Journal 1-2

Question from Last Week:
Over the last week I have researched Micheal Moore in detail.  Looking at review sites on the internet, such as "rottentomatoes.com"  for general public critiques of Moore's work I have come to a conclusion that most Americans believe Moore's work is offensive yet effective in changing politics today.  There was not any more difference in opinions between generations than there was between political parties, and even then, politicians approval is sparse.  One source said that Howard Dean, in the 2000 US presidential election, lost popularity when Michael Moore endorsed him because of the extremist views that went along with affiliation.  Then again, that was back in 2000.  Ten years later, Moore has become more respected as his films have become less one-sided with time.  Fox News, a predominately Republican station, stated in May 2007 that Michael Moore's new film, "Sicko" showed his maturity as a filmaker.  "Unlike many of his previous films ("Roger and Me," "Bowling for Columbine," "Fahrenheit 9-11"), "Sicko" works because in this one there are no confrontations. Moore smartly lets very articulate average Americans tell their personal horror stories at the hands of insurance companies. The film never talks down or baits the audience," were the first lines of the review that fairly stated the film critized both the republicans and democrats, and was a "call to action" for the Amercian people.  Moore's latest film, "Capatilism: A Love Story" is reviewed by NPR as a "culmination of the last twenty years of his works.  NPR, a fairly nuetral source, commends Moore for his passion and coverage of material--but still mentions his signature over-the top demonstrations in his films.



^Michael Moore having a demonstration during his newest movie "Capitalism: A Love Story."

Summary of Class This Week:
This week we watched "Bowling for Columbine" by Michael Moore.  This documentary raises many points about Gun Control in the United States, however, our class did not focus as much on the material of the documentary as much as the fallacies Moore uses in his films.  Moore definiely uses several fallacies and loaded language in his film, which makes some points of his work invalid and it many offensive, but I still agree with the general message of the film: America has too many guns, and should increase gun control.  There are two montages I will focus on to show Moore's allacies and offensiveness, but also the validity to his work.  The "Wonderful World Montage" shows Moore at his most obnoxious, while the Gun control and murder number segment shows more support of Moore's point based on fact. 
The "Wonderful World Montage" shows many different fallacies dealing with current events in America's Foreign policy from 1953 to September 21st, 2001.  The main idea is to twist the facts of several world events leading up to 9-11 to make it seem logical that the United States was somewhat responsible for the attacks that day.  It uses several fallacies, including hasty generalization (Osama Bin Laden organized the attacks with CIA training),  Appeal to Ignorance (several twisted facts in world events throughout the montage), and appeal to the people with the emotional ending of footage of a plane flying into the twin towers.  Also, the entire monage is going down a "slippery slope" fallacy, starting with facts and ending up with twisted viewpoints.  The "Wonderful World Montage" is an example of why many people don't like Micheal Moore.  It shows many questionable facts with an obsurd conclusion.

However, there are SOME good qualities of Moore's work.  The gun control numbers prove accurate according to several different sources listed below: the United States is the world leader in murder concering guns.  Among those countries that the US is alike, so not counting countries at war or countries with the smallest of populations, the US is the leader in number of guns owned, and number of deaths concerning guns.  There is no way to say that is a biased statement.  Furthermore, though I could not find the data that stated this, a classmate said that this information was falty becuase 65% of these deaths were suicide, and went to say that many more were accidental deaths, the homicide rate with guns was low.  Even if that were the case, that number still supports the point that Guns should be limited.  Someone who is suicidal is not mentally stable, and therefore should not be able to own a gun.  People may argue that they could be using someone elses gun, but that's in support of more gun control as well.  The more guns there are in the US, the more accidental deaths there will be in homes each year.  When parents keep guns in their homes, their children are more likely to be victims of accidental deaths.  This could also go for hunting accidents, misfires, etc.  Guns kill, that is what they are intended to do...so why have them in our everyday society?  Many of my classmates argured that in some countires, where there is heavy gun control, people murder each other in different ways.  This is not true considering that Canada's statistics of murders with firearms is about 144 people, and their suicide rate (including other methods than with a firearm) is around 30 for their toal population, and England's is still lower with a total firearm murder rate of 14 and suicide rate of 16.  Canada's total murder count is 523 and England's is 1,701.  The United States boasts 9,369 firearms deaths and 16,204 total murders with a suicide rate of 18 people per 100,000.  All these statistics were from 2002.

In my opinion, sometimes Michael Moore uses too many fallacies and persuasion methods in his films, but he has a balance of fact as well.  As critiques have reported, as Moore moves into a stage of maturity with less fiction and more fact to support his theories, America will realize that Moore is a talented mind with many progressive--or at least different--ideas and perspectives that America could use.  He challenges our nation, and for that, I think his work his well worth my time.

Question for next week:
I'm kind of sick of Moore, so I want to learn more about other filmakers that focus on political documentaries.  I will find a few of them, read reviews on their works, hopefully watch some clips and compare them with Moore's style.

Sources:

"Fahrenheit 9/11 Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes." ROTTEN TOMATOES: Movies - New Movie Reviews and Previews! Web. 28 Sept. 2010. <http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fahrenheit_911/?critic=creamcrop#contentReviews>.

Friedman, By Roger. "'Sicko' Shows Michael Moore's Maturity as a Filmmaker - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News | Arts And Entertainment - FOXNews.com." FOXNews.com - Breaking News | Latest News | Current News. Web. 27 Sept. 2010. <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273875,00.html>.

Taylor, By Ella. "Movie Review - Capitalism: A Love Story - Michael Moore's Latest Target Is The System Itself : NPR." NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112569384>.

"Transcript: More Guns, Less Crime? 7/01/98." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. 01 July 1998. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/chattr070198.html>.

"Transcript: More Guns, Less Crime? 7/01/98." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. 01 July 1998. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/chattr070198.html>.

"Transcript: More Guns, Less Crime? 7/01/98." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. 01 July 1998. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/chattr070198.html>.

Troy, By Gil. "Why Even Bush Critics Should Be Ashamed to Endorse Michael Moore's Movie." History News Network. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. <http://hnn.us/articles/5875.html>.

Journal 1_1: September 20, 2010

This blog is dedicated to my Ethics class this year.  I will be discovering and disscussing the new topics we learn in class each week, as well asking my own questions which I will then research.

Summary of class this week:
The second week of school is always less chaotic than the first.  You settle into the rhythm you will stick with for the rest of the year.  However, my routine was shaken a little with one of our first assignments.  "Write a 20-30 second radio commerical using three fallacies and as much loaded language as possible."  We had been learning about loaded language for a few days now: power words, euphemisms and lastly, fallacies.  The class had identified the uses of power words and euphemisms in commercials (which is harder than it looks!) and now, was supposed to create their own.  My friend and I took a very odd approach to the assignment, creating a product to sell that was catered for cavemen.  It turned out well though.  The assignments have been challenging for me.  Never before have I taken the time to look at the use of language in everyday life, to see the bias and second meaning behind each carefully chosen word. 

Identifying bias continued into the last class of the week, with a lesson on Michael Moore.  Watching his first show "The Awful Truth" in class was eye-opening.  Coming from a very liberal family,  seeing people pick apart Michael Moore was a very different perspective.  And on some issues, not all, I had to agree with my mostly conservative classmates.  Micheal Moore does make his documentaries and other works into very persuasive, and evasive, video.  For example, there was one clip in his episode of "The Awful Truth" where he interviews George W. Bush while Bush is running for president by ambush.  When asking a question in the middle of a campaign signing, Bush loudly says "Get a real job."  Immediately, I thought, "Wow. THAT guy was a leader of our country, how ridiculous!  When he was running for office he didn't even have the respect for a man who had influence in the public media.  How was he supposed to have respect for so many other U.S. citizens, or just people all over the world in general?" But my class turned it into, "Micheal Moore is twisting the video to only highlight the bad parts of Bush, plus, it was good Bush had a snappy comeback at a guy who was ambushing him!"  This presented a very different thought process before me.  It took me a minute, and then I decided that neither man was right in the situation.  Moore should interview candidates on a more formal basis, in order to support his points with more solid (and less arguable) information, while Bush should never have a disrespected a man like that, especially when running for a presidential election. 

Question for Next Week:

Although I have heard much about Michael Moore in the past, I have never had the time to sit down and watch some of his documentaries.  My leaning liberal family appreciates his eye-opening documentaries, but with my new found perspective and watch for loaded langauge, fallacies and bias, I want to find out more about Michael Moore.  What are his reviews from the general public? Do they sway from generation to generation?  Do any politics, even liberal maniacs, support his works?  And what is my opinion on him?

Till next time,

Mad
Period 2