NationStates Jolt Archive

Moore To Capture Katrina on Film?

Controversial film-maker Michael Moore is planning to make a hard-hitting documentary based on Us President George W. Bush's handling of the Hurricane Katrina rescue operation. Moore grabbed international acclaim with his scathing 2004 film Fahrenheit 9/11, which studied Bush's handling of the September 11th terrorist attacks. The Oscar winner is now "seriously considering" documenting the catastrophe in America's Gulf Coast region. He tells the New York Daily News, "There is much to be said and done about the man-made annihilation of New Orleans, caused not by a hurricane but by the very specific decisions made by the Bush administration in the past four and a half years. Do not listen to anyone who says we can discuss all this later. No, we can't. Our country is in an immediate state of vulnerability. More hurricanes, wars, and other disasters are on the way, and a lazy bunch of self-satisfied lunatics are still running the show."

Moore really annoys me, he just points out problems, without ever offering solutions, he presents everything he covers as simple problems, with the attribution of blame very clear. Someone put it, "He's become a **** for morons who think the world is simple." - at the risk of becoming like Moore, it's simple but it's true. He seems to decide he's going to discover "that right wing policies are really bad and America has done some bad stuff and oh yeah Bush is bad" and find the evidence later.

Through his work and other points of view I can understand a little more why liberal seems to be a dirty word, I can't remember and American left wing argument that was any good.

He's utterly useless -he serves no purpose-, talentless and totally underserving of his fame or riches.

The greatest problem with right wing policies is that they are far too simple, you look at left-wing policies and you can see that they're the only senisble and responsible way to go - even if they are a little more complex. In America it seems that left wing ideas (most of them wouldn't get past 'centre' in Europe) are presented as equally simple. So, you've got two simple policies, one promises action now and shows (however flawed) how the action will work, whilst the other stands there and offers an alternative view without explaining the point. There doesn't seem to be any difference in the arguing styles of either viewpoint. The left-wing just seems to be a mirror version of the right - only less appealing when it comes to our more basic instincts like greed and revenge.

So, my point is (and there's a point in there somewhere :) ) that Moore is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

But hey, Moore may be able to prevent Bush winning a third term :)

Moore does a great diservice as he makes the left seem like shrill idiots to whom the right ought not give ear to. So he stifles true discourse and leads to a more polorised nation.

The Anne Coulter of the Left.

I think Michael Moore rocks.. to each their own. :)

"oh no Micheal Moore we're being attacked by a left wing weasel!"

He's made some powerful documentaries but your right, in bowling of colonbine I thought he was just rude.

I'm not too familiar with his work. I've read Dude, Where's My Country? and loved it. It was hilarious. Fahrenheit 9/11 was just okay. Perhaps it was because it wasn't supposed to be funny that it well, wasn't funny.

What people never seem to realise with Moore (because the word "documentary" is used to describe his work) is that he's not a reporter, and attacking him because some of his facts are wonky is irrelevant. He's a polemicist, just like Thomas Paine was. As such, his works are always going to be partisan. They are there to stir up shit. The fact they do shows he is a good polemicist.

Do i agree with him? About half the time.

Do i think he's a necessary and healthy counterbalance to the vast horde of right-wing polemicists that pass their work off as "fact" in your country? Undoubtedly.

Would i want to be stuck in a lift with him? Probably not.

Moore really annoys me, he just points out problems, without ever offering solutions, he presents everything he covers as simple problems, with the attribution of blame very clear. Someone put it, "He's become a **** for morons who think the world is simple." - at the risk of becoming like Moore, it's simple but it's true. He seems to decide he's going to discover "that right wing policies are really bad and America has done some bad stuff and oh yeah Bush is bad" and find the evidence later.
Political commentary? He's a witch, an unpatriotic witch! Burn him!

I'm bush like. I dont like micheal moore because he made a movie about me. With uh um ... a lot factual misleading information, that was not right. Um like ... when he uh said that, anyway micheal moore is not right. He needs to get a real job like me. Cause I work a lot. I work so much sometimes that um... anyway I dont like micheal moore. I'm not gunna see that movie again, I saw it three times because it took me three times to be able to tell what was going on. My good friend Dick had to explaine it to me. So uh micheal moore is just a "laberal" and I dont like "laberals".

Moore really annoys me, he just points out problems, without ever offering solutions, he presents everything he covers as simple problems, with the attribution of blame very clear. Someone put it, "He's become a **** for morons who think the world is simple." - at the risk of becoming like Moore, it's simple but it's true. He seems to decide he's going to discover "that right wing policies are really bad and America has done some bad stuff and oh yeah Bush is bad" and find the evidence later.

Through his work and other points of view I can understand a little more why liberal seems to be a dirty word, I can't remember and American left wing argument that was any good.

He's utterly useless -he serves no purpose-, talentless and totally underserving of his fame or riches.

The greatest problem with right wing policies is that they are far too simple, you look at left-wing policies and you can see that they're the only senisble and responsible way to go - even if they are a little more complex. In America it seems that left wing ideas (most of them wouldn't get past 'centre' in Europe) are presented as equally simple. So, you've got two simple policies, one promises action now and shows (however flawed) how the action will work, whilst the other stands there and offers an alternative view without explaining the point. There doesn't seem to be any difference in the arguing styles of either viewpoint. The left-wing just seems to be a mirror version of the right - only less appealing when it comes to our more basic instincts like greed and revenge.

So, my point is (and there's a point in there somewhere :) ) that Moore is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

But hey, Moore may be able to prevent Bush winning a third term :)

Still, he makes good movies and books! But he is sorta annoying. :)

Michael Moore pisses me off... But I agree with his message...


gah! I'm so torn

Moore is probably why there are so many conservatives in the US. No one wants to look like a mooron. He's as annoying as Cindy "Bush is a murderer because my son volunteered" Sheehan.

I didn't think it would take him long to come up with this documentary on this disaster.

Another moore movie to debunk. Hopefully, he'll actually tell how FEMA, Mayor of NO and the Governor also screwed up on this. I d oubt it highly though.

And since when is a hurricane man-made?

What people never seem to realise with Moore (because the word "documentary" is used to describe his work) is that he's not a reporter, and attacking him because some of his facts are wonky is irrelevant. He's a polemicist, just like Thomas Paine was. As such, his works are always going to be partisan. They are there to stir up shit. The fact they do shows he is a good polemicist.

Do i agree with him? About half the time.

Do i think he's a necessary and healthy counterbalance to the vast horde of right-wing polemicists that pass their work off as "fact" in your country? Undoubtedly.

Would i want to be stuck in a lift with him? Probably not.

From some of the comments I can see people are missing my point (if it's my fault for not expressing my view correctly I'm sorry). My point is that, as we've seen on these forums already today, people mix and match left-wing policies/views for their own benefit. Why should a right-winger stop and think about detail arguments to do with management and responsibility which are a lot harder to dismiss/ find flaws in then factually inaccurates stuff. I'm perfectly aware of a greater good that people are seeing but as I said, I think this is counter-productive as simple vs simple is always going to produce a right-wing result.

Moore has never done anything other than preach to the converted and stregnthen the views of those who are to the right.

Moore is probably why there are so many conservatives in the US. No one wants to look like a mooron. He's as annoying as Cindy "Bush is a murderer because my son volunteered" Sheehan.

I sincerely doubt it, he isn't hyseterical

Yeah. At least Micheal Mooron uses more logic than "my son volunteered to go on a dangerous mission and died even though he knew the risk. Therefore, Bush is an evil murderer forcing people to fight a completely voluntary fight."

Why come up with a funny name for Moore and not Bush? Because Bush is already a funny name. That and Dick.

Avika-making fun of the annoying, the insulting, and basicly those who aren't already made fun of by Avika.

Moore is probably why there are so many conservatives in the US. No one wants to look like a mooron.
Where is that support our troops picture where the guy has a poster with a word misspelled on it when you need it?

I didn't think it would take him long to come up with this documentary on this disaster.

Another moore movie to debunk. Hopefully, he'll actually tell how FEMA, Mayor of NO and the Governor also screwed up on this. I d oubt it highly though.

And since when is a hurricane man-made?


a hurricane isn't man made. the levee's breaking because the federal government couldn't find it in the budget to reinforce them in case of hurricane 3 YEARS running is what people are probably referring to when they use the phrase "man made disaster". glad i could help clear that up.

Hmm, look what I posted on September 3rd...

Good for Michael Moore. Maybe he can capitalize on this tragedy to make millions on another fake documentary. :rolleyes:

a hurricane isn't man made. the levee's breaking because the federal government couldn't find it in the budget to reinforce them in case of hurricane 3 YEARS running is what people are probably referring to when they use the phrase "man made disaster". glad i could help clear that up.

Ok then, why didn't Clinton add more money to make it Cat 5 strength? Why didn't the state of LA figure out a way to do the project themselves? Mississippi had levees and they took the worst brunt of the storm but they held.

So really....when this is made, I'll lay odds that it'll get debunked within the first day of its being released.

I've heard from many people that Michael Moore is an idiot. From both the left and right, people I respect and people I... don't respect as much as the people I do respect.
Anyways, what the OP said was right. Moore points out problems without offering solutions. And he should be commended for that. He was the only one that pointed out problems after "the spirit of 9/11" took hold of America. Maybe he is an idiot, but he was the only one with the courage necessary to speak out at a time when everyone chanted in unison.

Ok then, why didn't Clinton add more money to make it Cat 5 strength? Why didn't the state of LA figure out a way to do the project themselves? Mississippi had levees and they took the worst brunt of the storm but they held.

So really....when this is made, I'll lay odds that it'll get debunked within the first day of its being released.

why didn't clinton add more money? good question. does that excuse bush for not even funding maintanence? why didn't LA figure out a way to protect themselves? i don't know, they're a poorer state with marginal political influence, possibly. and it seems unfair of you to blame the dead for dying in front of cameras, it's not like New Orleans did this to itself on purpose for political gain. what's to gain from it, after all? they're dead

why didn't clinton add more money? good question. does that excuse bush for not even funding maintanence?

Actually it was funded. Just not to the amount that they wanted.

why didn't LA figure out a way to protect themselves? i don't know, they're a poorer state with marginal political influence, possibly.

No excuse. If they wanted it bad enough, they could've managed it.

and it seems unfair of you to blame the dead for dying in front of cameras, it's not like New Orleans did this to itself on purpose for political gain. what's to gain from it, after all? they're dead

Good Question to be asking! Why don't we ask that to all sides of this idiotic blame game?

Actually it was funded. Just not to the amount that they wanted.



No excuse. If they wanted it bad enough, they could've managed it.



Good Question to be asking! Why don't we ask that to all sides of this idiotic blame game?

i don't neccessarily consider the blame game (good use of talking points with blame game, by the way) idiotic. if we want to prevent this sort of thing from happening again, who's responsible ought to be assessed. including brown, the mayor who didn't take the evacuation seriously enough (seriously, just drive? nobody thought that there might be people without cars?) the governer who didn't do whatever strange thing you're implying should have been done in advance (what is that, exactly? diverting money from the police force to the levee's? from education? some kind of faith based initiative for hurricain prevention) and the president who let an exectutive order authorizing emergency fuel and medical care be deployed to the area languish on his desk for 4 days rather than signing his name, because he was busy attending fundraisers. you're right when you say that more than just bush should be held accountable, but the fact that he wasn't solely responsible doesn't mean he's not responsible at all.

none of which pertains to michael moore at all. in referance to the actual question posed in this thread, i find his older material very funny (especially the sodomobile) but lately think he's gotten a tad bit preachy.

Actually it was funded. Just not to the amount that they wanted.

No excuse. If they wanted it bad enough, they could've managed it.

Good Question to be asking! Why don't we ask that to all sides of this idiotic blame game?Um... how do these actually refute the claims? Only the first one really says something besides "No" and it is rather weak, considering no one ever gets as much funding as they want.

Um... how do these actually refute the claims? Only the first one really says something besides "No" and it is rather weak, considering no one ever gets as much funding as they want.

Thanks for that last sentence. It proves a point that not everyone gets what he or she wants.

Thanks for that last sentence. It proves a point that not everyone gets what he or she wants.

yeah, but the hope was that if they tried, sometimes, they might find they got what they need.

...you know, levee-maintanence funding wise. :p

The Democratic Rush Limbaugh. :rolleyes:
He exploits our tradgedies in order to make a huge, stinking, filthy pile of cash. It's really that simple.

Yeah. At least Micheal Mooron uses more logic than "my son volunteered to go on a dangerous mission and died even though he knew the risk. Therefore, Bush is an evil murderer forcing people to fight a completely voluntary fight."

This is of course exactly the kind of attitude people like Moore are pandering to. :rolleyes:

Moore is no more annoying than most, and less than some. It's a matter of market values, people want to be able to be able to feel ideologically superior and recieve validation about their political beliefs/world view, perferably in a way that maximises the feeling of superiority by making anyone not in thine own image appear to be moronic half-wits. Of course this can sometimes be done with wit, but most often requires strawmen fallacies that appear to ridicule the point of view of those unlike thine own image, but are more usually nothing more than irrelevent crap.

The point is if the market keeps churning it out and making a profit, then consumers are demanding it. Considering it is a perfectly legal service/good, and considering that more people than not use goods/services of this kind, why is it wrong for Moore to do so, or particularly objectional? I dont like the clothes every manufacturer makes, but I dont begrudge them the right to carry on their livlihood supplying those who do go in for their particular product/s.

As for not making suggestions to solve problems....what the? I hardly consider that to be his job.

The only problem I do have with this kind of product, is that people seem unable to tell the difference between entertainment and information. Products like Moores are entertainment, they are not information products, any more than a stand up comic routine is. Both contain some resemblences to aspects of reality, they can even raise awareness about aspects of reality, but they do not necessarily inform, in the sense of giving someone an accurate and full sense of any particular aspect of reality.

This is of course exactly the kind of attitude people like Moore are pandering to. :rolleyes:

Moore is no more annoying than most, and less than some. It's a matter of market values, people want to be able to be able to feel ideologically superior and recieve validation about their political beliefs/world view, perferably in a way that maximises the feeling of superiority by making anyone not in thine own image appear to be moronic half-wits. Of course this can sometimes be done with wit, but most often requires strawmen fallacies that appear to ridicule the point of view of those unlike thine own image, but are more usually nothing more than irrelevent crap.

The point is if the market keeps it out and making a profit, then consumers are demanding it. Considering it is a perfectly legal service/good, and considering that more people than not use goods/services of this kind, why is it wrong for Moore to do so, or particularly objectional? I dont like the clothes every manufacturer makes, but I dont begrudge him the right to carry on his livlihood supplying those who do go in for his product.

As for not making suggestions to solve problems....what the? I hardly consider that to be his job. The only problem I do have with this kind of product, is that people seem unable to tell the difference between entertainment and information. Products like Moores are entertainment, they are not information products, any more than a stand up comic routine is. Both contain some resemblences to aspects of reality, they can even raise awareness about aspects of reality, but they do not necessarily inform, in the sense of giving someone an accurate and full sense of any particular aspect of reality.

hear hear (here here?) couldn't have said it better myself. and he was much funnier when he remembered that himself.

Yeah. At least Micheal Mooron uses more logic than "my son volunteered to go on a dangerous mission and died even though he knew the risk. Therefore, Bush is an evil murderer forcing people to fight a completely voluntary fight."


Why set your standard by the things you dislike?

Erg. I'm a "lefty pinko commie" with regards to a lot of things, but I always groan when I hear Michael Moore or someone singing his praises. I see him an as entertainer, and not a very good one at that. He spouts out fashionable little factoids, but there's very little depth to anything he says.

One of my stoner friends said something very much like this after watching "Farenheit 9/11" for the first time:

"Dude. The movie was kinda cool, but kinda boring too. Bush is full of shit, but that Moore dude is full of shit too. I'm gonna go buy some Pringles."

Wise words, my friends. Very wise words.

Ok then, why didn't Clinton add more money to make it Cat 5 strength? Why didn't the state of LA figure out a way to do the project themselves? Mississippi had levees and they took the worst brunt of the storm but they held.

So really....when this is made, I'll lay odds that it'll get debunked within the first day of its being released.

Let us not forget that it was Clinton who gave it federal funding in the first place, it was Bush who cut the funding. So, to put any of the blame on Clinton is simply stupid, he's the one who started to federally fund it.

Oh and Mississippi isn't under sea level, NO is.. sheesh!

Let us not forget that it was Clinton who gave it federal funding in the first place, it was Bush who cut the funding. So, to put any of the blame on Clinton is simply stupid, he's the one who started to federally fund it.

Oh and Mississippi is under sea level.. sheesh!

Steph, Mississippi is very prone to flooding. Mississippi took a more devestating hit than LA did. They got the worst part of the storm and yet the levees that they had withstood the category 4 storm.

Bush may have authorized the cut for the funding Stephistan, but the Congress still had to approve of said cut. I can still blame Clinton for not adequately funding the levees just like I can blame Bush for the samething.

From what I'm hearing, Gulfport is a total disaster area. New Orleans (in retrospect) just had massive flooding due to two levee breaks. Gulfport was literally destroyed. New Orleans wasn't!

Oh and Steph?

President Bush is taking full responsibility for the government's failure in regards to Katrina.

Oh and Steph?

President Bush is taking full responsibility for the government's failure in regards to Katrina.

As he should, for appointing two people to jobs they were not qualified to have. 1) head of FEMA and 2) the Secretary of HS.

I think Chris Rock put it best when he said that Michael Moore was probably wishing that he made Super-Size me instead cause he already did the research.

Though honestly, I would argue that the man doesn't beleive half of what he produces. He just knows that there's a lot of extreme left-wingers who hate Bush and would pay good money to see a cheaply made movie bashing Bush. I just think he's in it for the money and watching people become more outraged.

And yes, I said cheaply made. Where else but Moore films can you see two quotes concerning two different issues put back-to-back and expect the viewers to believe that we have a complete maniac (though I'm not saying we don't) in office because of his absolute failure to understand the idea of context.

Not once have i heard that the mayor of NO was even in the least responsible for the Katrina disaster(and by disaster i am not reffering to the natural disaster but instead the aftermath).