Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Michael Moore - not quite the truth....      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 1
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....Page 1 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
A great many people believe that we are being manipulated by our media - most of those complaining tend to believe that the media is a tool of big business and slants to support conservative issues. However, many on the other side of this fence disagree, pointing out that many, if not most, of the media is far more liberal than the general public.
And in recent years, we've seen the emergence of those who would manipulate the truth for their own political ends, using so called documentaries. The most famous of these is of course Michael Moore, whose latest contribution is 'Sicko', a purporsive documentary claiming to prove that America's health system is grossly inferior to that of countries with socialized medicine, such as Britain and France.
This article, taken from the Times Online of Britain, shows an entirely different viewpoint and, in fact, indicates that Michael Moore is, as his harshest critics claim, falling far short of telling the truth.
The question I ask here is, how can we support so called 'documentarists' such as Moore, who use their platform not as a tool to bring out the truth but as a weapon to promote their own political beliefs?
For those wishing to read the article as posted rather than copied here, click through to

Michael Moore has Mad View of the National Health Service
Minette Marrin, times online
The fourth estate has always had a bad name, but it seems to be getting worse. Journalism should be an honest and useful trade, and often still is. But now that journalism has more power than ever before, it seems to have become ever more disreputable. In recent years it has been brought lower and lower by kiss-and-tell betrayals, by “reality” TV, by shockumentaries and by liars, fantasists, hucksters and geeks of every kind, crowing and denouncing and emoting in a hideous new version of Bunyan’s Vanity Fair.

Outstanding among these is Michael Moore, the American documentary maker. He specialises in searing indictments, such as Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine, and has, without a doubt, a genius for it. Although his films are crude, manipulative and one-sided, he is idolised by millions of Americans and Europeans, widely seen as some sort of redneck Mr Valiant-for-truth.

Nothing could be further from the truth. His latest documentary, Sicko, was released in cinemas last week. Millions of people will see it and all too many of them will be misled.

Sicko, like all Moore’s films, is about an important and emotive subject – healthcare. He contrasts the harsh and exclusive system in the US with the European ideal of universal socialised medicine, equal and free for all, and tries to demonstrate that one is wrong and the other is right. So far, so good; there are cases to be made.

Unfortunately Sicko is a dishonest film. That is not only my opinion. It is the opinion of Professor Lord Robert Winston, the consultant and advocate of the NHS. When asked on BBC Radio 4 whether he recognised the NHS as portrayed in this film, Winston replied: “No, I didn’t. Most of it was filmed at my hospital [the Hammersmith in west London], which is a very good hospital but doesn’t represent what the NHS is like.”

I didn’t recognise it either, from years of visiting NHS hospitals. Moore painted a rose-tinted vision of spotless wards, impeccable treatment, happy patients who laugh away any suggestion of waiting in casualty, and a glamorous young GP who combines his devotion to his patients with a salary of £100,000, a house worth £1m and two cars. All this, and for free.

This, along with an even rosier portrait of the French welfare system, is what Moore says the state can and should provide. You would never guess from Sicko that the NHS is in deep trouble, mired in scandal and incompetence, despite the injection of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

While there are good doctors and nurses and treatments in the NHS, there is so much that is inadequate or bad that it is dishonest to represent it as the envy of the world and a perfect blueprint for national healthcare. It isn’t.

GPs’ salaries – used by Moore as evidence that a state-run system does not necessarily mean low wages – is highly controversial; their huge pay rise has coincided with a loss of home visits, a serious problem in getting GP appointments and continuing very low pay for nurses and cleaners.

At least 20 NHS trusts have even worse problems with the hospital-acquired infection clostridium difficile, not least the trust in Kent where 90 people died of C diff in a scandal reported recently.

Many hospitals are in crisis. Money shortages, bad management, excesses of bureaucrats and deadly Whitehall micromanagement mean they have to skimp on what matters most.

Overfilling the beds is dangerous to patients, in hygiene and in recovery times, but it goes on widely. Millions are wasted on expensive agency nurses because NHS nurses are abandoning the profession in droves. Only days ago, the 2007 nurse of the year publicly resigned in despair at the health service. There is a dangerous shortage of midwives since so many have left, and giving birth on the NHS can be a shocking experience.

Meanwhile thousands of young hospital doctors, under a daft new employment scheme, were sent randomly around the country, pretty much regardless of their qualifications or wishes. As foreign doctors are recruited from Third World countries, hundreds of the best-qualified British doctors have been left unemployed. Several have emigrated.

As for consultants, the men in Whitehall didn’t believe what they said about the hours they worked, beyond their duties, and issued new contracts forcing them to work less. You could hardly make it up.

None of these problems mean we should abandon the idea of a universal shared system of healthcare. It’s clear we would not want the American model, even if it isn’t quite as bad as portrayed by Moore. It’s clear our British private medical insurance provision is a rip-off. I believe we should as a society share burdens of ill health and its treatment. The only question is how best to do that and it seems to me the state-run, micromanaged NHS has failed to answer it.

By ignoring these problems, and similar ones in France’s even more generous and expensive health service, Moore is lying about the answer to that question. I wonder whether the grotesquely fat film-maker is aware of the delicious irony that in our state-run system, the government and the NHS have been having serious public discussion about the necessity of refusing to treat people who are extremely obese.

One can only wonder why Sicko is so dishonestly biased. It must be partly down to Moore’s personal vainglory; he has cast himself as a high priest of righteous indignation, the people’s prophet, and he has an almost religious following. He’s a sort of docu-evangelist, dressed like a parody of the American man of the people, with jutting jaw, infantile questions and aggressively aligned baseball cap.

However, behind the pleasures of righteous indignation for him and his audience, there is something more sinister. There’s money in indignation, big money. It is just one of the many extreme sensations that are lucrative for journalists to whip up, along with prurience, disgust and envy. Michael Moore is not Mr Valiant-for-truth. He is Mr Worldly-wiseman, laughing behind his hand at all the gawping suckers in Vanity Fair. Don’t go to his show.

minette.marrin@sunday-times.co.uk
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 2
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 10/31/2007 2:23:00 PM
Yes, you are off topic. The question was:
"...how can we support so called 'documentarists' such as Moore, who use their platform not as a tool to bring out the truth but as a weapon to promote their own political beliefs?"
If you want to bring in conservative minded documentarists, fine - but let's leave the networks out of this, that's a topic for another day, or you can start a thread to discuss it if you choose.
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 3
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 10/31/2007 3:55:50 PM
Since your original post devoted its first paragraph to the suggestion of a liberal media, I could take a sentence to point out FEMA last week held a "press" conference that had no press, just employees posing as reporters, asking questions about how well FEMA had handled the California forest fires compared to Katrina.

The point is, if our privately-held media (So much for the theory the private sector does a better job of things than the government) falls for this and for VNR's (video news releases, Google it if you aren't sure what's going on with these) can't be relied on for information (to get back to your question), should we rely on documentaries which may or may not have an axe to grind? 'Cause I'm sure you aren't wasting your time just trying to bring down one man, but all fakers.

Is is possible to document a situation, without allowing bias to come in? Sure it is, but it sure gets boring, too. We do have this lovely thing called the Internet (no, I won't thank Al Gore for it , but please feel free to do so). When a bad doc comes out, boy, you sure get to hear about it, don'tcha? Even if it ain't bad, you still get a buncha opinions. So, does the ability to have a check against a bad doc, excuse the presense of bad docs?
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 4
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 10/31/2007 5:43:39 PM
"Cause I'm sure you aren't wasting your time just trying to bring down one man, but all fakers"...Thank you for that. Although quite a few here with whom I've debated will find it hard to believe, I have just as little use for a conservative b-ser as a liberal one. Moore just happens to be the most prominent example of the 'big lie' through his use of documentaries, and a liberal as well. The lies would be just as unacceptable if he were a conservative.
A documentary is, by its nature, supposed to be an unbiased look at a given situation. The manner in which Moore uses them exemplifies the lengths to which some will go to prove their political point, i.e., by using a medium which has generally been well utilised in the past to get at the truth of a situation and disabusing the trust that people have put in that medium.
People are used to getting the truth from documentaries - Moore has shamelessly broken that trust by his lies and deceits in 'Sicko' and 'Fahrenheit 911'. Unfortunately, the largely uncritical liberal side of the media has lauded him for this work, while ignoring the glaring discrepancies and outright lies. That is NOT to say that had this been a conservative documentary that the conservative side of the media would not have done the same thing. I'm sure they would have, partisanship being what it is.
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 5
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 10/31/2007 5:49:12 PM
"Is is possible to document a situation, without allowing bias to come in?"
Yeah, I think it is. As a newspaper publisher, I would often print articles that examined both sides of an issue, without bias. That isn't to say that I didn't get my opinion in in the Editorial column - which is where that sort of opinion belongs, or on the op-ed page. But the actual article? Not a problem. Tell the truth, I've always found that it's more interesting to get both sides of the story - the discrepancies can be fascinating.
Unfortunately, the public now requires its opinions spoon fed to it - the so-called 'experts' and 'talking heads' on tv now are examples of that. Dull, dull, dull.
Had Moore done an honest evaluation of the situation, he might well have made his point. Lying only serves to discredit any truth that might have been in his work.
 exodusi1
Joined: 8/19/2006
Msg: 6
view profile
History
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 10/31/2007 6:40:57 PM
Not really, Michael Moore posts all of the citations for his documentaries on his website ( michaelmoore.com )for all to see. He doesn't lie, though he may be a bit dramatic. I don't always agree with him, especially his stance on Guns, but F - 9/11 and Roger and Me were right on. I haven't been able to see Sicko yet, but I assume it is pretty much along my line of thought politically, so I assume I will agree with it. But I can't say for sure till I have seen it.
 NwMke
Joined: 8/1/2007
Msg: 7
view profile
History
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 10/31/2007 7:24:40 PM
.

Yep not to forget alex jones who is seriously passionate about government screwing us over. Lots of people disagree with him but you can pause literally everything he talks about and find the exact headlines he references to read the whole article. I have read many and he sometimes gets over passionate but thats fine becasue the message I found to be pretty much right on for the most part.

I am always interested in any documentor or commentator who shows their references!

.
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 8
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 10/31/2007 8:07:23 PM
Exodus, you need to reread the Times article in my opening post - the administrator of the British hospital clearly stated that the depiction of the NHA by Moore was not in the least accurate. If it's not accurate, it's dishonest. And if it's dishonest, than Moore's work is not a documentary, it's political propaganda. That is my point - the technique of using a medium meant to bring out the truth is now being used dishonestly by someone with a political axe to grind.
As for Sicko - we have socialized medicine here in Canada and if you peruse the threads covering that subject, you'll find quite clearly that it isn't all it's cracked up to be. In my opinion, Moore used Britain because it would be way too easy for Americans to refute his points had he used the Canadian system, with which Americans are more likely to be familiar with. Otherwise, why not Canada, since it's so often pointed to by those who don't live here as a superb system?
Moore may not lie in your opinion, but there's more than one way of being dishonest and Moore appears to be expert in them.
 exodusi1
Joined: 8/19/2006
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 10/31/2007 9:16:38 PM
The VAST majority of Canadians LIKE their system. Like I said though, I can't comment on his recent work, because I haven't seen it. But the two I did see, F 9/11 & Roger & Me were right on the money. I have, but haven't watched Bowling yet, because it isn't high on y priority list. I am a Liberal, but I am not for complete gun control. But in F 9/11, he was right on the money.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 10
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/1/2007 3:44:03 AM
>>>The VAST majority of Canadians LIKE their system.

Since when is popular vote always right? Merely liking something doesn't mean we can ignore glaring flaws in a federal program.
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 11
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/1/2007 6:54:38 AM
Most Canadians DO like the system, but when the chips are down healthwise, the ones who can afford it head for the US for treatment, including senior liberal politicians such as Belinda Stronach, and sports figures, etc. However, we're off the topic - and that is, the dishonest use of the documentary format in Sicko, by Michael Moore.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 12
view profile
History
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/1/2007 7:07:47 AM
There's a really good reason why more is so hated by so many extreme right wingers. He's one of the few major players in media that can drop those "cultural filters" that American's so often have, and see his country through the eyes of a foreigner.

At the same time, he keeps that American "PT Barnum promotion" aspect in tact. He's EXCEPTIONALLY good at drawing attention to his projects, and also smart enough to make those same projects entertaining to an American audience.

Drives the extreme right nuts, when someone steals their play book.
 NwMke
Joined: 8/1/2007
Msg: 13
view profile
History
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/1/2007 7:27:05 AM
If you want to hear the epitomy of deception listen to that weasel Miegs from PM mag.



Moore may not lie in your opinion, but there's more than one way of being dishonest and Moore appears to be expert in them.
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 14
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/1/2007 11:47:12 AM
@ montréalguy - I'm not looking for (yet another) right wing/left wing clash in this thread. I'm looking for honest opinions regarding the use of dishonesty or deceit in making political points. Moore just happens to be in the forefront of this issue and has been called on his lies not just by the right wing, but people directly involved with the filming of 'Sicko' - you might read my initial post in full if you haven't as yet done that.
My question to you in particular is, how can you personally support someone who lies? Doesn't the truth matter to you, or is it all about political expediency, i.e. I hate the right wing, so even if Michael Moore lies and deceives the public in his film (I won't grace it with the title documentary), I'll support it regardless. Is that where you're at? It sounds like it.
I would be posing the same questions if someone were to come up with a conservative documentarist guilty of the same thing.
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 15
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/1/2007 1:26:07 PM
"The vast majority of content in all of Moore's films have been established as fact. "

@cktoronto - given that the admin of the British hospital that Moore 'Sicko' disagrees with what you've just claimed, I'd be interested in how you justify that statement. It seems that someone with first hand knowledge disputes what you, with nowhere near the facts he has, claim.
Again, posters, I'm not looking for a right wing/left wing bashing session - as I've said several times, it simply happens that the master of this type of deceit happens to be Moore.
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 16
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/1/2007 1:28:14 PM
@ cktoronto - care to give me a bit better reference than 'Swiftboat', so I have something to look up?
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 17
view profile
History
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/1/2007 1:32:07 PM
My question to you in particular is, how can you personally support someone who lies? Doesn't the truth matter to you, or is it all about political expediency, i.e. I hate the right wing, so even if Michael Moore lies and deceives the public in his film (I won't grace it with the title documentary), I'll support it regardless. Is that where you're at? It sounds like it.


I've seen every film except his last.

Roger And Me was VERY well done, one of the few times the voice of the working class has appeared in a film since possibly the Depression. Corporate America needs to be addressed , and so does it's abuses.

Bowling For Columbine was one of those rare times an American film maker looked at America through the eyes of a foreigner. He removed those cultural filters, and showed Americans what he saw. That's no small small feat, and it deserves to be applauded.

Fahrenheit 911 was , in the earliest days of this rush to war, one exceptional film. When it was unpopular to be against this war, Moore was at the forefront of the charge. When Bush supporters ruled the day, he was pointing out how naked the Emperor really was. Had more Americans listened to what he was saying, the world might have been a far better place today. America would have been, too.

I haven't seen the last one yet, so I can't comment on it.

I don't hate the right wing, or actually hate anyone. I believe the left needs to be balanced by the right, and without that there is a tyranny of thought.

From the balance of the work I've seen, I don't see much in the way of lies.

The only thing I saw that was a bit off was in "Bowling For Columbine" when he talked about Canadians not locking their doors. He found some examples of that, but I certainly lock mine, and so does everyone I know (outside of rural Quebecers who sometimes don't.)

I could live with that, since the overall question of "fear" that he was referring by referencing that was a valid point, and the differences in culture I agreed with - based on living and visiting there, and comparing those experiences to my life here.

Moore is a prototypical American, and I consider him to be a patriot . I don't see him as hating America, nor Americans , at all. In a time when the one eyed man is king, sometimes you need someone with four eyes to tell you what you aren't seeing.

Had he tried to do the same thing in the manner of Ken Burns, almost no one would have listened to the message. It would have been considered perhaps an artistic masterpiece, brilliant, and discussed in film schools for decades.

That's not what's needed in the time we live in.

What's needed is the loud ringing sound of alarm bells in the night coming from that Old North Church tower, as those that truly want to threaten liberty and freedom advance upon the Lexington of American values, while those who must defend them are slumbering.


Wrapped in silence so deep and still
That he could hear, like a sentinel's tread,
The watchful night-wind, as it went
Creeping along from tent to tent,
And seeming to whisper, "All is well!"
A moment only he feels the spell
Of the place and the hour, and the secret dread
Of the lonely belfry and the dead;
For suddenly all his thoughts are bent
On a shadowy something far away,
Where the river widens to meet the bay,--
A line of black that bends and floats
On the rising tide like a bridge of boats.

- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow


Let those bells ring loud, until every last American is awakened by their sound.
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 18
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/1/2007 1:48:14 PM
Ok cktoronto - regarding swiftboat - unless I've missed something, there was no swiftboat 'documentary', so that is not germane to our discussion here. Furthermore, it is part and parcel of the 2004 election campaign - 'Sicko' is not ineluctably tied into an election. Let's face reality here, the truth is the first victim of an American election. Just ask Dan Rather...
And just for interest's sake, one of the first to denounce the Swift veterans' campaign was Republican Senator John McCain, a Bush supporter, Vietnam veteran, and former POW. He said, "I condemn the [SBVT] ad. It is dishonest and dishonorable. I think it is very, very wrong"
That was a pretty decent thing to do, I think. I didn't hear that anyone from the left apologized for Rather's false accusations againsts Bush, but I'll gladly let you prove me wrong if you can.
As you said - done, and done.
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 19
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/1/2007 1:55:32 PM
Thank you Montréalguy - I'm going to think long and hard about what you've said here. What I'd really be interested in however, are your comments on the Times piece I posted, in which the hospital administrator denounces Moore's representation of the 'facts'. We have someone with first hand knowledge of the situation who says that Moore's depiction is not honest. That's the central point of this thread.
I don't think you need to see 'Sicko' to comment on that aspect of this debate and, based on what you've just come up with, I'd enjoy hearing your comments, as would the others reading here I'm certain.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/1/2007 1:56:29 PM

I didn't hear that anyone from the left apologized for Rather's false accusations againsts Bush, but I'll gladly let you prove me wrong if you can.


Rather may be factually wrong, but I think he was certainly right in Bush's record of neglect to his military service. We talked about it in another thread, but I'm quite convinced Rather was set up by the extreme right.

Within hours of the story showing on CBS, an Atlanta lawyer (with proven ties to an extreme right website , and regular poster there) was able to give a detailed summary of the errors - including highly detailed information on Wang word processors of the time period, and typography.

I worked in printing for many years, and that knowledge of typography alone was beyond what almost any person I ever met in that trade was able to show - except for the old school typographers who has spent decades using Linotype machines, and were the exception to the rule.

Based on how that lawyer was able to get all the evidence off of his rather low definition image on a TV screen, on images shown only for moments, it's almost certain proof that he was prepared before the show aired by someone to respond.
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 21
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/1/2007 2:20:46 PM
@Montréal Guy - Out of respect for your opinion, I'm going to ask you, and others similarly inclined, to take a look at this website:
hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html - there are some fairly well substantiated criticisms of Bowling there - and the contention is that Moore has done what he has done to "intentionally deceive" viewers.
Since we're both Canadian, I'm going to paste here just one paragraph from that site which you and I can readily confirm, to make the point. Hardy has dozens of similar instances pointing out how Moore has lied, misled or deceived viewers, most of course US based.

"Even the Canadian government is jumping in. Bowling shows Moore casually buying ammunition at an Ontario Walmart. He asks us to "look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart." He buys several boxes of ammunition without a question being raised. "That's right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada."
Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal: Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper identification. Since Jan. 1, 2001, it has required non-Canadians to present a firearms borrowing or importation license, too. (Bowling appears to have been filmed in mid and late 2001).

More accurately, the purchase of ammunition by Canadians requires a FAC - Firearms Acquisition Certificate - and that requires taking a gun course and a police check. You can't, as Moore contends, just walk into a store and buy ammo. Moore has lied outright here and, according to Hardy, that's what Bowling is all about.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/1/2007 2:38:54 PM
Here is the actual scene in Bowling, from the script.


In fact, despite all their tough gun laws,
take a look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do
at the local Canadian Wal-Mart.

- Where's the ammunition at?
- Where's the ammunition?
- Yeah.
- Back here.
- What kind are you looking for?
- You know, like, bullets.
That's right.
I could buy as much live ammunition as I wanted to in Canada.
You take American?

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/b/
bowling-for-columbine-script-transcript.html


He does state that Canada has tough gun laws, if he was trying to mislead the viewer in this scene, that would be stupid to admit before hand.

His point, in context, is correct. We have access to ammunition and weapons (even including Glocks) without much problem. Anyone with a clean record and no problems can be as heavily armed as any American can be - almost.

That's the point he is trying to make in this scene, and he's totally right.

Also I would assume since Americans ARE allowed to bring firearms into Canada (with proper permits) for hunting, there may be a way for them to buy ammo with those permits.

I'll have to research that side, I don't honestly know the anwser.

Being a foreigner would not preclude Moore from having a PAL.


There is no way that you can legally enter Canada with a prohibited firearm. This likely includes your concealed carry pistol. Canadian Customs will be looking for it. Leave it at home.

You can't enter Canada with a restricted firearm unless you have an Authorization to Transport. If you have a handgun that is not prohibited, then it is restricted; if you don't have an Authorization to Transport (which you need to obtain well in advance) you can't bring it in. Leave it at home.

Even if you have an Authorization to Transport for a restricted firearm, you can't carry it unless you also have an Authorization to Carry which is almost impossible to get. In general, forget about carrying a sidearm while in Canada.

Make certain that you are in complete compliance with the transport regulations.

You definitely will be pulled aside for inspection when you show up at the border with handguns, and probably will be pulled aside even if you only have long guns.

You'll probably also be subject to a vehicle search. It won't be a big deal unless you fail the attitude test or try to pull a fast one. They've never gone as far as taking my vehicle apart, but I once cooled my heels for the better part of an hour and on two other occasions was held up for over a half hour. I wasn't worried, as I had made a complete declaration and I knew that their search would show so. The way I look at it: I expect to be delayed and my stuff thoroughly rummaged, and I am pleasantly surprised when it doesn't happen.

Actually, it can be fun if you're a PAL holder. Canadian Customs is disappointed that they don't get to collect the fee from you. US Customs is disappointed that they don't get ahold of a Non-Resident Firearms Declaration. Either way, they are surprised. It's particularly entertaining when the Canadian Customs agent is one of the summer kids. Fortunately, they'll quickly call over a full-timer who knows what to do.

If you don't have a PAL and registration certificate, you'll have to fill out the Non-Resident Firearms Declaration form and pay the fee. If you have restricted firearms, they'll check your ATT, and will also inspect your handguns to make sure that you have them in a locked box with a trigger lock.

Assuming that all your paperwork is in order (especially the ATT if you have handguns), you are in compliance with the transport regulations, and you don't rise to being baited, you'll be passed through the border without excessive difficulty. You probably will be delayed, especially if you have handguns. I've never been delayed more than an hour. Plan for it. Patience and a sense of humor helps.

Non-residents can import up to 200 rounds duty-free; this limit is raised to 1500 rounds duty-free for use at a competition. To negotiate the import of larger amount of ammunition, contact the Exposives Regulatory Division of Natural Resources Canada at +1 (613) 943-0206.

If you have a PAL, you can readily purchase ammunition in Canada, although prices are slightly higher than in the US.

http://www.panda.com/canadaguns/#border


Again, I would assume that having a valid weapon permit may allow Americans to somehow buy ammo for it. Don't quote me....yet.

Since Moore never says that he doesn't have the PAL required, it's not really a lie.


Visitors to Canada will not be able to buy ammunition without a firearms licence or a confirmed declaration, or a temporary borrowers' licence.

http://www.firearmstraining.ca/american.html
 designingwoman
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 23
view profile
History
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/1/2007 4:37:27 PM
Michael Moore does thorough research for his books and films, and his sources are readily available on his web site.

I think Dan Rather was right to try to get to the bottom of the AWOL story.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/1/2007 5:20:38 PM
Concerning the Killian documents again:


It was the first public allegation that CBS News used forged memos in its report questioning President Bush's National Guard service — a highly technical explanation posted within hours of airtime citing proportional spacing and font styles.

But it did not come from an expert in typography or typewriter history as some first thought. Instead, it was the work of Harry MacDougald, an Atlanta lawyer with strong ties to conservative Republican causes and who helped draft the petition urging the Arkansas Supreme Court to disbar President Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Los Angeles Times has found.

The identity of "Buckhead," a blogger known previously only by his screen name on the Web site freerepublic.com and lifted to folk-hero status in the conservative blogosphere since last week's posting, is likely to fuel speculation among Democrats that the efforts to discredit the CBS memos were engineered by Republicans eager to undermine reports that Bush received preferential treatment in the National Guard more than 30 years ago.

Until he was identified by piecing together information from his postings over the past two years, MacDougald had taken pains to remain in the shadows — saying the credit for challenging CBS should remain with the blogosphere as a whole and not one individual.

MacDougald is a lawyer in the Atlanta office of the Winston-Salem, N.C.-based firm Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice and is affiliated with two prominent conservative legal groups, the Federalist Society and the Southeastern Legal Foundation, where he serves on the legal-advisory board.

Founded in 1976, the Southeastern Legal Foundation advocates "limited government, individual economic freedom, and the free enterprise system," according to its Web site.

MacDougald helped draft the foundation's petition in 1998 that led to the five-year suspension of Clinton's Arkansas law license for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones sexual-harassment case.

Operating as "Buckhead," also the name of an upscale Atlanta neighborhood, MacDougald wrote that the CBS memos presented as being written in the early 1970s by the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian were "in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman."

"The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software and personal computers," MacDougald wrote on the freerepublic Web site. "They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used monospaced fonts.

"I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old. This should be pursued aggressively."

The Sept. 8 late-night posting — written less than four hours after the CBS report was aired — resulted in a flurry of sympathetic testimonials from fellow bloggers. Major newspapers began consulting forensic experts and reporting stories that raised similar questions the next day.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002039080_buckhead18.html


Four hours after the show aired, and with incredible accuracy (especially based on the limited resolution of a TV screen) , we have someone with an intimate knowledge of it's details (almost at a level of a forensic document expert) commenting on all it's errors.

Given the fact that those documents magically appeared almost before the limit for doing the story was over (causing Rather to rush forward, as one that knew that chance of him falling for it might easily assume), that they have this strange connection (in the first shot fired against Rather) to someone who is a strong political opponent, with direct ties to the extreme right, and this critique (and a VERY accurate one) comes from someone who certainly isn't any forensic document specialist - all this leads me to believe Dan bought the story hook line and sinker.....

As was the plan, all along.
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 25
Michael Moore - not quite the truth....
Posted: 11/1/2007 5:44:06 PM
Unicycyle - a Disney film hardly is in the same league - you're going to have to look further than that. As for overdramatization - that's not the point either - we're discussing outright lies here, to use your phrase. In the Times article I quoted, he is essentially accused of lying about the British hospital and the NHS (National Health Service) which he so lauds in 'sicko'. And he's accused by people who would know. I say that is indefensible, if what you are purporting to do is to present a documentary - which by definition is supposed to be apolitical and truthful.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Michael Moore - not quite the truth....