Too Much To Dream

Did you see this via Jeff Jarvis? The last line is the best summation I've seen of the entire affair.

Whoops! I just went there before I read your comment. Hee hee, great minds think alike, or something...

Oh he got booed big time. No conspiracy theory here. We had on the full surround on the stereo, and it was LOUD. Another thing is that he raised his voice to be heard over the boos. If it had been only a couple people near the mics, he wouldn't have had to raise his voice. It even looked like a couple folks on stage behind him would've done it too, if they weren't on camera.

Well, even if they did turn up the boos, as far as I'm concerned, you could still hear what the wretch had to say, so THEY DIDN'T DO IT LOUD ENOUGH.

Jeesh, are his minions THAT desperate to portray him as a victim? This is hilarious. God, I love the combination of freedom of speech and the internet: without those two, we might never know what deluded idiots are in our midst.

Did you mean to make the abstract Manhattan project reference?

Neither Michael Moore nor the Oscar is important enough to be called relevant. Hollywood demeans itself by honoring Moore and Moore is little more than grasping flatulence.

I can't understand how differently people can perceive things. Here you suggest that not only is moore a bad guy, the boos were really there, on other sites the boos were real and moore, concessively a mockumentary maker, has a good message. on some sites the bbc and even cnn are seen a liberal iraq loving lefty scum media but on the lefty scum side the bbc and cnn are seen as being too pro-war and willing to believe the anglohawks propaganda. also i think the internet and free speech means all extremes get heard, and extremes get overreported. sensible views just arent interesting enough to link to.

oops! other sites suggest the boos weren't real. suret the context supplied that but oh well.

Gustavo may have finally explained to my satisfaction why I don't get more links.

Reading once again that Moore is a lying, scumsucking piece of camel excrement is hardly a surprise. He manages to put his foot in his mouth more often than Jerry Lewis in his prime, with the important difference that Mr. Lewis was TRYING to appear like an idiot.

But to read of Roger Ebert disputing the legitimacy of the administration was a bit of a shock. I'd always thought he was smarter than that.

I guess he has good ghostwriters.

Kevin -- you understood what Gustavo said? Because I sure as hell didn't.

Moore brags that 90% of the comments he's received have been positive to an Austin (TX) newspaper. Clearly his mathematical skills are no better than his morality.

Check it out, people: Revoke Michael Moore's Oscar. Heh.

Thomas, that 90% is wishful thinking. I'm surprised he hasn't gotten any death threats, though; I've been sending mine telepathically, but I guess they're not penetrating the layers of fat surrounding his skull.

I forgot to reply to Byna -- yes I did.

Fact: Moore was booed from the cheap seats only. The people upstairs. The "stars" in the orchestra did not boo, but applauded lustily. Trust me, I was there.

The Hollywood Left hates Bush, is anti-War, and puts its money where its big mouth is. If it weren't for the large number of Jews in the top end of the entertainment business this awards show would have been outright ugly. You have no idea how deeply these people hate.

You were actually at the Oscars? Where? Me, I just watched it on tv. I thought that a lot of the actors were sort of smirking in that "Jeez, I'm really uncomfortable" kind of way. Some of them looked as if they thought he was funny, but I couldn't tell if they were laughing with him or at him. I also thought some of the guys on stage didn't look too thrilled, but their motives are unknown to me. I did see some of the "big name" actors applaud a bit, but the camera didn't focus on them too much.

In any case, the argument here isn't whether the actors all booed and so therefore we must love them. No one said that. And I do know something of the petty hatreds that run through the entertainment industry. I am not naive.

Jeez , Louise ,enough already , I mean the man made a comment from a podium that was broadcast all over the world that espoused his beliefs , so what , some of you people need to get over yourselves , the man made a statement he didn't use the N-word nor did he advocate abortion or any of the other so-called hot topics of the day , whatever they may be . Last time I checked , this is America , you know home of the brave and land of the free , so what if he doesn't like Bush does that make him a communist or some such thing ? For whatever reason this country seems to be in the grip of some monumental mega-political correctness that is only appropriate if you support Bush and the FOX news network and their minions . Yeah , CNN screws up now and then as does MSNBC , as does CBS and NBC and any of the rest of the media from time to time , but I ask you this , what good comes from all the free-fire zone sniping that is so prevalent in our society ? It would appear to be time to make up our own minds about the great events in the world today and not depend so much on the O'Reillys or the Cavuttos smug " I'm right , so you can't possibly be " attitude , or the syruppy croonings of Aaron Brown or Ted Kopple . Review the facts as best you can and then decide for yourselves as to what is right or wrong as it pertains to your life . Taking a swipe at anybody who doesn't see things the same as you , doesn't make them wrong , nor does it make you right . What I'm trying to say is don't hook your wagon to the Mantra of the day just cause you can , stand up for something and believe in what you say , and we'll all be better off ...

What I really worry about , is when some people , use a whole lot of punctuation , when little or none , is called for. But , that's , just , me...

Just thought you'ld like the old joke about a fat man, like Moore, who died. They could not find a big enough coffin until a local wag said that if they gave him an enema they could fit him in a shoe box.
'nuff said?

Ok, TJ, I believe Mikey is a lying asshat who finds a willing audience among the Bush and America haters. I will defend to the death his right to be a lying asshat. That's what I believe.

One thing that too many people, on the left or the right, get wrong is the finite scope of the 1st Amendment. Free speech means that:
1) The GOVERNMENT cannot limit your speech except in very narrowly defined, public safety areas.
2) You therefore have a right to say anything you want to about your government.
3) The Constitution does NOT, however, guarantee you freedom from the consequences of your speech. Michael Moore is Jabba the Hut's less-attractive, semi-psychotic, bastard child.
Go ahead, Mikey, say what you want, but I will exercise my right to boycott you, your product, and anyone who agrees with you. No one is telling him what to believe, other than the voices in his head, but for God's sake, he needs to be man enough to accept responsibility for his actions!

Top 10 excuses for the boos Michael Moore received.

To TJ,
Is Mikey Moore a communist? Well considering that he supports and raises money for the Green party if he isn't he sure is close.
As to all the flak he is getting Moore earned it by his blatant lies, distortions, and fabrications, as well as the specious logic he constantly spouts. Why does the Left believe its "heroes" should be beyond getting called on the carpet, because of their "pure hearts"?

To the Rifleman ,
Frist of all this isn't about right or left , it's about censuring anyone who doesn't see things the same way as others do . Whether I am right or left is of little significance in the broader scheme of things . An accurate reflection of the times ( sadly ) is that some gentleman named Perron chose to attack my over punctuation as opposed to reading the message , a classic case of killing the messenger don't you think ?

"Kevin -- you understood what Gustavo said? Because I sure as hell didn't."

I think he was saying something about...

That is, he was referring to...

Uh, there was this one part where he...

<blank look>

Heh. TJ thinks the First Amendment prohibits censureship.

Typical lefty -- can dish it out but can't take it.

And I love how Teej says making fun of somebody is "killing" him.

Hey, TJ -
A period goes here. It does not go here . If you don't understand how punctuation works, why on earth would you believe that anyone would pay any attention to your 'understanding' of more complex issues?

Okay fellas , I give up you got me , I surrender y'all blistered me pretty good and I know enough to know when I'm outnumbered . When you've got English Grammar Professors firing at you , it's time to take your lumps and shut-up ...

Suggestion: reclassify Moore's award as "Best Phony Documentary".

Nothing wrong with striving for more accuracy.

TJ:

It's not that your points weren't worth addressing. It's that the points were extraordinarily difficult to recognize in that blizzard of poor punctuation and multiple run-on sentences.

I think your central point is think for yourselves. Actually, we do. We just happen to all come to the same conclusion. Is that so hard to imagine? If so, is there another conclusion that can be logically arrived at, given Mr. Moore's actions? I'd be interested in knowing what that might be. Please share.

TJ:

You said "it's about censuring anyone who doesn't see things the same way as others do." You are correct, but miss the point. You, as have most lefties, confused censoring with censuring. Check http://www.m-w.com/home.htm (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) and you will find the following:

Main Entry: 1cen·sure
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-sh&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin censura, from censEre
Date: 14th century
1 : a judgment involving condemnation
2 archaic : OPINION, JUDGMENT
3 : the act of blaming or condemning sternly
4 : an official reprimand

Main Entry: 2censure
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sured; cen·sur·ing 'sen(t)-sh(&-)ri[ng]/
Date: 1587
1 obsolete : ESTIMATE, JUDGE
2 : to find fault with and criticize as blameworthy
synonym see CRITICIZE
- cen·sur·er 'sen(t)-sh&r-&r/ noun

Main Entry: 1cen·sor
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from censEre to give as one's opinion, assess; perhaps akin to Sanskrit samsati he praises
Date: 1531
1 : one of two magistrates of early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and conduct
2 : one who supervises conduct and morals: as a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful
3 : a hypothetical psychic agency that represses unacceptable notions before they reach consciousness

Main Entry: 2censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing 'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
Date: 1882
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

As is apparent, the first (censure) is a necessary element of healthy political debate. It is a methodology to challenge opposing viewpoints with the aim of arriving at "truth". It's preservation one the reasons for the 1st Amendment.

The latter (censor) is the antithesis. It forecloses political debate by supressing opposing viewpoints. The 1st Amendment was written to preclude the government's censorship of opposing or dissenting views. It does not bar censorship by individuals, but they often lack the power to accomplish this aim.

In summation - as to political discourse in the U.S., censorship bad, censureship good. (Hope noone attacks my punctuation!)

Apparently y'all are not content with picking my bones clean concerning my poor punctuation and ill advised use of the word censure, it is very clear to me that I am in way over my head, so I hereby toss in the towel, and I will leave any further discourse to those much more qualified, and just so you know I am a registered Republican. I don't know much about Michael Moore and I was only trying to say that Moore or anyone else is free to express his opinion, and yes, he does have to take responsibililty for his comments and actions. Thanks for the lessons on punctuation and now I take my leave and may God Bless you all.

Well TJ, the reason people were so down on your bad punctuation and grammar (which I see you no longer indulged in -- so what was that all about?) is because it made your first post really difficult to read, much less understand. If you truly care about what you are saying, you would take care to write as carefully as possible.

And incidentally, no one here has said that Michael Moore does not have the right to say anything he wants whatsoever. That isn't even the issue.

It's a bit like part of the Miranda rights:

"Anything you say can and will be used against you."

Sure wish Mikey'd stick with the right to remain silent bit, but if he did who'd be the next biggest idiot to make fun of?

Andrea,
Thanks for the constructive critique, it was obviously much needed. If, and it's a big if, I ever post on this site again, rest assured I will proofread it before I send it. The truth is I had no business submitting anything as ill-written and not expect pros such as you and the rest not to pick it apart, and the comment about taking care to write carefully is dead on. I apologize for bringing anything that weakly written to the party. Even though I am not overly adept with the keyboard it doesn't excuse my poor effort. As I stated if I post again I'll try not to embarrass myself or this site.

You know, TJ, I could have just banned your whiny little ass for complaining because someone criticized your first nearly unreadable post. Instead, I tried to help you. I told you why you got the flack, and explained what you could do to get your point across. You reaction was to mewl like a wittle baby about your hurt feewings. Well guess what, you just got yourself banned.

Just testing.

Don't "test" my comments. That's my prerogative. Either say something or be banned as a potential comments spammer.

A post on this prompted this response at a newsgroup:

The sound quality might well be different between the different
channels, but that doesn't imply deliberate doctoring.

When a public figure gives a speech or press conference that's televised
on multiple channels, try switching back and forth between the
channels. You'll find that the way that public figure sounds is
different on different channels. The picture quality (color intensity,
tint, contrast) looks different too. It's probably due to different
audio-video processing equipment.

It's actually gotten much better in recent years. In the 1960's, there
were much worse color freakouts, not only between stations, but even
between scenes shown on the same show on the same station.

--

Steven D. Litvintchouk

Email: sdlitvin@earthlink.net