Joe: Steven Den Beste has a great post up on Moore as Muqtada-- I found it immeasureably cheering to read. Whee, I'm so glad to be able to speak again! And I love what you've done with the place!!

Exactly what is so "anti-American" about Moore's politics?

Vesicle Trafficker:

Who are you quoting?

VT:

Oops. Sorry. Got it on re-reading the post.

He's quoting me:

But those opposed to Moore's anti-American politics also need to take a tip from the old Zen parable and "lengthen their line."

The REAL question is, who is VT kidding? Take away Moore's anti-Americanism and thinly-veiled contempt, and there'd be nothing left of him at all - rather like Dennis Lee's mythical Ookpik from Alligator Pie ("An Ookpik is nothing but hair/ If you shave him, he isn't there...").

Hezbollah gets that, even if VT doesn't.

Joe:

I'd like to know the answer to VT's question, too. Moore is certainly anti-Bush. Is to be anti-Bush to be anti-American? I don't think so. Is to be anti-war in Afghanistan or -war in Iraq anti-American? Possibly. I think the case can be made both ways.

Just for the record I think Moore is wrong. And disingenuous. And an opportunist. And I think the comments he made about Americans while in France recently were crude and gauche but I attributed them more to his being a dope and trying to curry favor with his French fans than actually being anti-American.

But Moore's been making this comments for years. He can't be that much of a dope, can he?

If you take all his comments, you get a view of him as sometone goes around in a perpetual shaking head mode.

Maybe he doesn't hate americans but he has absolutely no respect for the masses. Where that crosses into hate, I don't know.

Because of a few brave people like Michael Moore and Arianna Huffington, the world will know that not EVERY American is a evil moron.

Reference:
"But either their voices are being drowned out by other Democrats eager to grab hold of Fahrenheit 9/11 and use it as a political tool -- no matter what the cost to honest discourse -- or they are not stepping forward in the first place to try to inject some semblance of sanity in their party."

Maybe not true. Ever heard of Senator Zell Miller from Georgia? Recently wrote a great book "A National Party No More" Most of the good ones have gotten out. 150 + years ago the Whig Political Party was a force to be reckoned with. Maybe the Democratic party will follow the Whigs.

Don

I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.

I thought the movie was fairly anti-American.

Because of a few brave people like Michael Moore and Arianna Huffington, the world will know that not EVERY American is a evil moron

It seems more likely that, if Moore is the source anyway, future historians will think ALL Americans were stupid and evil...

“You’re [Brits] stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe.”

“Should such an ignorant people lead the world,”

"You can see us coming down the street. You know, 'Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down."

"They [Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet ... in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]"

"We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

"You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe. It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton."

"The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich."

"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet"

This blog is capable of some of the finest writing and analysis on the net, and sometimes it lays some of the largest eggs. This post falls in the latter category. I'm disappointed at the folks who continue to buy the repub line that anti-Bush means anti-American. Very shabby.

As for lurker's quotes of Moore and whether they prove that Moore is anti-American. Let's stipulate that Moore is an American citizen. Now go back and read those quotes. Do you think Moore truely believes himself to be among "the dumbest people on the planet," "ignorant," a source of "sadness and misery"? Of course not, silly. He is not talking about all America, or every American, or else he would be including himself (and me). He is referring only to those Americans he happens to disagree with. His rhetoric of casual, broad-brush stereotyping is cheap, I agree. But it is a familiar device employed frequently on this blog to refer to all members of a group when the writer disagrees with one prominant member.

C'mon you guys, quit hyperventilating. If you think F911 is cheap propaganda, if you believe Americans are not dumb and ignorant, then why don't you trust them to come to the same conclusions that you do after they see the film for themselves? Elitists.

No Joel, you are laying the egg.

The argument is that Moore is anti-american and you tried to post a strawman. Your strawman is that we are some how equating anti bush with anti-american.

Here are some more quotes:

1. "Do you feel like you live in a nation of idiots? I used to console myself about the state of stupidity in this country by repeating this to myself: Even if there are two hundred million stone cold idiots in this country, that leaves at least eighty million who will get what I'm saying
- p. 85 of Moore's book "Stupid White Men".

2. "Should such an ignorant people (Americans) lead the world?
- In an open letter to the german people

3. The dumbest brit here is smarter than the smartest american
- at london's roundhouse theater

4. The dumbest Canadian in attendance surely outwits the smartest American
- on his north american tour in Canada

5. Michael Moore seemed relieved to not be around his fellow americans while in canada:
"Just for my own mental health, I need to watch this movie and sit in a room with 600 Canadians and watch this movie with them."
- city TV (Toronto) for his F911 film

So what does Michael really think?

"There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told."
- Michael Moore Oct 2003 on Crossfire

And how does he view those killed in 9/11
"If someone did this [9/11] to get back at bush, then they so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him!
Boston, New York, DC and the the planes destination of Califormia -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"
- moore's own web site on 9/12/2001 (since then scrubbed but there are still screen copies out there)

Joel,
You are right about one thing, Moore's "cheap propaganda" isn't going to make a difference one way or the other. He is not interested in serious debate.

WRT to my posts... I only responded to the Moore defenders with his own words. If this presents a problem, please tell us how to tell which of his words that we're supposed to take seriously from those that we're not. Otherwise, I'll report. You decide.

I see I was too subtle. Let me spell it out for you more clearly.

You use quotes from Moore in which he ridicules Americans as evidence that he is anti-American. This simple-minded literalism is just silly. Moore is American. Thus, if your quotes constitute evidence that Moore is anti-American, then they are evidence that Moore is anti-Moore.

Moore is anti-Bush. F911 is an anti-Bush film. Moore is ridiculing not all Americans (he would be ridiculing himself then), but he is ridiculing that subset of Americans (not including himself) who he feels are endorsing policies of the Bush administration that he disagrees with. To take Moore literaly at his word when he talks about "America" or "Americans" is simply obtuse.

You are sore because Moore mocks Bush, the Bush administration and its policies, and those who support Bush and his policies. Moore is anti-Bush. Unsatisfied to simply disagree with Moore or to fisk his critiques (or to defend Bush), you find it necessary to cross the line into calling Moore anti-American. Moore has clearly hurt your feelings. Like Cheney's potty mouthing to Leahy, it no doubt makes you feel better to call Moore anti-American, but for those of us who love neither Moore nor Bush, it just sounds childish.

Joel - Have you never met a self-loather?

For the record though, I don't think it's a matter of Moore being anti-American. It's a case of him being a narcissist. Moore is in love with his self-image as an anti-establishment icon, and sees himself as being more enlightened than the unwashed masses who disagree with him. He's a teenager who never grew up. It's that simple.

I praise the Michael Moore film for the following reasons:

1. The story of the National Guard member mom, and the grief she has.
2. The (horrifying) scens of destruction of people and places in Baghdad. Yes, this is war, and this is what happens in war. But people should know the actual effects of policies the government implements - whether you agree or disagree.
3. The Iraqi mother, distraught in her own grief.
4. The showing scenes of both Rice and Powell, in early 2001 I believe, dismissing Hussein as any real threat to the world, or to the US. Juxtaposed with scenes of Rice and Powell, playing UP what a threat Hussein was, in 2002.
5. The soldier who was guarding an oil compound, saying how he is on 7 day shifts, making 2-3K a month, while a Haliburton (I believe this is correct - saw the movie two weeks ago) truck driver makes 8-10K a month, working 40 hours. Is this the way to treat our soldiers?
6. The pointing out of the fact, that the Congressmen and women who voted for the war in Iraq, are so willing to send other children than their own, and their own children are, except for a few exceptions, not going.
7. The Bush joke: ""This is an impressive crowd: the haves--and the have-mores. Some people call you 'the elite'. I call you 'My Base".
8. The promo scene - "Terrorists are bad - let's golf!"
9. The Saudi beheading - these are our good friends??!!??
10. The scene at the contractor's convention, talking about how much money they were going to make.
11. Showing the rage of the Florida representatives, that their many of their (should have been legal voters) constituents, were thrown off the rolls. Don't remember seeing this anywhere else.
12. Tank drivers talking about how great their in-helment audio was - didn't know this either.
13. The viewing of how Bin Laden family members were, for the most part, cursorily questions, before leaving. Yes, there is a misleading suggestion here, but remember, it has ALSO been determined that a few family members were allowed to fly inside the United States (one US city to another) during the ban. It IS very unseemly, and I'm glad it was viewed.

Joel,
You are making unwarranted assumptions:

1) That I am in a Bush supporter and/or a Republican. I am neither. I'm a registered Democrat that has never voted for a Republican for president. My vote this time is still up in the air.

2) That Moore is taking about Bush supporters or Republicans when he talks about stupid Americans. What? Do you think he doesn't know the word Republican? Moore's words speak for themselves. I have nothing else to add.

wonderful sophistry. By that argument Noam Chomsky shouldn't exist either.

JC, you could apply the same comparisons to a soldier fighting in WW2 for 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12. So lets just throw that out to any war is hell.

You explanation of 4 flies in the face of what was said in the movie. You either mean this (taken from Dave Kopel's excellent play by play fisk of F911):

1. Moore supplies no evidence for his assertion that President Bush did not read the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief. Moore’s assertion appears to be a complete fabrication.

Moore smirks that perhaps President Bush did not read the Briefing because its title was so vague. Moore then cuts to Condoleezza Rice announcing the title of the Briefing: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” Here, Moore seems to be playing off Condoleezza Rice's testimony of the September 11 Commission that the contents of the memo were vague.

2. Or you are talking about this:

Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.” The audience laughs derisively. Here is what Rice really said on the CBS Early Show, Nov. 28, 2003:

Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East....

Moore deceptively cut the Rice quote to fool the audience into thinking she was making a particular claim, even though she was pointedly not making such a claim. And since Rice spoke in November 2003, her quote had nothing to do with building up American fears before the March 2003 invasion, although Moore implies otherwise.

However, no-one (except Moore) has ever claimed that Bush did not read the Briefing, or that he did not read it because the title was vague. Rather, Condoleezza Rice had told the press conference that the information in the Briefing was “very vague.” National Security Advisor Holds Press Briefing, The White House, May 16, 2002.

The content of the Briefing supports Rice’s characterization, and refutes Moore’s assertion that the Briefing “said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes.” The actual Briefing was highly equivocal:

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ‘Umar’ Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

For number 5, you know what danger pay is don't you?

For number 6, the old chickenhawk meme, puhleez...

There are 101 veterans in the house and 36 in the senate

So with 535 members that makes the representation roughly 25%. What is the porportion of veterans to main populace? A lot less.

Now you might be talking about Moore drive by slur on Castle and Kennedy. Castle has no children.

Here is a transcript on Kennedy's situation:

Stephanopoulos: You have a scene when you’re up on Capitol Hill encountering members of Congress, asking them if they would ask their sons and daughters to enlist … in the military. And one of those members of Congress who appears in the trailer, Mark Kennedy, said you left out what he told you, which is that he has two nephews serving in the military, one in Afghanistan. And he went on to say that, “Michael Moore doesn’t always give the whole truth. He’s a master of the misleading.”

Moore: Well, at the time, when we interviewed him, he didn’t have any family members in Afghanistan. And when he saw the trailer for this movie, he issued a report to the press saying that he said that he had a kid in—

Stephanopoulos: He said he told you he had two nephews.

Moore:… No, he didn’t. And we released the transcript and we put it on our Web site. This is what I mean by our war room. Any time a guy like this comes along and says, “I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,” he’s lying. And I’ve got the raw footage and the transcript to prove it. So any time these Republicans come at me like this, this is exactly what they’re going to get. And people can go to my Web site and read the transcript and read the truth. What he just said there, what you just quoted, is not true.

This Week followed up with the office of Rep. Kennedy. He did have two nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq. Kennedy’s staff agrees that Moore’s Website is accurate but insists the movie version is misleading. In the film, Moore says, “Congressman, I’m trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq.” But, from the transcript, here’s the rest:

Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?

Kennedy: How would I help you?

Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.

Kennedy: I’d be happy to — especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.

So what about another representation from Dave Kopel who made it?

We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.

In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1.

With regard to the enrage of Florida reps. They need to check in with reality:

Here is Dave Kopel's excellent summary

According to Fahrenheit, Bush cronies hired Data Base Technologies to purge Florida voters who might vote for Gore, and these potential voters were purged from the voting rolls on the basis of race. ("Second, make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote count woman. And that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell 'em by the color of their skin.") As explained by the Palm Beach Post, Moore's suggestion is extremely incomplete, and on at least one fact, plainly false.

The 1998 mayoral election in Miami was a fiasco which was declared void by Florida courts, because--in violation of Florida law--convicted felons had been allowed to vote. The Florida legislature ordered the executive branch to purge felons from the voting rolls before the next election. Following instructions from Florida officials, Data Base Technologies (DBT) aggressively attempted to identify all convicted felons who were illegally registered to vote in Florida.

There were two major problems with the purge. First, several states allow felons to vote once they have completed their sentences. Some of these ex-felons moved to Florida and were, according to a court decision, eligible to vote. Florida improperly purged these immigrant felons.

Second, the comprehensive effort to identify all convicted felons led to large number of false positives, in which persons with, for example, the same name as a convicted felon, were improperly purged. Purged voters were, in most cases, notified months before the election and given an opportunity to appeal, but the necessity to file an appeal was in itself a barrier which probably discouraged some legitimate, non-felon citizens from voting. According to the Palm Beach Post, at least 1,100 people were improperly purged.

The overbreadth of the purge was well-known in Florida before the election. As a result, election officials in 20 of Florida's counties ignored the purge list entirely. In these counties, convicted felons were allowed to vote. Also according to the Post, thousands of felons were improperly allowed to vote in the 20 non-purging counties.

When allowed to vote, felons vote approximately 69 percent Democratic, according to a study in the American Sociological Review. Therefore, if the thousands of felons in the non-purging 20 counties had not been illegally allowed to vote, it is likely that Bush's statewide margin would have been substantially larger.

It seems to me that even if we presume that the 1,100 wrongly purged Florida voters would have voted Democratic at the same rate that felons do (even though some of these voters were non-felons who were the victim of mistaken identity), the net result of the 2000 purge fiasco harmed Bush: the number of votes which Gore gained as a result of 20 counties refusing to conduct the felon purge far outnumbered how many votes that Gore lost as the result of the overbroad purges in other counties.

Regardless, Moore's suggestion that the purge was conducted on the basis of race was indisputably false. As the Palm Beach Post details, all the evidence shows that Data Base Technologies did not use race as a basis for the purge. Indeed, DBT's refusal to take note of a registered voter's race was one of the reasons for the many cases of mistaken identity.

DBT's computers had matched these people with felons, though in dozens of cases they did not share the same name, birthdate, gender or race...[A] review of state records, internal e-mails of DBT employees and testimony before the civil rights commission and an elections task force showed no evidence that minorities were specifically targeted. Records show that DBT told the state it would not use race as a criterion to identify felons. The list itself bears that out: More than 1,000 voters were matched with felons though they were of different races.

The appeals record supports the Palm Beach Post's findings. Based on the numbers of successful appeals, blacks were less likely to have been improperly placed on the purge list. Of the blacks who were purged, 5.1 percent successfully appealed. Of Hispanics purged, 8.7 percent successfully appealed. Of whites purged, 9.9 percent successfully appealed. John R. Lott, Jr., "Nonvoted Ballots and Discrimination in Florida," Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 32 (Jan. 2003), p. 209. Of course it is theoretically possible that the appeals officials discriminated against blacks, or that improperly purged blacks were not as likely to appeal as were people of other races. But no one has offered any evidence to support such possibilities.

Hmmmm. JC has pretty much the same post over at Obsidian Wings.

And although there is still no word from Joe on the meaning of his original comment, I would like to add a follow-up question:

Who put you/Right Wing/NeoCon/Republicans in charge of defining what is "American" and what is not?

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinions, but to present the matter as if you are in possession of some special right to pronounce judgment on this rather complex concept is, well, un-American (in my opinion).

Everyone should think long and hard about what their concept of being an "American" is before deciding whether someone is "Pro" or "Anti" that definition. And furthermore consider whether the true definition is not one but rather a collective of definitions on the subject.

Joe, if you're too lazy (or simply too apathetic) to clarify your position on this for all of us, dont' be surprised if such comments are dismissed as the rantings of a partisan.

VT,

Some of us have day jobs. And my comments section (esp. the captain) seems to be doing a fine job of clarifying for me.

Many on the left are anti-American, even in America. Michael Walzer and others in the American Left have written about it at length, we've written about it often, and Armed Liberal here has likened it to the self-proclaimed "love" of an abusive parent (which may be the best characterization I've ever heard). Trying to define this phenomenon away or pretend it doesn't exist is idiocy.

Since you've asked, VT, let me put in an early plug for the movie Michael Moore Hates America . Apparently, they'll be wrapped by the end of the summer... a bit late, but it might be interesting. Wonder if it will get much play up here in Canada.

Moore sure does, where he is very popular among the local America-haters (and that is the only term I can use for it, because it does cross the line into outright bigotry in many cases). Why? Because he methodically panders to all of their prejudices against Americans (note: not George Bush. Americans).

When the bigots and haters love you as one of their own, there's usually a reason for it.

No, VT, we needn't think "long and hard". It is not complex in the least and it needn't be partisan unless you want to imagine it that way.

When a man deliberately and specifically denounces his own audience as stupid, while he may have a point, he can and should be seen as nothing but a man who has no respect, and yes, even contempt, for his audience.

When he, because he, unlike the unclean masses, can declare that perhaps more soldiers should die to teach the rest of us a lesson and confirm his own preconception, so that he can say, "See, I told you so," then maybe he thinks more of confirming his own version of reality than for the men and women, mothers, fathers, sister, brothers, sons and daughters who will bear the pain of this lesson that he thinks we need to learn.

And when, in the course of trying to recreate reality to fit his preconception, he uses lies and distortions, because reality isn't nearly as important as propagating his beliefs, his audience isn't nearly as important as the proliferation of his agenda, and when that agenda is specifically to create self-loathing, leftist style, among the masses, than it's pretty easy to declare him anti-American.

And let's be clear. Opinions on MM's anti-Americanism (or more specifically anti-white capitalist gun owning America) and his deceptive strategies to achieve further anti-Americanism among his adoring yet idiotic public go back throughout his career. From Roger and Me through Farenheit (uncreative theiving anti-American) 911.

He is Chomsky (another self-loather) for the masses.

And he is anti-American in any light. One needn't define Americanism by any standard to know that wishing evil on innocents to alleviate some real or imagined collective guilt is loathsome.

And yes, of course, the king of complex, finds only TWO possible reasons that Joe has not responded. Lazy and/or apathetic. How about the complex possibility that he usually lets the commentors hash these things out? Or perhaps, he's simply busy with real-life and not gotten around to it yet.Too nuanced and complex for you?

And when you say "all of us" I hope you don't really mean "all of us" because I think MOST of us understood his perspective quite clearly from this and previous posts.

Lunacy

For people to decide what is "anti-American" we better have a decent consensus on what is "American". Darned if I know anymore. I grew up in a small midwestern town. We read the Old Testament in 3rd grade--in public school. I pledged allegence every day. Everyone went to church. We drank lots of milk. But this whole business of not being critical of anything "American", not being able to criticize a war without being called a traitor (the Whigs criticized the Mexican War, Lincoln was a Whig as a Congressman, the Whigs opposed having a president act like a king--I say bring back the Whigs) none of this to me is very "American".

Michael Moore used to be someone who made small, offbeat films that were humorous/serious and not all that well attended. Anybody see "Canadian Bacon" on opening night? Lots of people have attacked Bush the last few years. Moore used celluloid and Americans love movies. Movies are very "American". But it is not Moore who is compelling to the audience, it is Bush.

Bush said he is a uniter not a divider. We are more divided now than when we wrestled with abolition or civil rights. Is the cause now as worthy? If the cause becomes being able to redress government without fear of reprisal, or being able to express opinion in a public forum without being dragged into an alley, then it likely is.

Actually, I have the same post up at Obsidian Wings. I keep seeing these silly, silly carping, on a movie , that in the end, is a movie. A movie that is deeply powerful, disturbing, and that I welcome the "other side" of the information that we don't see in the american press. That's all.

The history of mistruths, lies, and misleading by the Bush administration - in ignoring science, in the justification of war, in so many things.

I truly can't understand the complete lack of proportionality. It simply boggles the mind.

capt joe,

Thanx for your opinion. I am not sure what your point is.

I deeply appreciate this movie because the points that I mention either:

1. I didn't know so clearly, or
2. Had a powerful emotional impact on me.

This is what I am saying.

But, I will engage you in your arguments.
Even though you have missed the main thrust of my comment.

You dismiss suffering, as, war is hell". Which is true. But again, as I mentioned, "people should know the effects of actions their governement is taking" - both positive and negative. I think we agree on this. So what's wrong with seeing that in a film?

Point 4: Have you seen the movie? There are scenes is the movie - perhaps taken out of context - where I believe Rice and Powell talk about how Iraq is not a threat - and that was something I hadn't seen before.

Point 5: "You know what danger pay is don't you?"

I'm not sure you wish to stay by that sarcastic statment. A trucker for Haliburton deserves "danger pay" more than soldiers? Is this what you are saying?

As far as serving - the rich have always served less than the poor - this is a universal - and Moore pointed it out. Again, is there a problem with that?

I personally hadn't seen, in the mainstream media, anthing about the representatives who were so angry in Florida. This is educational then, isn't it? Whether they "should" have been angry or not, is again, beside the point of my post.

You of course don't mention anything about the Saudi public beheadings, of the contractor's greed.

Bush's two comments - the "base" crack and the "watch this drive" crack - feel free to dismiss. I don't dismiss them.

Again, one more time:

a. The film has a powerful impact on me.
b. The film showed me video that shed a new light on, of things I didn't know anything about before. Or, like the suffering shown, shows the impact of American's actions.

These are emotional, physical, real impacts on people's lives. Even if the actions are worth it, as you clearly believe (and you are entitled to do so) it IS good, to see the impact of my countries' actions - both negative and positive - and it is good to know the unpleasant things that get hidden.

That's all.

How quickly the trolls come out of the woodwork.

As far as a working definition of "American," why don't we start with the basics? From a mechanical perspective, you are an American if you hold American citizenship. If you want to get metaphysical, you could define an American as one who adheres to the values and philosophies laid out in our founding documents--the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as amended.

Do we really need to spell out the trivial details that get you from Moore's statements above to the conclusion that he is, no matter how a reasonable person would define American, anti-American? His entire body of work is a frontal assault on our culture, our values, and our fellow citizens. To support his attacks, he has taken the art of the shameless lie to new levels of brazen contempt for the truth.

Kevin Drum used to be considered a reasonable man of the Left. No more. He has well earned my contempt, given how cheaply he has sold his credibility.

" We are more divided now than when we wrestled with abolition or civil rights. "

Really?

I mean, REALLY?!

I'm no history buff, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't there major civil (war) upheavel associated with abolition?

And it seems I recall HUGE marches, police dogs, fire hoses, lynchings, assassinations, disruption at political conventions, split political parties etc... related to civil rights.

I guess if a large outspoken portion of Hollywood and 1/2 the Democratic party and a majority of the media say we are more divided we must be divided.

Gee, I'm glad we aren't as united as we were in 1863 or 1964.

Lunacy

"His entire body of work is a frontal assault on our culture, our values, and our fellow citizens."

How quickly the trolls come out of the woodwork.

Well, perhaps the very long segment near the end of F911, where he lets the mother of a dead soldier speak for herself about her family's patriotism and love of country is a frontal assault on your culture, values and fellow citizens. I'm not ashamed to say that I do share many of her values. I found Moore's presentation of her to be sensitive and engaging. I'm glad I got to hear and see her in Moore's film.

Maybe when you get a little older, you will understand. Neither America nor its citizens (including Moore) fit into the tidy little box you want to call "America." American "culture" is--and has always been--noisy, messy, contentious. American "values" are complex and often contradictory. By dividing the citizens of this country into American and anti-American, you add nothing to our understanding of one another, what it might mean to be American or what it takes to keep America strong and vital in the future. Indeed, your insistence on using the "anti-American" meme is corrosive to such understanding.

By dividing the citizens of this country into American and anti-American[...]

"Do you (Joel) think that anyone legitimately can be called "anti-American"? Does that phrase have any meaning or use?"

Yes, but its meaning and utility is more limited than the promiscuous use it seems to find here.

I would say that someone who is anti-American is someone who actively works for and advocates the destruction of America and/or the killing or enslavement of Americans because they are Americans. The Nazi government of the Third Reich was anti-American. Stalin and his followers were, I believe, anti-American. The Islamofascists of al Qaeda are anti-American. Hammas is anti-American.

Hope this helps.

"'By dividing the citizens of this country into American and anti-American[...]' I don't see anyone doing that."

Here, let me help you out:

" . . . Moore's anti-American politics . . ."

"Many on the left are anti-American . . ."

Now, if Moore is not an American citizen and if Joe was referring to the international "left", then I stand corrected.

"I see claims made about a specific person and that person's views, based on a selection of statements made by that person."

The selection of statements presented in this list do no such thing. They may represent the angry, self-indulgent invective of a passionate narcissist. They certainly appear to me as frustrated, anti-Bush ranting. As such, they fit squarely into a long American tradition of baiting as a form of political argument. I don't like it, personally, but it is hyperventilating to call Moore "anti-American" based on these quotes.

When this blog is at its best (and the reason I keep coming back) is when it uses evidence and reasoned discourse to challenge assumptions, particularly the assumptions of the American left-liberal. I enjoy challenges. I deplore epithets.

Sam;

I am in agreement with you that it would be useful at this point in the discussion to strip away the nuances that might be commonly associated with one's definition of "American" and begin with the basics.

As you put it, to be an American, at its core, is to be someone who holds citizenship. Further, I think it is generally accepted that an American is one who agrees to abide by the laws of the land as laid out in the Constitution & DOI. Adhering to the "values and philosopies" (as you put it) seems too dependent on interpretation to be useful as a basic definition, IMO. (Part of being American is working out, collectively, what these interpretations are, given the fluid nature of our society. But perhaps that is too complex for the current discussion.)

So, if you want to strip it down: American citizen, abide by the laws of the land. Has Moore done anything to violate these basic qualifications?

Please (anyone) s-p-e-l-l it out clearly for us hardheaded Liberals.

Joe:

"When the bigots and haters love you as one of their own, there's usually a reason for it."

I don't think you really want to go down this road, Joe. You will be led into the deep dark woods of far-right "Patriots" and religious moralists who strongly support your man, George W. Bush.

Thanks (again) for the laugh, though.

Michael Moore: Zionist Tool!
Kid you not. Ultra-leftists vs. Moore. Douglas Valentine, of Counterpunch, called Sy Hersh, , "a company man, " i.e.
CIA agent, in a recent Counterpunch piece.
http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen07052004.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine07022004.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/rosenthal07032004.html
http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/07/why-does-fahrenheit-911-pursue.html
http://www.oilempire.us/michaelmoore.html

Joel,

When I said troll, I meant you. Just so we are clear. I absolutely stand by my trivial observation that Moore is anti-American by any reasonable person's definition. Thank you for making so clear that "reasonable person" is not a description that suits you.

V.T.,

Yes, "values and philosophies" was a bit fuzzy as far as a hard-and-fast definition. It was intended to be so.

Also, you are moving the goalposts. I did not say that Moore was "not an American;" I said he was "anti-American." Someone who is "not an American" would be someone who does not hold American citizenship--I believe Moore was born in this country, and has not taken steps to renounce his citizenship.

Moore's statements (see above for examples), pace Joel's idiocy, clearly show a pattern of contempt for the vast majority of American citizens. No, he does not advocate their mass slaughter, but he has used his international popularity to slander his own fellow citizens. When a man wilfully tells lies about the U.S. with the intent to harm our country's reputation, he well deserves the description "anti-American."

Poor Sam. Sorry I hurt your feelings, man. But don't worry, I won't return your unprovoked insults with insult. Your disproportionate hostility betrays fear. Get help.

When a man willfully tells lies about the U.S. with the intent to harm our country's reputation, he well deserves the description "anti-American."

...Or advocates the deaths of American servicemen as a kind or morality lesson.

I am frankly stumped as to why this must be explained. I personally do not take the position that those who opposed the war are anti-American and will disagree with anyone who does. But there is a clear line. Once you've crossed it and started wishing -- with public statements no less -- for the deaths of American servicemen, then that, by God, is anti-American.

VT, Joel, JC, et. al.,
If this is the gentleman to whom you'd like to hitch your wagon, that's fine. But please don't come here and tell us that our rhetoric is over the top, insensitive, unnuanced, or whatever. Now, go forth and have much electoral success with your new spokesman leading the way.

Michael Moore is a cleverly manipulative nitwit. (Latest here, but you'll find lots more dropping "michael moore" into my blog's search function.)

However, dissent, no matter how stupid, wrongheaded, or offensive, is not "anti-American," and perpetuating the notion that it is is unhealthy to the body politic, as are casual uses of words such as "traitor," "treacherous," "un-American," and so forth. This country was founded on dissent, and it's critical to preserve that free speech, wherever it comes from, no matter how idiotic we find it and how much we disagree with it. Part of that preservation is restraining ourselves to simply disagree with foolish statements with logic and facts, with more free speech, and not to object to the speech.

That is the American way. And it applies to Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, as much as it applies to Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Ted Rall, as much as it applies to David Duke.

Gary,
I'm not sure that anyone has proposed that Michael Moore be censored. Are you saying pointing out something as anti-American is not a protected form of free speech? Or are you saying that it is impossible for any speech to be anti-American? I'm so confused!

Gary,

I think you're confusing the concept not prohibiting free speech (critical) with the concept of not objecting to someone who uses their freedom of speech in an idiotic way (foolish, and defeats the needed clash of ideas that is supposed to let truth emerge).

If you think Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, not only are you permitted to say so - as a citizen you should say so if the issue comes up. There may be very good reasons for not saying so, but they're exceptions to the default duty which is to speak up.

Man, this liberal tolerance-to-silly-extremes thing is whack. But Rush tells me he'd be wildly happy if all liberals followed it with respect to his show. So go ahead and make Rush's day if that's what floats your boat.

Anyway....

Dissent CAN in fact be anti-American. Just as it can be anti-Black, anti-Jew, etc. You don't get a content exemption just by yelling "dissent!" Again, I'm stunned that this is not blindingly obvious.

Someone whose dissent consists of comfort with National Socialism along the German model, evinces disdain for the U.S. Constitution, believes his fellow citizens are weak and in need of state discipline, hates American culture (esp. its n----er music like jazz and blues, and yes they used that term), and relentlessly trumpets America's failings and Germany's virtues in anti-American. Even if he lives in the USA. He may still be a loyal American or he may not, but that is a separate issue. He does not like what America stands for. He does not like Americans. He runs them down at every opportunity, and doesn't seem to be even-handed about that elsewhere. He is ANTI-American.

He is also, given the content of his beliefs, UN-Amnerican. But that too is a separate issue from his anti-American stance. Someone may be very Pro-American in all other ways, for instance, love the country and support it with all their might, but seek to impose a Christian Theocracy that would overturn the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and replace it with religious edict. (To my knowledge, no Christian organization of any substance in the USA seeks this, but let's imagine they did). That person would be Pro-American, but also UN-American. They like the place, but they just don't get the concept.

Now let's look at those who supported a Marxist-Leninist Dictatorship of the Proletariat and praised the Soviet Union, while running down the USA at every opportunity. All of the same issues and factors apply here as applied to our Nazi friend. They are anti-American. They may or may not be loyal Americans, but given the apparent loyalty to a foreign power it is legitimate to wonder (though not to trample on what makes America "America" in that wondering).

This belief set is also UN-American, because it opposes everything America stands for and the foundations of the Republic which include democracy, freedoms of speech, religion, etc. But one can imagine a believe in a lesser form that would not seek to overturn the U.S. Constitution or destroy its system of government, that seeks socialism within democratic norms but still dislikes America's culture ("it's all commercial evil"), its people ("uneducated sheep," or pick an epithet), and has nothing good to say about it. This person is ANTI-American. He is, however, a loyal American in that he is a servant of no foreign power and will serve if called. He is NOT un-American.

See the difference?

"I think you're confusing the concept not prohibiting free speech (critical) with the concept of not objecting to someone who uses their freedom of speech in an idiotic way (foolish, and defeats the needed clash of ideas that is supposed to let truth emerge)."

Not at all. I specifically said I was for countering stupid speech. I'm simply suggesting that calling it "anti-American" (or, in other usages too frequently seen these days, "traitorous," or "un-American") is unhelpful and un-edifying. We learn nothing from it, and it suggests that the boundaries of acceptable debate should be smaller in an unuseful way.

Calling someone an idiot is fine, if also rather content-free. Better is so say "such and such a statement is idiotic because of the following facts...." Best might be to retain a respectful and civil tone while disagreeing, but that's a judgment call that is sometimes reasonable to drop.

Is it possible to be anti-American? Obviously. Therefore is there such a thing as "anti-American speech"? Of course. But I'd suggest being very careful in slapping the label on and to hold out for only the clearest of cases. It's simply not a useful debate otherwise, and winds up, in most cases, being a pointless distraction from issues of fact.

Name-calling tends to do that. The argument becomes all about whether the name is justified or not, rather than what the facts are, and what policies should be, and what should we learn?

I agree with the idea of being careful in using the label. But I believe that there are cases - and Moore is certainly one - where the label is not a mere epithet but has important content attached to it.

Moore openly seeks to influence a U.S. election with a dishonest film. Having injected himself into national politics, his biases and record are a legitimate topic for debate. If, as the upstart movie contends, "Michael Moore Hates America," that is in fact useful information in the present context.

The debate that Walzer has raised concerning the Left's ongoing moral blindness would be another good example - he argues, persuasively in my view, that the left's anti-Americanism is blinding it to real abuses and suffering, and causing far too many people to act as apologists for evil regimes. That's an important causal agent, and therefore an important thing to learn because the aplogies for evil won't stop until it's addressed head-on. Similarly, New Left political theorist Schaar notes that this same defect is defeating the requirements of patrimony, humility, and identification with the larger polity that are the roots of common action for the leftist political project domestically.

If significant segments of the U.S. Democratic Party are adopting an anti-American ethos and worldview, that is a non-trivial development that goes beyond any one issue for one may discuss policy specifics. It needs to be discussed as such, and then addressed via specific examples like Moore, or those found in Walzer, etc. If a trend can be shown, the growth of anti-Americanism as a domestic persuasion becomes a very legitimate problem in and of itself, one for which debates re: causes, solutions, instances etc. are very valid.

But the problem must first be identified and called by name.

If we can't debate what is or isn't anti-American, then how are we ever going to understand what it is? Or to recognize it? This seems a perfectly reasonably debate to me.

"They [Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet"

Do we really have to limit the debate to relative numbers of college graduates, adult literacy, etc.? Why? There is no attempt in the original statement to convince anyone with facts or figures? Certainly these facts could be pointed out in rebuttal, but wouldn't this really be about ignoring the elephant in the room?

Average people can't be expected to fact check a movie when they get home (though I would hope a lot of people would start to question what they saw when they see the way Iraq is portrayed as a bucolic wonderland), but the fact that even the serious, policy-shaping people seem to have abandoned their sense to cling to the belief that this movie must be true (because they want and need it to be true) is saddening.

For example, Sen. Landrieu, who was on FoxNews last week defending the movie:

LANDRIEU: If there's any senator or any person that takes issue with anything in that movie, they should lay their cards on the table. So far that movie's been out for several weeks, has grossed more money than almost any documentary in the history and I haven't seen one credible criticism that can't be backed up with a fact so that's that on the movie.

ANCHOR: Let me stop you there. You're say nothing in the film that has not been criticized factually?

LANDRIEU: I am saying that ... it's been out there for three weeks there is not one criticism of that film that hasn't been backed up substantially because of the fact checks.

Really? That's a pretty big charge to make. Presumably, if you were going to make that kind of blanket statement you'd have done some research and read the relevant articles.

GarnetGirl:

Yes, there are no intelligence tests required for elected officials.

It seems like the righ-wing have gotten their panties in a wad calling Moore a liar, but I haven't yet seen any of them make a list of the "lies" in F9/11. Can someone point me to a URL that itemizes these lies?

Sure Moore "implies" things about Bush, about Bush and Saudis, and about Bush and big business. Frankly, I think he makes a pretty good case. Would this all stand up in a court of law? I don't know. Better yet, why don't we impeach Bush and find out?

Bravo, Michael! Keep showing the world what stupidly evil b*****d Bush is...

cheers,
--Beo

Katzman:

> one can imagine a believe in a lesser form
> that would not seek to overturn the U.S.
> Constitution or destroy its system of
> government, that seeks socialism within
> democratic norms but still dislikes
> America's culture ("it's all commercial
> evil"), its people ("uneducated sheep," or
> pick an epithet), and has nothing good to say
> about it. This person is ANTI-American.

You still do not explain why this person's views necessarily must be "anti-American". What "American culture" and "people" are you talking about? I somehow don't think Moore feels as out-of-touch with the good American citizens of Berkeley and Hollywood -- or at least a great many of them, since they presumably share many of his views.
---
True, a person who seeks to destroy American civilization or overturn the current government/Constitution/Bill of Rights etc. through anti-democratic violent means is "anti-American" by definition. But you seem to be implying here that if the Democrats somehow managed to assemble a filibuster-proof supermajority of leftist liberals in Congress & the White House, and if they started to amend the Constitution to support their policies, that would somehow be anti-American too? Why? These people would be elected American citizens, and they presumably would feel they were doing what's best for themselves as well as their country.

[...]
> If significant segments of the U.S. Democratic
> Party are adopting an anti-American ethos and
> worldview, that is a non-trivial development
> that goes beyond any one issue for one may
> discuss policy specifics.

Ah, so by implication there exists a contrary 'ethos' and 'worldview' that is truly "American" . Somehow, the folks who claim this tend to be Red Americans... They regard their "values" about patriotism, religion, sexual morality, the proper role of free enterprise and government, womens and minority rights etc. as the only "truly American" ones.

Are you saying that you are "true American patriots" simply because you claim Thomas Jefferson & co. shared most of your values two centuries ago? Well, in Jefferson's day, it was possible to state that "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" while keeping Negro slaves. A century from now, maybe nobody will care about same-sex marriage or abortion. "Values" change.

I am saying not all people share the same "values". Moore seems to be rooting against a particular segment of the American population (a segment that by and large controls American foreign and economic policy). I assume he would like to see his own group of leftist liberals kick these people out of office in the November elections. But that hardly makes him anti/un-American.

MARCU$

No, Marcus, it goes further than that. The commenters above explain it quite well. See esp. the comments from the ironically-named "lunacy," and capt. joe.

Being for gay marriage does not make you anti-american, or Un-American, or anything else. Again, this is ground we've covered. We're not talking about normal opposition over a domestic set of policies, we're talking about taking predispositions like a belief that that America is evil/corrupt by nature, that despises and belittles Americans as a group, and that defines itself in opposition to America's policies while apologizing for or ignoring the country's real enemies (vid: Moore dismissed 9/11 and could clearly care less in a public BBC event, even as the rest of the nation was still busy mourning the dead in the attack's aftermath).

It is very, very possible to be a fire-breathing Democrat and not fit that description at all.

Beyond that, we return to attempts to essentially define anti-Americanism away. One need not wish for every black person to be dead or enslaved to be a bigot. One need not wish for the destruction of America's government to be anti-american (as pointed out, that person is UN-American, a different concept). But consistent hostility, bias, and negative sentiments expressed toward both the people in general and the country as a political entity DO make someone "anti-American"... and that is well documented in the comments and links above.

Just as someone who expressed the belief that all black people were lazy, expressed this and other put-downs publicly, called them n---rs, etc. would be viewed by reasonable people as a bigot (i.e. anti-black), even if she took no further action than that.

As Lurker notes, anti-American is a real term that connot simply be defined away. I will note here as well, that liberal attempts to do so are one reason the Right seems to own this part of the debate. Back to Schaar's points, and Walzer's, for the cure.

> But consistent hostility, bias, and negative
> sentiments expressed toward both the people in
> general and the country as a political entity
> DO make someone "anti-American"... and that is
> well documented in the comments and links above.

BTW, I might disclose that I am Finnish. I guess you could say that I am one of those who express
"consistent hostility, bias, and negative sentiments" against the current POTUS as well as his supporters... But I have no problem with the Left Coast/Hollywood/Berkley and the Boston/NY/DC liberal corridor. The U.S. is a very diverse country. Now, does this make me "anti-American" if I am rooting for one side against the other in your culture wars? That is not how view myself at least.

Checking your previous posts, I get the feeling you doing the same thing in intra-European Union matters. However, I don't notice any postings that I would categorize as "anti European" in a racist, all-encompassing sort of way -- which is what you are accusing Moore of doing.

> Just as someone who expressed the belief that
> all black people were lazy, expressed this and
> other put-downs publicly, called them n---rs,
> etc. would be viewed by reasonable people as a
> bigot (i.e. anti-black), even if she took no
> further action than that.

I always assume "stupid white men" is really shorthand for "stupid conservative white men". There is no real evidence Moore thinks that if you are white, male and American, you must be dumb... By that logic, there could be no liberal WASP males in Michael Moore's America. He seems to be challenging the currently predominating worldview within his own country, much as Clarence Thomas & other conservative blacks are questioning the ideological beliefs of the (vastly Democratic) African-American majority. Now, liberals frequently accuse conservative blacks of "hating their own people and culture" but that is not how Thomas & co. see things -- and I don't think Moore views himself as someone who hates his own country and people either.

You seem to be advocating a "l'etat -- c'est moi" attitude here. We can probably agree that the Bush Administration represents a narrowly elected majority (well...) just as the bureaucrats running the European Union represent another certain philoshophy and worldview (whatever that is). But in my book, if somebody strongly disapproves of either, it does not necessarily mean he or she despises "the people" of that political entity too. Maybe they do, in the Middle East -- but I have noticed relatively little of it in the United States media/blogosphere (wrt. Europe excluding France:-) and the anti-American crowd in Europe tends to be aware of the fact there's George W. Bush Country but there's Michael Moore's America as well. Moore and I are both fervently hoping that the President will lose, but (speaking for myself only) I am certainly not hoping the United States will suffer famine & destruction. I am hoping you would join forces with the E.U. and U.N. to fight for the Western values that I consider important. That's all.

Sorry for the lengthy post. My point is simply that you can accuse Moore of hating rednecks, Bushies, NRA types etc. but I don't see any real evidence he hates his country. Rather, he has made 911 to support "regime change" in the U.S..

MARCU$

MARCU$,
We've already talked about this up thread.
See Joel's comments starting here.

And my responses, espeially this one.

Do you think you know more words than Michael Moore. Why wouldn't he specifically deride those people that you mention, if that is what he means? Why does he leave this to his apologists, like you? Unlike you, I take his words at face value.

Marcus, do you actively wish for more American deaths in Iraq so that we might learn a lesson? Some on the American left do. If so, this makes you, along with them, anti-American.