| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| guitarted |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 11:04:10 AM
I know someone mentioned this doctumentary before but anyway:
Did anyone see that episode of the Daily show from a week ago where they had one fo their reporters follow the guy who's making this documentary?
The guy was desperately trying to get an interview with Michael Moore and he was having a lot of trouble.
Michael Moore as well as his company were all refusing to talk to him.
My thoughts are:
If Michael Moore wants his opinions to be taken seriously, he's got to beable to stand up to his own tricks.
There must have been some reason why Michael Moore was refusing the interview. Whatever that reason was is the exact same reason his movies can't be taken seriously.
Do you see what I mean? |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Macht |
Posted - 08/07/2004 : 6:17:34 PM
the idea was that it was supposed to come out at/near the same time Moor'es 9/11 came out |
| TurnItToLove |
Posted - 08/07/2004 : 1:19:56 PM
when does this movie come out? |
| guitarted |
Posted - 08/05/2004 : 10:02:38 AM
!!Bring back Nixon!! |
| dan p. |
Posted - 08/05/2004 : 09:58:19 AM
yeah, that's all fine, but he doesn't have nearly as much control as alan greenspan. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 11:37:49 AM
Let Nader run. He's just exercising his on civic rights. |
| therippa |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 03:59:17 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
i don't know why people think that the president has a lot of control over the economy. he doesn't. clinton had nothing to do with the economy. bush has nothing to do with the economy.
Are you kidding? Whenever the president speaks publicly or makes a decision the economy fluctuates. Remember that 300 bucks bush gave us? That was to stimulate the economy. Ever heard of the war in Iraq? That effects the economy.
Anyhow...
Did anyone catch Moore on Real Time with Bill Maher? Lots of really good heated debate with Bush's campaign co-chairman. Nader showed up and Mike and Bill got on their knees and asked him not to run, it was pretty funny.
 |
| dan p. |
Posted - 08/01/2004 : 10:57:02 AM
i don't know why people think that the president has a lot of control over the economy. he doesn't. clinton had nothing to do with the economy. bush has nothing to do with the economy. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 08/01/2004 : 12:14:25 AM
Honest Politician = My hero and idol, Theodore Roosevelt. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 07/31/2004 : 7:46:15 PM
That article makes some good points as far as statistics go. I always like what Mark Twain said about statistics. "There are three kinds of lies; lies, Damned lies, and statistics". I always like the analogy that 30% of all traffic accidents are caused by drunk drivers. Thus if you took away all the sober drivers there would be 70% less accidents. It's just one of the ways people can manipulate you.
For instance when Clinton was in and the economy was supposedly booming what we were really seeing is a huge rise in profits. So companies were seeing a lot of profits. However at the same time the median wage was steadily dropping and has been since 79 I believe. This is what's ridiculous is that I think everyone was pretty much understanding that in the mid to late 90's our economy was really good however that came from viewing only a few indicators of the economy. What you could see if you looked elsewhere is a widening gap between the rich and the poor.
For instance from 1972 to 1994, real wages of working Americans fell 19%, the longest slide in three centuries. In 1970 the price of an average new house was twice a young couples income; it is now four times that income. The wealthiest 10% of americans now has 67% of America's private wealth. America's wealthiest 1% which controlled 21% of America's wealth in 1949, now controls 40%. Since 1980 the US has lost 2.6 million manufacturing jobs. In 1996 america's trade deficit (meaning we import more than we export) was at a record $191 billion, and the deficit shows no signs of diminishing.
Economics is an interesting subject and an interesting study but it's sickening to see how it is used against people. Hopefully some of this info is interesting to some of you.
The word economics comes from the greek word "oikonomia," meaning the management of the household and husbandry of its valuable assets. Look at how far we have come from this definition of economics which was basically just common sense. To think economic health used to be measured by the health of one's own family, one's household, rather than by the theorems of some well-financed economist. Economic orthodoxy has become so disconnected form daily life, so estoric, it can declare the economy booming even when most of our individual households are hurting.
Back to the original point I think it's ridiculous that the two parties are quibling all the time about economics and how we were booming under Clinton and now we are terrible under Bush. To assume that either are telling you the truth about economics (or any other topic for that matter) is like following the blind. It's hard to trust anyone these days but I think a warning flag should go up in our head everytime someone aligned with a political party (and thus seeking their own political gains) is telling us anything especially when they are stating how much better they are than the other party. That's why I frown at Micheal Moore. He's pretty much just like yay democrats and boo for the republicans.
Then I try to decide what is so different about Kerry. According to his speech the other night he is looking to increase the size of the milittary and increase military spending. Then he voted for the war in Iraq and has only critisized that we didn't fight it correctly not that we should never have gone and that we need to get out but that we need to stay the course and bring in the rest of the world. I could go on about how much the two candidates are pretty close on the political spectrum but this post is long enough. I'll try to get up some info in the next couple of days about Bush and his corporate connections and then do the same with Kerry to see where they stand. My point is is that both parties have been hi-jacked by the rich and it's very few people in them that are looking out for you and me. Which is why I'm so glad to see Tim support Kucinich who is trying to change what his party is all about. Thus ends my long post... |
| Macht |
Posted - 07/31/2004 : 5:04:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by PJK
Macht- In a nutshell- don't trust political statistics.
Honest Politician=Oxymoron (with few exceptions) No surprise there.
thanks
very true! |
| guitarted |
Posted - 07/31/2004 : 2:45:13 PM
I understand that the movie has a title that Moore wouldn't like.
My point is, if Moore wants to prove this guy wrong he should be able to handle facing up to his own techniques.
Instead he's just being a coward and making it clear to all of us that his own tricks lack validity |
| PJK |
Posted - 07/31/2004 : 08:03:14 AM
Macht- In a nutshell- don't trust political statistics.
Honest Politician=Oxymoron (with few exceptions) No surprise there. |
| Macht |
Posted - 07/31/2004 : 12:57:06 AM
Fluffy, im not reading that big post, sum it up in one word! |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 11:22:23 PM
quote:
If you are getting your political analysis from anyone who is pro-any political party all the way and you are taking that for gospel truth you are an idiot. Anyone who alines themselves with a political party you have to be very careful about blindly accepting what they say.
I had read the following a couple of weeks ago and thought about posting it but couldn't find a suitable place to post it and didn't want to start any wars as I have been a party to the last TIMe I tried to civily discuss my opinions. For all it's worth, here it is. Keep in mind, my interpretations is that the author is pro-Bush which I am not, BUT he does bring up some very interesting points worth considering when LISTENING to the candidates espouse their BS. ENJOY
FIGURES DON'T LIE, BUT........ 07/20/04
We all have heard the wisecrack: “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.” It is a perceptive quip, especially in relation to politicians. I am not saying that all politicians are liars, but it is not unfair to note that they routinely manipulate data to serve their purposes, especially in an election year.
We must assume that it is a tactic that works. Why else would political candidates rattle off the numbers — good or bad — about the GDP, unemployment and average wage increases in their speeches?
This is an issue that matters for Catholics. We are obliged to work for social justice, for economic policies that serve the commonweal, not just the corporate bottom line. We know that. But who is more likely to put those policies in place? John Kerry or George W. Bush? We need more than platitudes about “caring for the little guy” to make up our minds. George Orwell used to speak of “pious frauds.” There are such things. Performance counts. Results matter. We need economic data to judge these things. We must be alert to the possibility that we are being conned when the data is trotted out.
John Kerry’s advisors must be telling him that there are voters who respond favorably to his stump speeches about the current administration presiding over an economy that is the “worst since the Depression.” That has been the reaction of the AFL-CIO leadership, at any rate. They tell us that Bush presidency has “had the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover.” In turn, the Bush re-election ads focus on the economic growth of the past six months to make their case that his economic plan has worked, as if the poor economic performance of the first two years of his presidency does not matter.
Who is telling the truth? This is where things get sticky. It is not always easy to tell. Our antennae should go up whenever we see a politician or corporate executive pointing to a chart to make claims about “rising corporate profits” or “dramatic decreases in unemployment.” We must not forget that a mathematical average can mislead as easily as it can instruct. You can illustrate that by asking sports fans which brothers had the highest average number of homeruns over their major league baseball careers. Unless they have heard this trick question before, most knowledgeable fans will guess the DiMaggios or the Alous, brothers who had long and successful baseball careers.
But they would be wrong. The answer is the Aaron brothers. Henry Aaron had 755. His brother Tommy had 1, during his very brief stay in the major leagues. That makes an average of 378. The Alous and Dimaggios were far more accomplished homerun hitters, but their average homerun totals do not match that number. If you looked at the mathematical average for homeruns in isolation, you would conclude that the Aarons were power hittters. That is not the case. Henry was a slugger; Tommy an also-ran.
Similarly, if a corporate executive boasts that profits increased 100% during his time in charge of the company, while a rival CEO increased profits at his company by only 20%, he very well could be engaging in smoke-and-mirrors. For example, what if gross corporate profits at his company were a penny last year, and they went up to two cents this year? And if the CEO he is comparing himself to ran a company whose profits rose from $100 million to $120 million. Comparing these companies on the basis of the average increase in profits alone would tell you little.
The problem is that none of us really knows how the “economy” is doing. We know if we are doing well personally in our own economic lives, if our family members have good jobs, if our neighbors seem to be living well. No matter how we try, it is difficult to get the big picture, even for professional economists. That is why the economists read the data so differently. Does anyone doubt, for example, that the economists associated with the Clinton presidency, who pop on the nightly talk shows to make the point that the “Bush economy” is a mess, even though the GDP is up and unemployment rates are down, would be singing a different song if Bill Clinton were still in office?
On June 19th, The Wall Street Journal offered us a classic example of how data can be worked for political purposes. It would do us well to keep it in mind as we proceed through this presidential campaign season. In May, we found out that the economy is now producing jobs at a record pace. The response of the Kerry team? Campaign spokesperson Allison Dobson did not deny the accuracy of the reports. She couldn’t. Facts are facts. Instead, she offered that they were mostly lousy jobs, and that “jobs are scarce and those lucky enough to have one are making $1,500 less each year.” AFL-CIO President John Sweeney joined the chorus, adding, “We’re not creating good, family-supporting jobs with benefits,” and that “working women have been hit hard by the crisis, with 2.3% less women employed in April 2004 compared with March 2001.”
The Wall Street Journal examined Dobson’s figures. It turns out that the Kerry campaign is using the years 2000-02 as the source of the $1,500 figure: “These statistics are 18 months out of date.” Moreover, “they do not show, as Ms. Dobson claimed, a decline in an average worker’s income. Rather, it was the median household income that suffered a $1,462 decline. That figure not only includes those unlucky enough to have lost a job, it also reflects a 1.5% drop in the average household size.” This is an important point. The average family income could be down because the average family contains fewer workers in recent years. Which means one could easily argue that median household income has declined because so many unmarried children are now able to go out on their own with the money from they are earning from the new jobs created in the last year or so.
Would that be true? I have no idea. But neither does the Kerry campaign team. They ignored the 1.5% decrease in household size in order to make their point about declining household incomes. They were looking for a sound bite, not the truth.
What of the Kerry campaign’s charge that there is a “wage deficit” of $1,500 per household? The Wall Street Journal charges that this figure was contrived by the Democrats, by “extrapolating forward from the bubble years of the late 1990s,” that is by making the boom years of the late 1990s their baseline. By this logic a baseball pitcher could be said to have had a bad year last year when he led the league with 22 wins, because he won 25 games the year before.
The Wall Street Journal concludes: “Over the last six months some 665,000 new jobs…were created in the higher paying service industries, such as financial and information services…these fields boast average salaries of $17.34 an hour, compared to $15.20 in manufacturing….The idea that women are falling behind is even easier to dismiss. The AFL-CIO committed a simple math error, misplacing a decimal point by one place. Using the figures the union gave for the last three years, the number of women employed fell just 0.23%, not 2.3%... The current 4.8% unemployment rate for women is significantly lower than the national average of 5.6%. Nobody can blame the Kerry partisans for pushing the ‘bad jobs’ gambit — you have to play the hand you are dealt. However, the Bush administration should be happy to engage in this debate, since it is one it can win on the merits.”
We will see about that. The judges of this debate will be the voters in this fall’s election. It will be interesting to see whether the Democrats will carry the day by focusing on the economy in the first two years of the Bush presidency, or the Republicans by stressing the last year and a half. But keep up your left. In election years economists working for the major political parties can be more like snake-oil salesmen than social scientists.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store <http://www.aquinasandmore.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/store.ItemDetails/SKU/2666/affiliate/catholicexch4132>. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net <mailto:fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net>.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 8:35:52 PM
you're goddamn right i would be in a movie called "dan p. hates america." i would also love to be in "dan p. loves america" because i know what i'm worth and i know what i believe in. and nothing else matters. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 8:15:48 PM
I wouldn't mind if someone made a movie called Zach Sears hates America, but only if it was about me hating the guy America was named after. Most people think it was named after the explorer but it was actually named after a Welsh aristocrat called Richard Amerike. I hate all aristocrats so it'd be fine with me.
Seriously though everybody is making way to big of a deal out of Micheal Moore and his film. The reason he refused to interview was because he only stars in his own films. Like anyone can say they would want to take part in a film portraying themselves in a negitive way. Moore's work is that of satirical comedy. It points out some interesting and important things and that's how it should be viewed. It's not supposed to be taken seriously it's supposed to say that this administration is filled with jackasses then it laughs and makes fun of them. There is a slightly serious side to it and that's all it should be taken for. If you are getting your political analysis from anyone who is pro-any political party all the way and you are taking that for gospel truth you are an idiot. Anyone who alines themselves with a political party you have to be very careful about blindly accepting what they say. |
| therippa |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 8:05:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Macht
quote:
Originally posted by therippa
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
yeah, he's a coward at heart. there's your reason.
Would you participate in a documentary called "dan p. Hates America"?
several people interviewed in Moore's movies where frowned upon in it. Moore wants to interview Bush, and expects him to, but the movie is basically anti-Bush.
so Moore not wanting him to be interviewed is kinda ironic 
That's not really my point. What I was meant was that this is an anti-Moore documentary, and the name suggests that he hates the country. Just as I wouldn't expect Bush to give an interview for F9/11, I wouldn't expect Michael Moore to give an interview for this movie either since the whole movie is basically attacking you. The interview of say, Charleton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine was set under different circumstances.
And it seems the general consensus against Moore haters that this guy Mike Wilson isn't much better. |
| Macht |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 7:22:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by therippa
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
yeah, he's a coward at heart. there's your reason.
Would you participate in a documentary called "dan p. Hates America"?
several people interviewed in Moore's movies where frowned upon in it. Moore wants to interview Bush, and expects him to, but the movie is basically anti-Bush.
so Moore not wanting him to be interviewed is kinda ironic |
| therippa |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 4:58:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
yeah, he's a coward at heart. there's your reason.
Would you participate in a documentary called "dan p. Hates America"? |
| dan p. |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 1:27:44 PM
yeah, he's a coward at heart. there's your reason. |
|
|
