[eDebate] ans Cooper re morons

Michael Korcok mmk_savant
Fri Nov 14 16:53:44 CST 2003


I only posed a question about refutation.  
That question was whether your ?refutation? of Ms. Hymowitz?s  Article
about Moore was a good indicator that Dean supporters were stupid.
 
The better answers to that question are, no doubt, nuanced.  All of the
better answers, however, begin with the premise that you are a dim bulb.
 
You badly answered 4 of 11 principle claims made in the article then
mocked FijiPapabear?s potential 2nr.  
That mix of belligerence, incompetence, and stupidity is both rare and
entertaining, Cooper.
 
Just to recap thus far.
 
Ms.Hymowitz argued:
 
1)     Moore is speaking beyond his vocabulary.
This is particularly embarrassing because Moore regularly accuses Bush
of stupidity.  Moore is under the impression that ?fictition? is a real
word.  A college education beyond freshman year might help.  I suggest
one of the many fine Community Colleges around this nation.
 
2)     Moore understands little and misrepresents much about the US
economy over the past 2 decades.
I think Ms. Hymowitz exhibits quite a bit of wisdom here and fairly
portrays Moore as a typical activist punk.  You know the type, full of
the sort of passionate intensity that can only come from misfiring and
disconnected neurons.
 
3)     Moore uncritically repeats the urban legend about the Bush
administration jetting the Bin Ladens out of the country on September
13.
Ms. Hymnowitz points out that the Bin Ladens were flown out a week
later.  This argument, like many of the arguments below, make her point
that Moore?s criticism of the media for not covering ?the truth? and his
posturing as a brave soul bringing the truth to his audiences is
ridiculous, ?an irony worth savoring?.  Moore makes up stuff and accepts
urban legends uncritically and then presents them as fact.
 
4)     Moore told the lie that children of single mothers do better in
life.
Ms. Hymnowitz further points out that Moore claimed that ?every study?
proved that claim.  That means the Moore has, at best, a casual
relationship with truth and evidence.
 
5)     Moore makes up that the killers went bowling that morning in an
attempt to argue that blaming Marilyn Manson for the murders makes no
sense.
Ms. Hymnowitz points out that investigators have concluded that they did
not go bowling that morning.  No good evidence for a point, well
fabricate some!
 
6)     Moore made up the scene in ?Bowling? where he got a gun
immediately after opening a new account.
Ms. Hymnowitz explains that there was a background check and, if
successful, a subsequent 6-week wait.   In the movie, Moore walked out
with a gun almost immediately after.  That means Moore?s idea of a
?documentary?  is make up crap and hope the young na?ve idiots sit there
and watch.
 
7)     Moore stages nonsense at the Lockheed Martin plant in Littleton
Colorado, implying that the community?s manufacturing of missiles
contributed to the Columbine tragedy.
Ms. Hymnowitz points out that not only are ?weapons of mass destruction?
not made in Littleton, the Titan rocket in the film was one used to
launch weather satellites.  Moore lies again to make his argument.
 
8)    Moore exaggerates (a kind interpretation) to portray the San Diego
book signing as an intimidating police raid to silence him.
Ms. Hymnowitz explains that it was Moore staying way past hours to sign
books,  while the janitors  called 2 cops to try to get him to finally
leave.  That makes Moore, you know, the typical hypocritical rich
liberal who ?fights for the little guy?  by stepping on them.  And it
also makes him a con man who spins his boorish behavior by trying to
paint himself as the victim of police intimidation.  You know, a jerk.
 
9)    Moore postures as a champion of labor but in reality treats his
employees like crap.
Ms. Hymnowitz points out that several of Moore?s employees told
reporters they worked in a ?sweatshop? and ?indentured servitude?.  That
makes Moore a hypocritical Mcjerk.
 
10)    Moore postures as an opponent of globalization and big capitalism
but that is an act.
Ms. Hymnowitz points out that his books, which bring in millions, are
almost exclusively marketed by huge chain booksellers and that when
asked about it, Moore?s hypocritical rationalization is that local small
booksellers are Republican assholes.  Means Moore is a Mcjerkoff.
 
11)    Moore?s thinking is laced with racial stereotypes.
Ms. Hymnowitz recounts his ?humor? that blacks wouldn?t have been
hijacked on 9/11 because ?dudes? don?t get hijacked like puny whites.
The question to ask is what cognitive structures exist in Moore?s skull
which generated that text. 
 
12)    Moore is a paranoid who sees every criticism and bad review as
the result of a conspiracy.
Ms. Hymnowitz recounts several of Moore?s ridiculous responses to people
who think Moore a moron.  So on top of everything else, the jerk is a
paranoid creep.
 
13)    Moore possesses a simple Manichean moral system where he is the
good guy and ?they? are evil.
Hell, even I have a much bigger grey middle than Moore.  I like binaries
and clear distinctions more than some folks, but if you don?t understand
that much of life is uncertainty and ambiguity, you just don?t get it.
And Moore just doesn?t get it.  Ms. Hymnowitz gives the example of
Moore?s treatment of Tamarla Owens and her son.
 
14)  Moore?s myopic hatred of America comes shining through.
Ms. Hymnowitz gives several examples, including Moore?s categorization
of Americans as racist, greedy, violent, having ?the stupid gene?, etc
etc etc.  That makes Moore another freeloader who would be happier
moving to Moronania.  She also points out his post-9/11 idiocy where the
best he can do to muster outrage is to claim that some people who didn?t
vote for Bush also died.  There is no more articulate way to respond to
such drivel than to spit in Moore?s face.
 
 
Cooper responded with:
 
?A fraud?? The only actual claims I can get from this tiresome screed
(consisting mostly of the author's disagreeing with Moore's positions)
is:

.. (Cooper quotes Hymnowitz?s #3, #4, #5, and #6)
So - 
The Saudis weren't whisked away while planes were grounded. In fact,
many commercial flights were still flying. 
Children of single mothers do not do better in life. 
We've found out since that Dylan and Eric didn't go bowling THAT
MORNING. 
Marilyn Manson is a twit for naming himself after Charles Manson. 
Yeah...this is the stuff of great 2NR's....no really. ?
That?s right,  Cooper gets all belligerent and attitudinal after
outright dropping 10 of 14 arguments and making no serious progress on
the 4 claims he does ?answer?.
Since then, others have weighed in on the issue.
Blake Abbott posted links to the October 2003 Vanity Fair article and
several others which vindicate Moore in part about Ms. Hymnowitz?s #3.
While those are decent, I think Ms. Hymnowitz?s citation of  Snopes.com
is a better link.  The new Snopes write-up of the issue (by Barbara
Mikkelson) is excellent and it is here:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm .  Now I think Mikkelson is
nicer than Moore deserves but some folks are just like that
 nice.   
Even if you think that #3 is thus sufficiently answered, that leaves 13
other Hymnowitz claims yet to be adequately addressed, 10 still cold
dropped.
Cooper also links a hilarious article by Moore on Moore?s official
website.  And once again the moron gets all attitudinal and belligerent
with ?suck on this Korcock?.  Some people are just born to go 0-8.  
my answers:
1)     Moore?s self-defense proves Hymnowitz?s # 12.  
Moore writes that ?It is now about organized groups going full blast
trying to discredit me
?  and ?(the Bush administration) is naturally
going to send a few of his henchmen after me.? and ?a whole host of gun
lobby groups and individual gun nuts have put up websites where the
smears on me range from the pre-adolescent (I'm a "crapweasel," and a
"fat fucking piece of shit") to Orwellian-style venom ("Michael Moore
hates America!").? and the vast anti-Michael conspiracy apparently
includes CNN and MSNBC as well, because they refuse to inform viewers
just what bad bad people his critics are.   Most illustrative in Moore?s
?defense? is that he lives in a state of denial ? he appears unable to
admit to himself that he actually IS a ?crapweasel?.
2)     Moore ONLY attempts to answer Hymnowitz?s #5, #6, and #7 in that
article.  Moore is only addressing criticisms of ?Bowling for Columbine?
in that article, so HE doesn?t ?really? drop the other 11 arguments.
Cooper does that, not Moore.  Hey, Cooper, you have STILL cold-dropped
most of Hymnowitz?s original arguments.  STILL.
 
3)      Moore is a crapweasel.  How he ?explains? the Willie Horton ad
lie in ?Bowling?  should make it clear to everyone that he is a
crapweasel.
 
a)     this is Moore?s ?explanation? of what happened with the Willie
Horton ad scene in Bowling in the article that Cooper links:
 
?Actually, I have found one typo in the theatrical release of the film.
It was a caption that read, "Willie Horton released by Dukakis and kills
again." In fact, Willie Horton was a convicted murderer who, after
escaping from furlough, raped a woman and stabbed her fianc?, but didn't
kill him. The caption has been permanently corrected on the DVD and home
video version of the film and replaced with, "Willie Horton released.
Then rapes a woman." My apologies to Willie Horton and the Horton family
for implying he is a double-murderer when he is only a
single-murderer/rapist. And my apologies to the late Lee Atwater who, on
his deathbed, apologized for having engineered the smear campaign
against Dukakis (but correctly identified Mr. Horton as a
single-murderer!). 
Well, there you have it. I suppose the people who tell their
make-believe stories about me and my work will continue to do so. Maybe
they should be sued for knowingly libeling me.?
b)     this is the LIE and the PROBLEM that the above idiocy is supposed
to answer:
?1. Willie Horton. The first edition of the webpage had a section on
falsification of the election ad regarding Willie Horton (the convict,
not the baseball star). This was one of the earliest criticisms of
Bowling--Ben Fritz caught it back in November, 2002
<http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html> . 
To illustrate politicians' (and especially Republican politicians')
willingness to play the "race card," Bowling shows what purports to be a
television ad run by George Bush, Sr., in his race against Governor
Dukakis. For those who weren't around back then -- Massachusetts had a
"prison furlough" program where prisoners could be given short releases
from the clink. Unfortunately, some of them never came back. Dukakis
vetoed legislation which would have forbidden furlough to persons with
"life without parole" sentences for murder, and authorities thereafter
furloughed a number of murderers. Horton, in prison for a brutal
stabbing murder, got a furlough, never returned, and then attacked a
couple, assaulting both and raping the woman. His opponents in the
presidential race took advantage of the veto.
The ad as shown by Moore begins with a "revolving door" of justice,
progresses to a picture of Willie Horton (who is black), and ends with
dramatic subtitle: "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."
Fact: Bowling splices
<http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20021208>
together two different election ads, one run by the Bush campaign
(featuring a revolving door, and not even mentioning Horton) and another
run by an independent expenditure campaign (naming Horton, and showing
footage from which it can be seen that he is black). At the end, the ad
ala' Moore has the customary note that it was paid for by the
Bush-Quayle campaign. Moore intones "whether you're a psychotic killer
or running for president of the United States, the one thing you can
always count on is white America's fear of the black man." There is
nothing to reveal that most of the ad just seen (and all of it that was
relevant to Moore's claim) was not the Bush-Quayle ad, which didn't even
name Horton.
Fact: Apparently unsatisfied with splicing the ads, Bowling's editors
added a subtitle "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."
Fact: Ben Fitz also noted that Bowling's editors didn't bother to
research the events before doctoring the ads. Horton's second arrest was
not for murder. (The second set of charges were aggravated assault and
rape).
I originally deleted this from the main webpage, because in the VHS
version of Bowling Moore had the decency to remove the misleading
footage. But as Brendan Nyhan recently wrote in Spinsanity, he put it
back <http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_08_31_archive.html>  in
in the DVD version! He did make one minor change, switching his
edited-in caption to "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman."
Obviously Moore had been informed of the Spinsanity criticism. He
responded by correcting his own typo, not by removing the edited in
caption, nor by revealing that the ad being shown was not in fact a
Bush-Quayle ad.?
The above argument was taken from David Hardy?s webpage on Bowling for
Columbine at http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html .  Those
of you old enough to remember debating the old CEDA gun-control topic
will remember David Hardy fondly for his most excellent debate cards.
The above site ALSO has excellent answers to other nonsense in the Moore
link cited by Cooper.
            c)   see?  Moore is a crapweasel.  Splices a different
ending to a Bush campaign add, adds a different ending to that spliced
together construction, and presents them as a Bush-Quayle campaign ad
hoping his young na?ve idiot fans wont ever figure it out.  When busted,
his answer?  ?Sorry I added ?kills again?  instead of ?rapes again?.
That means Moore is a crapweasel.
 
4)          Moore is a hypocritical Mcjerk.  The point was made in #8,
#9, and #10.  There is a half-hearted defense in Moore?s response, when
Moore writes that: 
 
?Newsweek wrote that I live in a penthouse on Central Park West (I live
above a Baby Gap store, and not on any park).?  OH!  Well then.
 
this is extension of that from The San Francisco Chronicle of 2 weeks
ago: (
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/10/30
/EDG0R2LB101.DTL )
 
?MICHAEL MOORE, the polemic filmmaker who likes to wear his
"progressive'' politics on his plaid sleeves, has made a fortune from
bashing doyens of corporate greed. But apparently the provocative Moore
doesn't mind the perks of celebrity -- even when they bear the label of
big-time corporate America. 
Moore recently touched down in California as part of his national book
tour. He's traveling in style -- in a private jet provided by Time
Warner, and in SUVs courtesy of his publisher, Warner Books. The company
also threw in some bodyguards -- as we know from his movies, America is
a pretty darn dangerous place. 
For his part, Moore sees no contradiction between his private life and
his public image, suggesting that the only reason he's feeding at the
corporate trough is because it's there. "I would never pay for this,''
Moore told the Los Angeles Times, adding that the irony is not lost on
him. 
When you make your living bashing malicious corporate CEOs, it's best
not to remind people that you're using giant media companies to carry
your message. 
After all, the bottom line is all about profits, not prophets.?
OH!  As long as ?the irony isn?t lost on him!?  then it?s alright!
Fucking crapweasel McJerk.
 
5)          Moore?s answer to #6 is that the bank scene pretty much went
down as the movie depicts it, that he got the gun 10 minutes after the
ok for the check.   His word on that only.  
 
Moore?s response does a lot of NOVICE BAD DEBATER deflection of the
issue.  Moore links to ads about the bank giving hunting rifles in a
promotion ? NO ONE  argues that the promotion did not occur.  The
dispute is whether or not Moore got the hunting rifle the same day or
whether that was just STAGED.   Moore makes a big deal of saying that he
still has that rifle, but no one doubts that he got a Weatherby rifle
eventually.  
 
The Hymnowitz article quotes Helen Steinman, the bank?s customer service
rep seen in the film.   And Anthony Zoubeck?s interview of Helen
Steinman yielded this:  
( http://www.dailyvidette.com/news/413482.html )
 
??That we would give out guns in the bank is very untrue,? Helen
Steinman, the customer service representative seen greeting Moore in the
bank, explained when I contacted her in February.

?Under the account Moore opened, instead of getting interest on a CD,
you get a gun,? Steinman continued. ?But before you get the gun, there?s
a ton of paperwork that has to be done. We have to do the background
check. There has to be a designated place where you pick up the gun - at
a gun shop. 

?You can?t just come in here and get a gun.?

Nor does the bank ?just hand you the gun,? Steinman added. ?No way - no
way. That was very misrepresentative on Moore?s part.?

Steinman said the bank, ?didn?t realize Moore would be insinuating what
he insinuated. He was only supposed to be coming in and pretending to
open up a CD. What the girl who opened up the account really told him
was that there would be a background check and that he wouldn?t get the
gun for six weeks.?
 
 
And the Wall Street Journal interviewed Jan Jacobson, the bank employee
who gives Moore the gun in the movie and THIS is what she had to say
about it from here  
( http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003233 ):
 
But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his
account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had
worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a
prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in
another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically,
you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms.
Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks."
 
You already know who I tend to believe but Moore?s story in his linked
response is that the North Country bank holds a FEDERAL firearms
distribution license which means that his name was submitted to an FBI
background check before approval.
 
 
6)          Moore?s answer to #7 about lying about Lockheed in Littleton
is rambling silliness.
 
So now his story is ok, they don?t make weapons of mass destruction so
much as they make rockets to launch satellites which help people to
direct missiles, weapons of mass destruction, to their targets.  WTF?
Moore?s explanation will satisfy no one but Cooper.  THIS is why Moore
did the Lockheed scene in Bowling, Moore speaking:
 
"So you don't think our kids say to themselves, well gee, dad goes off
to the factory every day and, you know, he built missiles. These were
weapons of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass
destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?"
 
now how in the hell does the above claim make ANY sense given Moore?s
new ?explanation?  of his original lies about Lockheed?s Littleton
plant?
 
This is how spinsanity mocks Moore?s answer here
(http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html ):
?Moore also implicitly corrects himself about what was manufactured at a
Lockheed plant in Littleton, Colorado. In "Bowling for Columbine," Moore
implies
<http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/%20http:/www.spinsanity.org/post.html
?2003_09_21_archive.html#106429368980662837>  that the plant made
nuclear weapons at or immediately before the time he visited. Actually,
while the plant was involved in nuclear missile production years before,
it now makes rockets that are used as space-launch vehicles for military
and civilian satellites. In his newest book, Moore sets the record
straight, writing that "Lockheed Martin, the biggest arms maker in the
world, built rockets that carried into space the special new satellites
that guided the missiles fired into Baghdad" during the recent war in
Iraq. (page 74)?
OH! And spinsanity has a nice page of the many factual errors Moore
makes, intentionally ort unintentionally in ?Dude, Where?s my Country??
here ( http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016b.html )
7)          Moore?s answer to #5 about bowling that morning is to link
to statements by some witnesses saying they saw Eric and Dylan at the
bowling alley that morning.  Moore then tries to pooh-pooh the issue by
claiming it isn?t that big a deal anyway.
 
Moore?s response is exactly WHY so many people are convinced he is a
crapweasel.  Look, NO ONE denies that there were early witness reports
that the murderers had gone to their bowling class that morning.  The
issue was whether or not they had actually gone.  And Moore makes no
mention in either the film or this latest answer that the police and
investigators, shortly after the shootings, concluded that they had NOT
gone bowling that morning.  This is how it was said by the lead
investigator in the Zoubeck article 
( http://www.dailyvidette.com/news/413482.html ):
 
?Moore?s next movie monologue takes this revelation a step further.

?So did Dylan and Eric show up that morning and bowl two games before
moving on to shoot up the school?? Moore asks. ?Why wasn?t anyone
blaming bowling for warping the minds of Eric and Dylan to commit their
evil deeds? Wasn?t that just as plausible as blaming Marilyn Manson?
After all, it was apparently the last thing they did before the
massacre.?

Hence the movie?s title. In a ?Frequently Asked Questions? section of
the official ?Bowling for Columbine? website, Moore states that the film
name ?is taken from the little-known fact that the two killers, Dylan
and Eric, were supposed to be in bowling class at Columbine High School
on the morning of the murders. At least five witnesses, including their
teacher, told the police that they saw one or both boys that morning at
the bowling alley for their first hour class.?

Kate Battan of the Jefferson County Sheriff?s Department was the lead
investigator on the Columbine shootings case. She said if Moore ?wants
to take one or two or three reports out of thousands of pages of
documents and say, ?see, it says right here that they were in bowling
class that day? and call that a ?fact,? [he] can do that.

?I think that, in any documentary, there is going to be a bit of
artistic license,? Battan added. ?Otherwise, it would be kind of a
boring movie. There are some things that we dispute - like Moore?s claim
that [Eric and Dylan] went to their bowling class that day. Initially,
some of the Columbine students who were interviewed said they saw the
boys in bowling class. We later found out, through talking to the
[bowling class teacher] and through other evidence, that we do not
believe Eric and Dylan were in class that day. That, to me, is much more
important than [a Columbine student] who says, ?well, he?s in my class.
I don?t bowl with him, but I think I saw him there.??
 
As to the other part, Moore mocking those for whom this is an issue,  It
is the FRIKKIN title of the movie!!   Anthony Zoubeck has a more
articulate answer 
( http://www.dailyvidette.com/news/413482.html )
 
?I, too, agree with Moore?s politics. After the Columbine massacre,
every media pundit had their proverbial gun aimed at the usual
pop-culture targets. Putting scapegoats in the crosshairs made about as
much sense as blaming Brunswick for the tragedies that took place in
Littleton, Colo. 

It?s the steps ?Bowling for Columbine? takes in presenting this metaphor
as ?fact? that I find troublesome. Moore could have said something to
the effect of ?people initially thought Eric and Dylan went bowling that
day. They didn?t. But no one could prove they listened to the music of
Marilyn Manson, either. Isn?t it just as plausible, then, to blame
bowling as it is to blame Manson?s music, or video games, or violent
movies and television shows?? Moore?s message would have remained
intact. 

Before talking to Battan, I thought ?artistic license? was a film
director?s right only in adapting plays, books and fictionalized
accounts of reality-based events. The documentary genre includes a core
of truthfulness under which, I would think, ?artistically licensed?
misrepresentations of North Country Bank & Trust, Lockheed Martin and
documented facts in the Jefferson County Sheriff?s Department case file
would be intolerable. What is the difference between a scripted movie
and a documentary if both types of films are allowed to construe the
source material into something that is inherently fictitious??
 
and I will stop there for the moment.   Cooper, you have STILL
cold-dropped 10 of the original claims made in the Hymnowitz article and
you are losing the other 4 and I have just added offense.
 
So, if YOU are what Dean has to work with

 
Michael Korcok
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20031114/754f4958/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list