Tim Blair

Blur is one of my favorite bands, but quoting the idiotic things he says just seems like a waste of time. Why don't you just say "rock musician says stupid thing praising Michael Moore thus reavealing his/her willful ignorance". It would just save a lot of time and cover so much ground.

People should treat these musicians and actors like I do, as a product. I mean really, do you care what a box of cereal has to say? When people start validating what they believe by citing someone like Ben Affleck or Madonna, they are quite sad. That goes both ways, too. I don't go around telling people that the Dwarf from LOTR agrees with me.

"The genius of this most American of films..."

That's rather insulting. But I suppose it's in keeping with the "Moore-is-the-real-patriot" PR campaign waged with admirable energy by the Left. I'm sure Julius Rosenberg regarded himself as the ultimate patriot, too.

The first punk rock movie? Obviously this guy has never seen The Great Rock and Roll Swindle. Damn whippersnapper.

Well you know what they say
if you can't play Guitar , teach it
and if you can't teach it play bass.
These F*ckwits of the pop business get worse every generation.
At least the Umma will ban their music when it arrives in the west.

Damn, Emily beat me to it. I saw this dumbass comment yesterday, and that's the first thing that popped into my head.

..he's managed to distil reality and come up with something more powerful...

Snort! Yeah, Michael Moore, that ol' reality distiller.

Alex James, by the way, named his new baby Geronimo; which kinda fits his Mariah Carey-type pronouncements.

It's a punk rock movie, for sure, in that it is shallow, ignorant and fucking stupid.

Punk rock and Michael Moore go perfectly well together.

I ain't seen F911, but "Sid & Nancy" predates it by about 18 years, and Gary Oldman (loyal Republican, btw) is the shit.

Blur, indeed.

Actually, a rather more appropriate punk rock film that comes to mind (in this context anyway) is D.O.A..

It's the first punk-rock movie

The chaps over at Conservative Punk might have a bit of a problem with that description.

"he's managed to distil reality and come up with something more powerful."

Obviously, the Blurbassist meant to say "he's managed to distort reality and come up with something surreal".

Well, Andrea, I guess you're more inclined towards documentaries; not that you're more likely to go out and hug Mikey the Hutt or anything, of course...

Still, nothing beats a faux Johnny Rotten riding a tour bus in America listening to some cretinous songster warbling: "I wanna job, I wanna job, I wanna good job... that satisfies... my artistic needs."

And Johnny's" priceless reply. C'mon, admit it -- it's a damn fine bit!

Do you ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

Musical talent aside; we should not view musicians opinions in much higher regard than our own opinions unless it can be shown that the particular musician has a special interest/ knowledge of the subject. In this case we can see that Alex James was niave to guess at the production costs as it was an expensive project. That said Alex makes an important point, which is that Moore has found an ideal medium to galvanise the nation's interest in politics. Whatever side of the political spectrum you rest on you can at least agree that the stimulation of debate is good for politics.

Actually the dwarf from LoTR actually knows what he's talking about and talks from personal experience, but hey, what use are facts, when lefties have feelings?

If the last (incoherent) comment is implying that Moore's film states a biased view then you would be correct. It's a personal view of Moore's even though the facts in the film are correct. Moore has put his own particular slant on it by means of editing and omission. You cannot expect one film to be the objective masterpiece that would instantly solve a lot of political problems. In any case the film does not even compare with the propaganda of the White House/ Fox News/ Voice of America etc. But thanks for your comment anyway. I'll let you get back to your joint...dude.

I wonder if that twit realises that the more he gets political the less record sales they have. Blur were once a decent band, but since Damon has tried to become a politician the band's music is a load of ole' arse. Is he so ashamed of his music that he wants it forgotten to be replaced by idiotic politics (that arse from Radiohead Thorn is heading the same way)?

Ah, but Michael's distribution expenses are covered. Remember Hezbollah?

James said:

"It's a personal view of Moore's even though the facts in the film are correct. Moore has put his own particular slant on it by means of editing and omission."

This proves that Moore's movie making philosophy is "You can tell lies if there is a kernel of truth".

Moore blatantly makes propaganda for profit. This gives him the same motivation as P.T. Barnum, entertaining people, but with a more sinister nature.

This by itself is not amazing nor unique. The ability to sell snowballs in Greenland is pretty common. What is amazing is that people not only accept this crap, they justify and defend it, and then they pay for more.

You cannot expect one film to be the objective masterpiece that would instantly solve a lot of political problems."

No, we expect something that at least tries to be accurate. Truthful seems to be a distant second here.

"In any case the film does not even compare with the propaganda of the White House/ Fox News/ Voice of America etc."

Wow! More BUSHLIED (TM)! And Fox News is biased (unlike, say, NBC or CBS) -- be still my beating heart! Plus a new one, VOICEOFAMERICALIED! Such original thinking, James. Right in line Michael Moore.

I prefer Gollum, James; at least he didn't entertain Europeans by telling them how stupid his fellow Americans are. And everyone agreed that Gollum had a problem.

I find it hard to swallow "...Moore has found an ideal medium to galvanise the nation's interest in politics." If he wanted to "galvanize", he would offer a less biased slant. No, Moore wants to polarize the nation's politics. That's something different altogether. That alone makes his message suspect.

Too bad you don't see it that way.

The response I received from 'The Real Jeffs' was quite flattering. For one 'This proves that Moore's movie making philosophy is "You can tell lies if there is a kernel of truth". Really? Thankyou, I never realised I held such authority in these matters.

Another interesting assertion is that the film contains lies. I would be more interested to hear your evidence for such a statement. Factually the film is correct. Moore implies certain opinions but that is not lying; it's infering. That's a crucial difference.

It is also a shame that I really need to respond to the comment
" be still my beating heart! Plus a new one, VOICEOFAMERICALIED! Such original thinking, James. Right in line Michael Moore.". Does this not imply that my opinions have to be ones that have never been aired before? Could I not reply that to attack Moore's film on a factual credibilty level ammounts to a stereotypical right-wing view? Karl Rove and the White House team managed to attack the film's credibilty without actually witnessing the film. Perhaps ESP does exist. So an extra helping of hypocrisy there.

The last curious claim you make is that Moore wants to polarize the nations' politics. If for a moment we agree that he was then that would only be in keeping with the standard news media in America. Can you actually defend websites such as Rightwingstuff.com and vociferoussam.com as being shining examples of objective news coverage? No, which means that they are propogating their own biased opinion. Terms such as 'loony lefties' are hardly constructive categorizations are they?

The sad fact is that America is one of the most depoliticized countries in the Western world. Look at the voter turn out for your last election. Almost half the American electorate didn't turn out to vote: they feel disenfranchised by a lack of representation. Can you really claim that the choice of two parties at an election is really much of a choice at all? In this fashion America needs new means by which to reach out and involve more of the population. This film obviously pissed a lot of people off. But that's good because it forces you to state your reasons as to why the film is bad, which in turn causes another person to respond to your opinion- should they have enjoyed the film. This blog is an example. I think you misunderstood the context in which I use the word 'galvanize'. Or worse still; you misunderstood the word 'galvanize'.

I agree that the film has it's faults. Personally I think it concentrates too heavily on the Bush Administration without attempting to tackle the real roots of the problem. Faults aside it is only a contribution to what should be a large nation- wide debate. The strength of a democracy can be measured by how much criticism is allowed of the state. In this case we can see America's freedom of speech values working to good effect. You must be prepared to tolerate views that don't confer with yours if you truly want to live in a democracy.

It is evident though that this film will touch a raw nerve for those who wish to formulate their opinions whilst dispensing with the need of rational inquiry into the subject matter. But thanks for your complement anyway. Maybe I should give the TV networks a call.