Another difference is that JimK uses verifiable facts and references to disprove moore’s lies and deceptions. As far as I can tell, moore never does that. He just throws out opinions and platitudes packaged as fact. And when he uses facts, such as the cuban infant mortality rate being lower, he rarely places them in proper context. So yes, he uses “facts” (when he’s not cutting and pasting Charlton Heston speeches) but he’s not exploring the big picture unless it bolsters his premise. For example:
Fact:
On Jan. 3, the official Communist Party newspaper Gramna boasted the country had reduced its infant mortality rate in 2006 to 5.3 per 1,000 live births, considerably below the U.S. rate of 6.0, from 2004, and leading all of Latin America.
Explanation of the fact Pt. 1:
Cuba had managed to assemble this complicated statistic just two days after the year ended, with detailed figures for all major municipalities. The United States by contrast needs two years to assemble all the information to make sure its mortality figures are accurate, says Mary Jones of the National Center for Health Statistics.
Darsi Ferrer, a dissident physician in Havana, doesn’t doubt the Granma report. “That number is indeed low,” he told The Miami Herald by telephone. “That program takes a large amount of resources” out of the system. “They don’t care about 1- to 5-year-olds.”
Keeping infant mortality low can certainly improve a country’s overall life expectancy and at a cost much cheaper than paying for the elderly to have lengthy intensive care stays in their last weeks of life. But the issue is how Cuba goes about keeping its death rate among infants down.
Explanation of the fact Pt. 2:
Some doctors say they were told to use any means possible to keep the infant mortality rate low. Jesus Monzon, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Pinar del Rio until he left in 1995, says pregnant mothers were required to appear monthly for sonograms and other tests to make certain the fetus was healthy.
“If there was any malformation in the fetus, they would interrupt the pregnancy,” said Monzon, now a lab technician at Mercy Hospital in Miami. A heart murmur or other serious problems required an abortion. This was “automatic,” he said. If the mother objected, a team from the hospital would persuade her an abortion was necessary.
Other sources also say abortion is a tool used to keep infant mortality low, including Andy Gomez at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami, and Carmelo Mesa-Lago, a retired University of Pittsburgh economics professor who has spent decades studying Cuba.
Recent Cuba abortion data is not available, but a study by the Pan American Health Organization from 1998 states Cuba had 70 abortions per 100 deliveries in 1992 and 59.4 in 1996, far higher than the 34 to 38 abortions per 100 live births reported during that time in the United States.
Explanation of the fact Pt. 3:
Nestor Viamonte, a primary-care doctor in Ciego de Aguila until 2003, says all Cuban doctors are told to focus on babies. Infants under 1 and those with serious chronic diseases were the only ones who could get in to see a doctor without waiting days for an appointment.
Mothers were required to bring in their babies monthly for examinations. Babies who died in the first month were reported to have died before birth to keep the numbers low, Viamonte said.
Moore will never explain the issue like that, and it took me about 2 minutes to find the article and cut and paste the info. Moore could do that, but he uses a drive-by approach. Take a shot form a moving car and then speed off to the next stop.
Please understand that I’m not saying that I think Jim and Moore are just the same in quality.
It’s just that Jim seemed to be saying that Moore is a public figure and that Jim is a “private person with a stupid blog” and therefore subject to different standards of interaction with readers. I don’t agree. I think they are both public figures. If a particular level of hatred aimed at Jim is inappropriate then the same would apply to Moore. And if a particular level of passionate criticism aimed at Moore is deemed appropriate then the same applies to Jim. The quality of their work, referencing, or even feedback is irrelevent.
In other words, I don’t think it’s appropriate to e-mail Michael Moore and say I hope you and your wife die, and justify this by saying “well, it’s OK because he tells lies and doesn’t haven’t a forum”.
Btw, I have been to Moore’s site a couple of times and I couldn’t tell you that much because it’s so disorganised and in-your-face with slogans that it drove me away.
Since moore brought Jim into moore’s “circle of friends” by creating the artificial timeline and capping the movie with “F U Michael Moore” from a non-related post, do you think it’s incumbant upon moore to publicly tell his fans to back off from harrassing Jim? After all, moore created an impression in his fans that Jim was ungrateful and even hate-filled and now his fans have responded toward Jim in the same manner.
Please understand that I’m not saying that I think Jim and Moore are just the same in quality.
It’s just that Jim seemed to be saying that Moore is a public figure and that Jim is a “private person with a stupid blog” and therefore subject to different standards of interaction with readers. I don’t agree. I think they are both public figures. If a particular level of hatred aimed at Jim is inappropriate then the same would apply to Moore. And if a particular level of passionate criticism aimed at Moore is deemed appropriate then the same applies to Jim. The quality of their work, referencing, or even feedback is irrelevent.
I don’t know that I equate us on the same level. I don’t seek fame, exposure, put myself on television, publish books, make films and generally do ANYTHING possible to raise my profile. I post on a website that doesn’t reach more than a few thousand people a day, and I don’t make any effort to reach out past that.
I think there ARE levels of “public figure.” The most public are obviously actors. Then maybe politicians, musicians and then people like Moore, who play at punditry. I think I might be somewhere down around the guy who runs for dog catcher. :)
I just don’t see a guy who holds a frigging tour to tell people how to vote as equal in “public” stature to a person who writes on a blog.
Since moore brought Jim into moore’s “circle of friends” by creating the artificial timeline and capping the movie with “F U Michael Moore” from a non-related post, do you think it’s incumbant upon moore to publicly tell his fans to back off from harrassing Jim? After all, moore created an impression in his fans that Jim was ungrateful and even hate-filled and now his fans have responded toward Jim in the same manner.
Fair point. I don’t know if Moore should tell his fans what to do, but he just shouldn’t have put Jim in the movie in the first place (not to mention making him look bad)
Please understand that I’m not saying that I think Jim and Moore are just the same in quality.
It’s just that Jim seemed to be saying that Moore is a public figure and that Jim is a “private person with a stupid blog” and therefore subject to different standards of interaction with readers. I don’t agree. I think they are both public figures. If a particular level of hatred aimed at Jim is inappropriate then the same would apply to Moore. And if a particular level of passionate criticism aimed at Moore is deemed appropriate then the same applies to Jim. The quality of their work, referencing, or even feedback is irrelevent.
I don’t know that I equate us on the same level. I don’t seek fame, exposure, put myself on television, publish books, make films and generally do ANYTHING possible to raise my profile. I post on a website that doesn’t reach more than a few thousand people a day, and I don’t make any effort to reach out past that.
I think there ARE levels of “public figure.” The most public are obviously actors. Then maybe politicians, musicians and then people like Moore, who play at punditry. I think I might be somewhere down around the guy who runs for dog catcher. :)
I just don’t see a guy who holds a frigging tour to tell people how to vote as equal in “public” stature to a person who writes on a blog.
I quite agree. But it’s sets an awkward precedent to hold people to different standards.
Then again, I haven’t been getting any hate messages.
I get your point though. I do make myself more public than the guy who doesn’t talk in public at all.
I dunno. I guess that’s why I don’t complain and cry “slander” or whatever. Moore has a right to talk about me, I’ve given him that right. But his fans...it gets crazy, that’s all. :)
I get your point though. I do make myself more public than the guy who doesn’t talk in public at all.
I dunno. I guess that’s why I don’t complain and cry “slander” or whatever. Moore has a right to talk about me, I’ve given him that right. But his fans...it gets crazy, that’s all. :)
Okay, but what responsibility do you put onto moore for the hatemail? I realize that the Moore-Ons are responsible for their words, but moore created the circumstance by misrepresenting to his audience basically everything about the $12 grand, including when it was offered, your wife’s healthcare (note that many think she was saved by moore), your response to it and the “FU” post that was unrelated to the $12 grand. If he hadn’t put you into the movie (under a blanket of deceit), most of the moore-ons wouldn’t even know you exist. IMO moore knew what table he was setting for you. Let’s face it, moore’s fans are:
A)Uninterested in the truth, especially in the correct timeline of events surrounding the $12K.
B)Incapable of reading and/or comprehending any version of the story that isn’t endorsed by moore.
By the way, I’ve noticed another reoccuring theme of the Moore-on posts:
B2: A lot of them probably have schizoid personality disorder. They feel sorta empty and depressed. Moore’s narcissist antics and energy offers them purpose… as followers. Moore has an endless need to feel important or lead, they have an emptiness which creates a desire to follow someone who seems to have a vision. Match made in hell ;). Master and servants.
I think this is pretty close to the mark—not necessarily the “schizoid” part, but the dependent personality part.
Most of us who hang out on these boards have doubtlessly encountered at least one what I call “psychic vampire.” These individuals have so little personality of their own, they latch onto someone else and try to subsume that person’s personality. They cling, they leech, and they finally end up emotionally draining their victim.
I strongly suspect that the infants writing you (JimK) these despicable letters have become very dependent on Moore to provide them with a personality. And as Moore wanna-bes, they spring to the defense of their validating idol—probably with the hope that Moore himself will spot their posting defending him and bestow some personal acknowledgement of their achievement on them.
I get your point though. I do make myself more public than the guy who doesn’t talk in public at all.
I dunno. I guess that’s why I don’t complain and cry “slander” or whatever. Moore has a right to talk about me, I’ve given him that right. But his fans...it gets crazy, that’s all. :)
Okay, but what responsibility do you put onto moore for the hatemail? I realize that the Moore-Ons are responsible for their words, but moore created the circumstance by misrepresenting to his audience basically everything about the $12 grand, including when it was offered, your wife’s healthcare (note that many think she was saved by moore), your response to it and the “FU” post that was unrelated to the $12 grand. If he hadn’t put you into the movie (under a blanket of deceit), most of the moore-ons wouldn’t even know you exist. IMO moore knew what table he was setting for you. Let’s face it, moore’s fans are:
A)Uninterested in the truth, especially in the correct timeline of events surrounding the $12K.
B)Incapable of reading and/or comprehending any version of the story that isn’t endorsed by moore.
By the way, I’ve noticed another reoccuring theme of the Moore-on posts:
“I’m not a Michael Moore fan, but...”
All good points. That’s why I’m still a little angry that he pulled this. He had to know it was going to send a wave of crap my way. At the same time that a free 12G’s was pretty cool...it’s also a bit of revenge for dear Mr. Moore.
I gotta tell you, I am earning that money this summer. :)
But in the mean time, Michael Moore is revealing truths and helping to unravel our systems.
I think it was Sally Jessy Raphael who once opened some restaurant into which a well-dressed lady walked, shat on the floor and silently left again. She left pure truth right there, unraveled Sally’s systems, and eventually got Sally a better gig as a talkshow host.
Of course Sally couldn’t lay off the restauration, and opened a bed-and-breakfast in Pa. Her daughter was later found dead on its floors.
In other words, if your toilet is stopped up call Mikey, he’ll “unravel” it, conclude that “your toilet’s stopped up” and leave the whole mess on the floor to meet his fans outside hailing him a Master Plumber. Cuz he saw your shit, and he obviously knows from shit.
If I remember right, we all have fundamental core beliefs.
What is happening is that you are attacking a belief that they know to be accurate and true (in their minds). The facts become unimportant, at least to them.
Let me give an example:
I have been reading about the Duke rape case/scandal.
While the lacrosse players have been exonerated and two were even shown not to be in the house at the time of the alleged rape there are people who KNOW that “something happened.”
Their core belief is that the whites have been abusing blacks for centuries and this is just an extension of this abuse. When the facts show that nothing happened, they ignore the facts as that goes against their core belief. The core belief being that whites are constantly abusing minorities, ergo the boys were guilt regardless of facts.
So what we have here is that you are attacking Moore (in their mind) and Moore has defined some of their beliefs. Moore has been gathering a greater following with each film and really got a good crowd with F 9/11. Moore taped into the Bush hating frenzy and because they KNEW Moore was right (again, ignoring facts) they attacked you because you had to be wrong. I have a feeling what is happening now is that the huge number of deranged nuts Moore attracted with F 9/11 will continue to be Moore fans as they know that he was right the first time so of course he has to be right the second time.
So the point is that you are attacking one of their core beliefs, and they resent and hate you for doing that.
B2: A lot of them probably have schizoid personality disorder. They feel sorta empty and depressed. Moore’s narcissist antics and energy offers them purpose… as followers. Moore has an endless need to feel important or lead, they have an emptiness which creates a desire to follow someone who seems to have a vision. Match made in hell ;). Master and servants.
I think this is pretty close to the mark—not necessarily the “schizoid” part, but the dependent personality part.
Most of us who hang out on these boards have doubtlessly encountered at least one what I call “psychic vampire.” These individuals have so little personality of their own, they latch onto someone else and try to subsume that person’s personality. They cling, they leech, and they finally end up emotionally draining their victim.
I strongly suspect that the infants writing you (JimK) these despicable letters have become very dependent on Moore to provide them with a personality. And as Moore wanna-bes, they spring to the defense of their validating idol—probably with the hope that Moore himself will spot their posting defending him and bestow some personal acknowledgement of their achievement on them.
Well, I’m sticking with the schizoid part. :)
But yeah, I’d just say the vamp is more the leader. The symbolic connections to a narcissist are absolutely perfect btw…
