April 15, 2003

Atomic Hairsplitting for Fatboy

There is apparently no end to the lengths Michael Moore fans will go to prove their beloved has been persecuted. That post goes the website of someone who has gone to a lot of trouble to support their assertion that CNN turned up the boos on Moore's Oscar speech.

Well you know what? Who gives a shit about what CNN did? The Oscars weren't first broadcast on CN-fucking-N, they were broadcast on whatever network teevee station I sat and watched the thing on. Read that? I sat and watched the live speech. The boos were loud. They were noticeable. Maybe everyone booing had hidden amps in their lapels or some shizzat, 'cos they all knew that Moore would try to Expose the Machinations of the Man, and the booers were all members of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that is right now hounding and persecuting Saint Michael, I dunno. But CNN didn't have to do a thing. The boos happened, Mikey fans. Deal with it. He does't get 100% approval everywhere he goes, I think he'll survive anyway.

Christ on a stick. I have an .mp3 of a recording someone made from the actual teevee show on the actual night, not whatever bullshit CNN pulled, if they indeed pulled any bullshit, which I doubt. They don't need to make things bad for La Moore -- they had other, more powerful tyrants to kowtow to.

(Via Jim Treacher.)

Update: ha ha ha.

Another Update: BWAHAHAHAHA! (Via Tim Blair.)

And the last update to this: ha ha and triple HAHAHA. It won't happen, of course, but it sure is funny. (Via lots of people, but I finally got around to nicking the link from Glenn Reynolds.)

Hey! And I didn't even see this link! Thanks, Instadude! Now I shall watch my hit count rise -- oh wait, I don't even have a hit counter. Well, I could just got look at my analog files, but zzzzzzzz---nssnsksxx... hunh? Oh, sorry. Fell asleep thinking about boring stuff like log files and hit counters. I just delete my log files anyway. All they do is take up space.

Posted by Andrea Harris at April 15, 2003 03:18 PM
Comments

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

Posted by: Joe at April 15, 2003 at 05:21 PM

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

Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 15, 2003 at 05:37 PM

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.

Posted by: Yahmdallah at April 15, 2003 at 06:28 PM

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.

Posted by: Emily at April 15, 2003 at 07:19 PM

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.

Posted by: Jackie D at April 15, 2003 at 07:51 PM

Did you mean to make the abstract Manhattan project reference?

Posted by: Byna at April 15, 2003 at 08:17 PM

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.

Posted by: Howard Cornell at April 15, 2003 at 08:49 PM

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.

Posted by: gustavo at April 15, 2003 at 09:04 PM

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

Posted by: gustavo at April 15, 2003 at 09:08 PM

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

Posted by: Kevin McGehee at April 15, 2003 at 09:51 PM

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.

Posted by: Kirk at April 15, 2003 at 10:08 PM

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

Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 15, 2003 at 10:11 PM

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.

Posted by: Thomas at April 15, 2003 at 10:27 PM

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.

Posted by: Jackie D at April 15, 2003 at 11:10 PM

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

Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 15, 2003 at 11:44 PM

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.

Posted by: Howard Veit at April 16, 2003 at 01:36 AM

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.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 16, 2003 at 01:59 AM

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 ...

Posted by: TJ Hill at April 16, 2003 at 04:39 AM

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...

Posted by: David Perron at April 16, 2003 at 08:22 AM

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?

Posted by: Chris Brown at April 16, 2003 at 08:35 AM

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.

Posted by: Larry at April 16, 2003 at 10:25 AM

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!

Posted by: Rick at April 16, 2003 at 10:53 AM

Top 10 excuses for the boos Michael Moore received.

Posted by: Ricky at April 16, 2003 at 11:58 AM

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"?

Posted by: Rifle308 at April 16, 2003 at 01:14 PM

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 ?

Posted by: TJ Hill at April 16, 2003 at 02:07 PM

"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>

Posted by: Kevin McGehee at April 16, 2003 at 02:13 PM

Heh. TJ thinks the First Amendment prohibits censureship.

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

Posted by: Kevin McGehee at April 16, 2003 at 02:17 PM

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

Posted by: Kevin McGehee at April 16, 2003 at 02:19 PM

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?

Posted by: DD at April 16, 2003 at 02:37 PM

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 ...

Posted by: TJ Hill at April 16, 2003 at 03:39 PM

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

Nothing wrong with striving for more accuracy.

Posted by: Bashir Gemayel at April 16, 2003 at 04:12 PM

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.

Posted by: David Perron at April 17, 2003 at 08:30 AM

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!)

Posted by: Neville at April 17, 2003 at 11:05 AM

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.

Posted by: T J Hill at April 17, 2003 at 03:51 PM

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.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 17, 2003 at 10:28 PM

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?

Posted by: David Perron at April 17, 2003 at 11:57 PM

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.

Posted by: TJ Hill at April 18, 2003 at 12:54 AM

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.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 18, 2003 at 02:14 AM

Just testing.

Posted by: Vlad at April 19, 2003 at 09:44 AM

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

Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 19, 2003 at 10:02 AM

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

Posted by: HH at April 23, 2003 at 02:57 AM