Michael Moore's "Dude, Where's My Country?"

'Parently most of his stats are bollocks. But, well...he's funny. And his heart's in the right place.

I need to follow that up. Could you tell which statistics are wrong and what your source is please? Ta.

Eric, I read this anti-Moore article in the Guardian last week: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1088297,00.html I haven't read Michael Moore yet so I can't comment. I just know a few people who think what he says is spot on, but some of those also think his style is obnoxious. [%sig%]

There's a whole lot of places you can go to (new sites spring up each week detailing Michael's - ahem - leniency with the absolute truth . . . ) Start with www.moorelies.com Go to www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html for the lowdown on Bowling for Columbine Then www.revoketheoscar.com Then www.moorewatch.com Then www.sector404.org/archives/2003/ 04/21/moore_lies_please.php I could go on . . . Then you can go to www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/ to see how he responds . . .

Eric, you may know this already but check out this website. It has loads of brilliant stuff on it. It might tickle your fancy. www.zmag.org

Moore is a pale, and bloated, immitation of some real gadflies from the 60s and 70s like Hunter Thompson and Dick Gregory. It's just hard for me to take him seriously.

"American anti-Semitic liberal" In what way is he anti-semitic? Opposing the policy of the Israeli government (or even the state of Israel itself) does not automatically count as semitism. "unreadable prose" I'm not going to defend the guy's prose style in terms of literary value but he's sold a hell of books, so a lot of people must be able to understand it. "World Bank Conspiracy to overthrow all Socialist-oriented countries." I don't think the World Bank has enough of a will of its own to conspire to do anything. The US government has and, I expect, will continue to attempt to overthrow Socialist-oriented governments in other countries. This is not a conspiracy, it's a clear strand of foreign policy. Castro is an ongoing example. Chavez is a more recent one and he has a democratic mandate. I'm not an apologist for the policies of either of these leaders but it's difficult to argue that the US isn't trying to overthrow them.

I read something recently that describes Michael Moore as a 'blue collar sentimentalist' and to a great extent I think that's true. This may be the philistine quality that Steve identifies. I don't think philistine is quite correct, it's more like celebrating a culture or set of beliefs that are consistently ridiculed or discounted by a supposed self proclaimed intelligentsia. Moore is definitely on the side of 'the little guy' but he doesn't see 'the little guy' as one guy on his own but a whole nation of 'little guys' getting done in by the big guys. I think it's this that some people find very hard to swallow, because it is very close to notions of class identity and class pride that seems to be forever mixed in popular view with a kind of stupid blustering self satisfied bellowing. Hence 'he's aways talking about his class, which are the bottom or least affluent class, which means they must be stupid and primative, which means he is stupid and primative.' [%sig%]

I like Moore. He puts over generally sound arguments in an accessible way, although he often spoils this by stretching his points to ridiculous lengths of black and whiteness. I liked Bowling For Columbine but I was slightly annoyed by some elements of it. Particularly the bit where he seemed to be saying that everyone in the US lives in fear of crime while everyone in Canada goes out leaving their front door unlocked. I haven't read the latest book but I doubt it will be 'important'. People who already agree with Moore will read it, laugh and/or get angrier and carry on agreeing, while those who disagree will start more websites to expose he alleged lies and his more wacko opponents will write hilarious ranting emails about 'liberals' going to live in Cuba. That stuff really is funny.

Mark, I agree with you. He's a sentimentalist for an America which does not exist. His title for the book is, "Dude, Where's My Country." I also don't understand how such an anti-military guy supported General Clark of all people. I would think he would have supported John Edwards who seems to be more in line with his thinking. He's anti-semetic because he blames the World Bank for everything. There's hardly any organization as generous as the World Bank, especially to third world countries and Asian countries. His basic thesis is that the World Bank is secretly funding military ventures so that countries like the U.S. need to borrow money from them. This is what is behind his well-meaning, sentimental book. From that point of view, I can kind of understand how he supports General Clark.

Moore is on the right side. At least he's trying. Bowling for Columbine is a great documentary flawed by Moore's dreary sentimental streak. he's not chomsky, but he ain't bad. As for the stats, you can twist stats around to mean anything you want. Moore might be flawed, but the world bank, treasury, ministry of defence and state department have odd calculators as well he's alright

I generally agree with David and Marc.

I agree with Hen [%sig%]

it's nice when people agree

i agree too... some of the facts *are* suspicious (whose arent) but as bobble says, at least he is facing the right direction.

Not sure the anti-Moore sites such as Moorelies.com are actually doing their cause a great deal of good. The rebuttals in this article: http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016b.html - which links from Moorelies.com are so weak that they make me more inclined to believe than I was before. For example: "Page 58: Moore claims that the U.S. "oversaw the assassination of [Congo leader Patrice] Lumumba" in 1961. However, according to a July, 2000 US News & World Report article, Lumumba was actually killed by Belgian operatives (though, as that article makes clear, the CIA apparently did have its own plot to assassinate him)." Without getting into the extremely murky and complicated range of arguments about who was and wasn't responsible for this assassination, even if we assume that the view presented by Moore's critics is true, the fact that someone was killed by Belgian operatives does not, in any logical sense, prevent their operation being overseen by the CIA. Moore does not claim that the CIA didn't colloborate with the Belgians. It would be perfectly legitmate for critics to claim that Moore is, as he does on many occasions, overly simplifying something complex but to claim that Moore's view in this case is a lie is, even based on the accusers own evidence, even more ridiculous than claiming that it is a full explanation of the truth.

..I don't see the link between the World Bank and semites? and I can't really see any generosity factor re lending to third world countries. So called third world countries are big business to lenders. They are the equivalent of your single parent with x amount of kids stuck in an economic pit with only money lenders of dubious morality willing to give them a greased ladder as an escape route.

Thanks for all the information here! I've been away from my computer for the last week but shall look at some of the sites and get back to you. My own suspicions are that David Floyd's last posting will turn out to be nearest the truth. The reason I am so keen to know more about Moore's allegations is that I shall need to be familiar with them when it comes to publicising my own book, which, although fictional, covers some of the same territory, although hopefully not in a "dreary sentimental" way! I spent years collating and cross-referencing hundreds of newspaper articles, none of which, to my knowledge, has ever been challenged by the parties exposed/criticised in them. [%sig%]

sorry still had my alias re val n tyne thread on board...apologies...oops blown my cover now

Hope you're doing the first Gulf-war "Iraqis broke into kuwait hospital and bayoneted babies in incubators" story, which did at least a little to swing public opinion in US and proved later to have absolutely no substance.

Everybody has an agenda. I didn't, for one moment, think that everything written or shown by Michael Moore was the total unbiased truth... how could it be? But after spending some time reading the websites pointed out above I have to say that, with the exception of The Guardian, they came across very much like the ad nauseum arguments from the gen diss. That is mostly disagreement because of a basic dislike of the person and what they stand for rather than a valued opinion of the issue at hand. Last year I spent some time researching the history of capital punishemnt in Britain and the US. It was bloody difficult because every book, site and article has a point to make.... you have to wade through that to get to any semblance of a reasonable fact. To be honest I'd say read Michael Moore but don't take everthing he says at face value... consider his points, many of which are fairly valid, and come to your own conclusions.

Steven, Have you actually read any of Michael Moore's or just the websites which pick out bits of them? I've heard some really weird claims of anti-semitism but yours is currently the most ridiculous I've come across. I've read Stupid White Men and Dude, Where's My Country and don't recall him suggesting that the World Bank is run by Jews so if that is the main point of his work, he's making it in an extremely subtle way. I don't remember him mention Jews at all except when talking about Israel/Palestine, where he encourage Palestinians to give up suicide bombing in favour of peaceful protest. Compared to many on the left, Moore is quite sympathetic to Israel. That not to say that Moore doesn't have some strange ideas. For example, the first section of 'Dude' where he makes some overly imaginative connections when looking at the Bush family's relationship with the Saudi royal family. I also don't really see your point about the World Bank being generous. It exists in order to loan money to countries with financial problems. Up until recently at least, it's success was judged largely on the amount of money it managed to give out, largely irrespective of whether or not the money ended up in the hands of corrupt despots like Mobutu in Zaire. But I wouldn't argue, and as far as I know neither would Michael Moore, that the World Bank has any independent political agenda whatsoever. It is, for good or ill, a tool of the global capitalist system and doesn't merit independent judgement of any sort.

Must agree again. With David and Vicky. Anti-Moore arguments are mostly hilariously desperate and over-sincere, certainly worse than Moore's own style. I swear I read one once that quoted an extract from 'Stupid White Men' where Moore jokes about sending in the CIA to remove Bush. The article then dropped the bombshell that 'this never happened'.

Michael Moore's argument is always the same argument. Let's look at his film, "Bowling for Columbine." Premise. 1. Corporate America is evil because it is being controlled by the World Bank. He assumes that our banks like Fleet are also being controlled by the World Bank. Just the most idiotic premise in the world. a. Our military is being controlled by corporate America. Just wonder about how much money the Pentagon spends on one prototype of a hammer. Is it $500 or more? b. Our guns are being forced upon us because of the international financial terrorism of the World Bank and its methods. There is a semi-Marxist logic here but it is not on the level of let's say, a Pat Buchanon. Actually, I would say that Pat Buchanon and Michael Moore are travelling on the same train of thought. Michael Moore dines on a nice, Romantic cruise of a fictionalized America. Conclusion: 1. We need hugs, not guns. 2. We can defeat the enemy with our compassion and our brains, neither of those does he really possess. 3. We need to cut our dependence on foreign capital to finance our loans? (It's difficult to access how much of our national deficit is actually owed by our government and how much by our banks.) Once you read one book by Michael Moore, you just read the same thesis over and over again, stated in more words and more shoddy logic (if I can call it logic) each time. Do you ever watch the Southpark episodes in which they parody the VH1 shows and the thesis of the VH1 writers. Yeah, these rockers became famous and then they partied too hard. They split because of conflicts of interest, but got back together and loved each other when they needed money and now, they're just taking it one show at a time. The simple fact is that: you are completely unable to think outside of your specific perspective. I may be a liberal civil libertarian, but spending a few years on the site saramnet.com/ forum (poetry) and writing in that site, really made me question the idea of freedom of speech especially in relation to truth, its relation to violence, and its relation to law.

If I may continue a bit longer: Michael Moore's logic works negatively. He thinks: It's not our history of violence and racism and social inequality and our history of making minorties suffer for their small sins, making them pay excessive prices for merely doing nothing nor is it our mislead youth who lash out on foreigners because of all the money that goes to foreign countries nor it is... etc. etc. etc., and then it must be the World Bank... etc thus... so he verges on the kind of Fascism that he apologizes for which gives hope to Jungian psychotherapists who pretend that their patient is a psycho in the hopes of turning her into a saint.

Moore makes some excellent points. Like Pilger he sometimes over-eggs the cake. May I suggest that you take up a subscription to Red Pepper and get monthly updates on this whole world. As one of the founders of that august organ this is self-indulgent promotion but one of the reasons we set it up was in an attempt to provide accessible, accurate reporting of the key issues of today that was not biased and corrupted by the mass media machine.

Maybe you watched a different version of the film than I did...or maybe I over simplified it in my mind...but I though B.F.C. blamed 'fear factor' for the spiraliing level of gun abuse. And who raises the levels of 'fear factor'? The media. Perhaps you just don't like the guy?

Steven, I want some quotes about this World Bank stuff. Michael Moore does not say that corporate America is controlled by the World Bank. I've never heard anyone, other than you, suggest this as an argument. The opposite argument, that the World Bank is controlled by corporate America, while probably still not being true would at least make some sense. As far as I can remember from his books and Bowling for Columbine he makes no significant mention of the World Bank. He does argue that the huge corporate donations to presidential candidates (of both major parties) and other politicians mean that the US government is, indirectly, controlled by corporate America. This is a fair point but it's hardly marxism. As Chooselife points out, Moore's arguments about guns mostly centre on the culture of fear in American society, I don't recall the World Bank being mentionned as a significant factor and I can't understand how anyone would argue that it has any significant role in US domestic affairs. "Once you read one book by Michael Moore, you just read the same thesis over and over again, stated in more words and more shoddy logic (if I can call it logic) each time." This is, to an extent, true but Moore's logic is a hell of lot more logical than yours which consists of criticising Moore for opinions that he hasn't expressed and doesn't hold.

Yes, I concede your point, but Michael Moore is not a writer who writes his conclusions... he wants you to conclude the same thing... almost surrreptiously. European authors do not put their conclusion in a book either although there is nothing even slightly European about Michael Moore. He argues that all other countries have gone through similar experiences that America has gone through and yet, there's so much less violence. Is it because they are socialist? They have guns too, and Canada, well, it's hard to say, but when I went to Canada, the only thing that had changed was the language and the culture... most of the commercial buildings were recognizable. America has many many programs to help out minorities and even American citizens, more than any other country. America rewards talent when one is in line with the thinking of those who want to reward talent. MARXISM? Even Marxism must be seen in a historical context even if it proclaims to be an economic interpretation of Hegel. What is Michael Moore saying? He is saying that the "dollar" controls America. Where do dollars come from?

Or you can buy it from Waterstone's!

Michael Moore is a standard well-meaning American anti-Semitic liberal. Underneathe his unreadable prose is a man of absolutely philistine tastes and home-grown education who believes in the World Bank Conspiracy to overthrow all Socialist-oriented countries. His popularity simply expresses the stupidity of Americans which he is trying so desperately to disprove by a geometric method... (ad absurdum)... if the American people are really not all that stupid, they would believe in my brand of philistine stupidity