be good to know that both spouses can take up to a year off, or a paltry six weeks?

My mom and Step-dad moved back from Florida to Ottawa because they couldn't afford to live there anymore for health reasons.

With respect to the environment: I think you're in idiot if you don't think there's a problem and it's really not a bad thing to be "Environmentally friendly".

I'll take Canada over any other country in the world to live in.

[Cerek]

Wow. I have to admit you are one of the last people I would have expected to call me an idiot. At least I know where I stand with you now.

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

Originally Posted by Cerek Wow. I have to admit you are one of the last people I would have expected to call me an idiot. At least I know where I stand with you now.

C'mon, you really don't think that we are affective our environment, even a little?

[SpiritWarrior]

One other point I thought about last night after going to bed. I thought it was interesting that you questioned the article on Snopes, yet held the information on wikipedia up as your source regarding the British trial of Inconvenient Truth. The reason that is interesting is because Snopes exhaustively researches every article they address on their website. Wikipedia, on the other hand, accepts input from readers regarding their topics. Any reader of wikipedia can add to the information on their site. I don't know how thoroughly wiki researches the information they receive. Hopefully, they check it out for themselves before posting it. The point is that the information on wiki could be akin to the information found on any forum where readers submit thier own information. The wiki article on the trial says the judge approved the overall message of the film, but I have to ask if wiki also mentions the ruling of the judge that the film is a political effort that tells only one side of the story and showing the film without adding that disclaimer would be a violation of the Education Code. I left out the part about the judge saying it would be akin to political indoctrination, because that may be part of the spin added by the source I used. But if the judge ruled the disclaimer must be made and that information isn't included on wikipedia, then wiki is also not providing the whole story. I haven't had time to check it myself. It's waay too early in the morning to start googling stuff like that. I'll check it later today as time permits.

Well, the thing is with wiki all info. can be contested by anyone who thinks it isn't accurate. Accuracy isn't the only thing tested, haven't you ever seen the notifications on top of some wiki articles, warning people that some believe this info. is slanted or that this point is under investigation? I like it because they put the warning there and then let you decide for yourself. If I ever see a header like this in any article I quote, I then either don't quote it, or let someone know the info. is in conflict at least on wikipedia.

This is their general policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped..._point_of_view

Then, they specify something which has it's own page dedicated to it's definition called "Weasel words". I like it because it brings awareness that even citations and quotes can be used in a misleading manner.
Here is one header that sometimes appears of conflicted articles. It appears above the text with an orange exclamation mark so it is seen immediately

This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (April 2008)

Then there is also something called "peacock words", which I just discovered existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacock_words

I am also aware of an incident where someone claiming to be an expert edited something falsely in wiki a year or so back, and then forced them to do some kind of "check" when allowing info. to be added in controversial articles. For example, you will see that GWB's wiki page is locked from editing (indicated by the little lock icon in the top right-hand corner), probably because flaming and trolling or general abuse. The same goes for Michael Moore's page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore

Snopes, in my quick search came up as liberally biased believe it or not. But I went with it because I searched some controversial issues on the site, and concluded that they were pretty much on par with what I thought was accurate. I mentioned it just because I felt obligated to mention there was speculation.

Best thing I do when checking any site, is look up something I know 100% about and see their take on it.

[Cerek]

I rarely use wiki myself (unless I'm looking NWN related stuff), so I wasn't aware of the controls they had in place regarding the information they solicit from readers.