Jump to content
Namvet, you must be pleased then that our president has more than cut the deficit in half. If we could just repeal a few of those tax cuts for the wealthy, eliminate some corporate tax loopholes, and invest in our economic growth, we might get to a surplus before too long.
Let us know what you think. Also, check out this review once you've seen the film. See if you agree. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2014/07/20/dinesh-dsouzas-america-will-have-some-conservatives-yearning-for-michael-moores/
pdywgn, people can become scholarly with a limited formal education, just as people with impressive degrees can be con artists.
Here are three more links from non-liberal sources to add to this conversation:
You alluded to Obama's undocumented educational history. Here's a factcheck.org report on that: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/
A strong critic of Obama's in The Weekly Standard, a magazine consistently critical of Obama, nonetheless acknowledges Obama's Magna Cum Laude grad status from Harvard Law and how well he was viewed there: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/316vvyov.asp
More germaine to the conversation is this review from an Obama critic who found "America" to be dishonest in a number of ways. Here is his review from a very conservative, yet intellectually honest perspective: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2014/07/20/dinesh-dsouzas-america-will-have-some-conservatives-yearning-for-michael-moores/
PearlY, the irony in your claim to be able to see beyond your biases is in your very next sentence where you write about "the destruction Obama is bringing to the country...." You write it as if this is a known fact, whereas most of the people I know view Obama as having fended off a do-nothing, obstructionist, uncompromising Congress for much of his time in office, and yet has still managed to walk us back from the ledge we found ourselves on back in 2008 and 2009. Unemployment was over 10% when the stimulus kicked in. The stock market had plummeted. The housing industry had been devastated. The deficit was heading toward $1.5 billion, our auto industry was dying, and we were mired in two wars. Again, despite little help from Congress, we are in better shape now and have begun to address our healthcare woes. Is it possible your biases don't allow you to see some of these successes?
Now, unemployment is just about under 6%, stocks have soared, the housing industry is rebounding (albeit slowly), the deficit has been more than cut in half, the US auto industry is much healthier, and we are almost out of those wars. We've still got plenty of problems with income inequality, low wages, folks who have given up looking for work, our slow response to climate change, the high cost of healthcare, and so on, but it's hard to look objectively at where we are now and describe it as "destruction Obama (has brought) to the country."
Film critics don't just evaluate documentaries on the quality of their film-making - though that is a component. They also comment on the quality of the arguments. If you read the reviews, that's a major reason why most critics hated this film.
As for the quality of Michael Moore's arguments, I tend to agree with many of his opinions, so yes, I have that bias, but I have also read a number of credible sources to back it up. In "Sicko," for example, if Moore were finding extremely rare examples of people with pre-existing conditions who were unable to get health insurance, and then presenting that to his audience as a common occurrence, then that argument would lack integrity. But in fact, the people he interviewed who couldn't find insurance were just like millions of others with similar stories. I've read the statistics. Moore was shining a light on some of the very dark shadows in our health care system.
I understand better what you mean. I believe (and I bet PeggyJoy does too) that having multiple voices and perspectives - left or right - on our local screens is healthy. What is not healthy for our community is when voices with such low ethical and journalistic standards get air time. It's sort of like the debate Oprah, Phil, and some of those other talk show hosts used to have about whether to invite KKK members onto their shows. What they're spewing is crap, and the 1st Amendment protects their right to spew it, but that doesn't necessarily make it wise for shows to have them on as guests. The way we influence those shows is by choosing not to watch them. We can do that with films, too.
As a theater owner, one consideration is certainly money. What films will be profitable? But some films are so vulgar or without merit that it's a shame when they get much air time. And it works both ways. I've seen a number of great films and documentaries in Seattle that never made it out here. I wish they would, but the demographics are different. Theater owners exercise censorship all the time. It's their job.
I have not seen it. I am relying on interviews I've heard and articles I've read. I would see a documentary that challenged my positions if it were done by a serious scholar or journalist, and have done so in the past, but this guy is pretty far below that standard.
Actually, I choose my cars and make a number of other purchases by reading Consumer Reports and finding out what various experts have to say. I do that with my movies, too. In the end, it's my call, but if a preponderance of experts lean one way or another, that has an influence on me. However, I must confess to loving my children without the benefit of consultants.
By the way, since you wish to continue to bring up Michael Moore, professional film critics across the country gave it a 67/100 on Metacritic.com, as compared to a 14/100 for the Obama film. Not a ringing endorsement, but still a significant difference from the perspective of folks whose job it is to objectively review the quality of films and documentaries. Here's the link: http://www.metacritic.com/movie/fahrenheit-911
I would personally recommend "Sicko," which scored a 74/100 (http://www.metacritic.com/movie/sicko). This film illustrates the need for much of the change that was built into the Affordable Care Act.
Barracuda, please point to one comment I made that suggests censorship. Theater owners have an unquestioned right to show it, and citizens have an unquestioned right to see it. I'm just pointing to some credible, objective sources who say it is a terrible piece of journalism.
I am also suggesting that if this is the best Obama's critics can do, that perhaps there isn't much substance behind all of the outrage.
Last login: Saturday, August 9, 2014
2014 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Union-Bulletin, 112 S. First Ave., Walla Walla, WA 99362/509-525-3300. All rights reserved.