# Some people's intellects are not static



## rJames (Apr 1, 2008)

Mamet has indeed gone to the conservative side.

His article is full of misdirection, just like we have from the spinners on either side of the aisle.

The reason why our country is in such a mess; trillions (s?) of war debt and a failing economy is that our leaders are not CENTERED. (nor are they conservative but as this article so adamantly points out..."greedy, lustful, duplicitous, corrupt, inspired—in short, human"

At the top of the article he quotes John Maynard Keynes as if stating his thesis , "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"

And yet, he goes on to say that the state of the country has remained the same, 

"that we are not and never have been the villains that some of the world and some of our citizens make us out to be, but that we are a confection of normal (greedy, lustful, duplicitous, corrupt, inspired—in short, human) individuals living under a spectacularly effective compact called the Constitution, and lucky to get it." 

but that he has changed his mind about what it all means. 

"I began to question what I actually thought and found that I do not think that people are basically good at heart; indeed, that view of human nature has both prompted and informed my writing for the last 40 years. I think that people, in circumstances of stress, can behave like swine, and that this, indeed, is not only a fit subject, but the only subject, of drama."

Then he states, as an analogy, why liberals should change their minds, a story about how Norman Mailer reviewed a play without seeing it. (I assume he is alluding to the well-known fact that liberals don't actually use facts and personal observations to make informed decisions)

Mamet gives us objective insight into his play, "The play, while being a laugh a minute, is, when it's at home, a disputation between reason and faith, or perhaps between the conservative (or tragic) view and the liberal (or perfectionist) view."

And then to Mamet's idea of how "brain-dead liberals" (a label he lovingly gave to himself as he lived his deluded years)..."And, I wondered, how could I have spent decades thinking that I thought everything was always wrong at the same time that I thought I thought that people were basically good at heart?

Ah, so that's what liberals think, that everything is always wrong AND that people are basically good.

Finally, we can see proof that great writers are also great thinkers.

I can see why conservatives hate liberals. Conservatives have discovered the correct facts and liberals have not.

This coming from a guy who grew up poor (and liberal)(in the story it mentions being brought up by a grandmother who was,"penniless and ignorant of English," and is now a wealthy writer (and conservative).

Go figure!

I hate it when people try to prove their point by sending us out onto the internet to show us that someone famous believes like they do.

I'm not a conservative. I'm not a liberal. I'm in the middle. Always have been, always will be.

Yes, I read the article and I am not poor (and I am not a liberal).


----------



## synthetic (Apr 1, 2008)

Great essay


----------



## rJames (Apr 1, 2008)

April Fools! :shock:


----------



## Scott Rogers (Apr 1, 2008)

..........


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 1, 2008)

I can't speak for Ron, Scott, but when I say I am a Centrist it is usually to point out that whatever conclusion I have reached was by my examination of the facts and not driven by a consistent ideology. It allows me to see Anne Coulter and Michael Moore equally as wack jobs and equally as damaging to society. It allows me to disagree with Bush, but not hate him. it allows me to agree with Bill Clinton and admire him, while deploring his inability to remain faithful to the woman he supposedly loves. It allows me to admire John McCain and agree with him on many issues while knowing I cannot vote for him because of what I believe he will do to the Supreme Court. It allows me to be afraid that the Democrats will lose the election again by giving the party back to the Deaniac crowd that cost them too many presidential elections already because they still do not realize that America is a centrist country.

It also allows me to respect and enjoy the company of people who do not have much politically in common except that they both think I am wrong  

The fact that Mamet has changed his views IMHO does not mean that his intellect has not remained static, it only means that he has changed his views. If a person for instance swings from the far Left to the far Right, in my mind his intellect IS static. If he has gone from extreme to extròE‚   uÐòE‚   uÐóE‚   uÐôE‚   uÐõE‚   uÐöE‚   uÐ÷E‚   uÐøE‚   uÐùE‚   uÐúE‚   uÐûE‚   uÐüE‚   uÐýE‚   uÐþE‚   uÐÿE‚   uÑ E‚   uÑE‚   uÑE‚   uÑE‚   uÑE‚   uÑE‚   uÑE‚   uÑE‚   uÑE‚   uÑ	E‚   uÑ
E‚   uÑE‚   uÑE‚


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2008)

"It allows me to see Anne Coulter and Michael Moore equally as wack jobs and equally as damaging to society"

That's a perfect example of centrist ideology leading you down the wrong road. Michael Moore produces excellent, thought-provoking documentaries that unfortunately are flawed by his leaving out some facts and being wrong about others. But when it comes to the big picture he's been absolutely right every time.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" exaggerated the Bush family's ties to the Saudis (although Prince Bandar was great friends with George Sr.), and the pictures of happy Iraqi kids playing soccer in the sun were just a little bit OTT. But his overall points are spot on, and it was a well made film.

"Roger and Me" was a pretty hard-hitting indictment of what was going on in Michigan at the time, no? "Bowling for Columbine" made a valid case for our armed-to-the-teeth society being violent because we're all living in carefully cultivated fear.

I think he's very good. And it's unfortunate that he lacks the discipline to avoid the temptation to exaggerate and dramatize the truth, because it allows conservatives to smear everything he says.

Anne Coulter on the other hand is a total zero who says stupid stuff just to attract attention. It's absurd that anyone pays the least bit of attention to her, because she has nothing to offer.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2008)

"If you haven't noticed, there are extremely good and intelligent people both conservative and liberal."

I have noticed, but the fact that there are two contradictory arguments put forward by equally intelligent and good people doesn't mean that both of them are equally right. Some issues are a matter of opinion, as I've posted many times before, others are not.


----------



## rJames (Apr 1, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Apr 01 said:


> "If you haven't noticed, there are extremely good and intelligent people both conservative and liberal."
> 
> I have noticed, but the fact that there are two contradictory arguments put forward by equally intelligent and good people doesn't mean that both of them are equally right. Some issues are a matter of opinion, as I've posted many times before, others are not.



That's your opinion!

But if they are nice, doesn't it mean they're right? What if they are attractive?

OK, here's a tough one...what if they come from your hometown? Then we vote for them, right?


----------



## Scott Rogers (Apr 1, 2008)

..........


----------



## rJames (Apr 1, 2008)

The problem, Scott, is that the pendulum always swings too far. I was reading the McCain thread and wanted to say that I too believed that Americans are stupid.

Truth is, most people DO vote for a reason other than knowledge of the candidates.

The party elite (on both sides) want someone electable. So we get George Bush Jr. or Hillary Clinton (the names are recognizable and have an air of experience about them). I'm sure they're both good people, Nick! And maybe Hillary has the most experience, Jay. But I can't believe that the woman who is most ready to be president of the United States just happens to be the wife of a former president. It smacks of "electability."

So, the democrats will do too much damage, Scott. It is inevitable just as the republicans before them.

Here's one thing "centrist" means to me. If you have a republican president, vote for a democratic congress. If you have a democratic president, vote for a republican congress. But since we've had republican president and congress for quite a while, we are in for a democratic ride. Buckle your seat belt.

It takes serendipity for the US to have a great (even a good) leader.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2008)

I actually agree with many if not most of your opinions, Scott, although certainly not all of them as you know. My main disagreement is that I believe we need forward thinking leadership - especially now that the earth is facing ecological collapse - while I think you basically don't trust government and want it to do as little as possible.



> What if they are attractive?



Then I'm too busy panting and being lecherous to care. What did you think?!


----------



## Scott Rogers (Apr 1, 2008)

..........


----------



## Scott Rogers (Apr 1, 2008)

..........


----------



## Scott Rogers (Apr 1, 2008)

..........


----------



## rJames (Apr 1, 2008)

You know I don't think you're an SOB. At least I'm telling you now. I know you're intelligent and thoughtful. 

I do think you (like 90% of the population) overrate your ability to be objectively correct because you've studied a matter closely. Lots of people study and come to different conclusions. Its a fact of life.

As I said, intelligent people disagree.

And what you say on these forums has helped at least one.

I'd rather think of myself as one of those who can disagree and then go have a beer and remain friends.

The internet is not the place to have thoughtful conversation.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2008)

"The first thing I do is open it up to his picture and gaze at his Mona Lisa smile"

hahahaha

That never occurred to me.

So the mystery is solved. Now I know what she was thinking...


----------



## ComposerDude (Apr 1, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Tue Apr 01 said:


> I don't have any inclinations to discuss musical matters here anymore. It never did any good in the first place - which is fine by me.



Sorry to re-inflate your burst balloon, Scott, but I've enjoyed virtually every one of your musical posts over the years and found them very educational and helpful. Thank you.

-Peter


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 1, 2008)

I was just thinking, if Brady and Houston Haynes had a love child...


----------



## Scott Rogers (Apr 1, 2008)

..........


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 1, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Apr 01 said:


> "It allows me to see Anne Coulter and Michael Moore equally as wack jobs and equally as damaging to society"
> 
> That's a perfect example of centrist ideology leading you down the wrong road. Michael Moore produces excellent, thought-provoking documentaries that unfortunately are flawed by his leaving out some facts and being wrong about others. But when it comes to the big picture he's been absolutely right every time.
> 
> ...



I am sorry Nick but lies in service of a "good" cause are just as pernicious as lies in the service of a cause you deem not to be. Moore is a big, fat, lying sack of shit and what he did to Heston was character assassination both by omission and commission, worthy of Leni Riefenstahl.


----------



## blue (Apr 2, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Apr 01 said:


> And it's unfortunate that he lacks the discipline to avoid the temptation to exaggerate and dramatize the truth, because it allows conservatives to smear everything he says.



And yet he keeps on doing it. "Fool me once…"

The thing that bugs me about Moore is he seems to care less about informing the public than he does about busting people. It seems vindictive, personal. I admire his persistence and courage, but his delivery and approach kill the message and make it too easy to shoot down. If he put the message first, he would have gotten that by now. One would hope.

Sadly, I think people like Moore exist in the vacuum of vacant investigative journalism. It's almost like you have to be a clown to get anyone's attention anymore. Coulter? Clown doesn't cover it.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 2, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Tue Apr 01 said:


> Bruce Richardson said:
> 
> 
> > I was just thinking, if Brady and Houston Haynes had a love child...
> ...



Only when I have your mom over.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Apr 2, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Tue Apr 01 said:


> I don't have any inclinations to discuss musical matters here anymore. It never did any good in the first place - which is fine by me.



Wow Scott - I've always appreciated your input especially on musical matters. Your scoring work for the custom library project was really well done. Therefore I beg to differ that your input on musical matters never did any good because it did.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 2, 2008)

"I am sorry Nick but lies in service of a "good" cause are just as pernicious as lies in the service of a cause you deem not to be. Moore is a big, fat, lying sack of [email protected]#t and what he did to Heston was character assassination both by omission and commission, worthy of Leni Riefenstahl."

Way overstated in my opinion, and I repeat that it's not fair to mention Michael Moore and Anne Coulter in the same breath. And while I haven't met him personally, Heston does appear to be a big rifle-as-penis asshole, so his character was probably fertile ground for an assault.

But then I really don't like guns - and not because I'm liberal, but because it was part of my mom's credo when I was a little boy. This was in the context of her having escaped Nazi Germany (with my uncle and grandparents, thank goodness); they'd seen enough violence to last them a little while.

Which brings us back to Leni Riefenstahl. Are you really going to tell me that exaggerations in a Moore documentary are worthy of Nazi propaganda? To me there's a slight difference between informing people about misdeeds by our goverment, violence in our society, or advocating healthcare reform and making propaganda films that support the murder of millions of human beings.

But you're a centrist...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 2, 2008)

"Only when I have your mom over."

Yo bald-headed no-panny granny...


----------



## ComposerDude (Apr 2, 2008)

Frederick Russ @ Wed Apr 02 said:


> Scott Rogers @ Tue Apr 01 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have any inclinations to discuss musical matters here anymore. It never did any good in the first place - which is fine by me.
> ...



Didn't want to mention the custom library until our Fearless Leader brought it up, but...+1: Scott prepared literally hundreds of flawless cues. Totally professional. Great to work with.

Now back to my popcorn...


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 2, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Apr 02 said:


> "I am sorry Nick but lies in service of a "good" cause are just as pernicious as lies in the service of a cause you deem not to be. Moore is a big, fat, lying sack of [email protected]#t and what he did to Heston was character assassination both by omission and commission, worthy of Leni Riefenstahl."
> 
> Way overstated in my opinion, and I repeat that it's not fair to mention Michael Moore and Anne Coulter in the same breath. And while I haven't met him personally, Heston does appear to be a big rifle-as-penis asshole, so his character was probably fertile ground for an assault.
> 
> ...



Lying is lying. Moore does not "exaggerate", he deliberately distorts and misleads his audience. When you piece together events that occurred in a specific time frame into a much more condensed time frame to make it appear that you are showing an event as it went down, that is not "exaggeration, it is a lie.

A propaganda film pushing a good cause versus the Nazis, is in some ways even worse because you are damaging the credibility of something good whereas the other has no credibility among people of good will to damage.

Anne Coulter lies and distorts, big time. Michael Moore lies and distorts, big time. The fact that you agree with one's agenda while disagreeing with the others is irrelevant. You should be strongly condemning both.

I ti someone's quote, I do not remember whose, that the proof of integrity is the willingness to condemn those who are on your side when they do the wrong thing.

You condemn Moore with a wink and that is not worthy of you.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 2, 2008)

"Anne Coulter lies and distorts, big time. Michael Moore lies and distorts, big time"

And they both have four appendages. The comparison doesn't go much farther than that.

Jay, I don't feel that Michael Moore is deliberately lying, I think he's intellectually lazy. That's why I don't *condemn* him for it, I just don't like it.

But the fact that I agree with him by and large is very relevant. It looks to me like he was single-handedly responsible for bringing healthcare reform up as an election issue.

And the size of the lies is also very relevant. It's one thing to make Charleton Heston look like a bigger asshole than he really is, and it's quite another to help convince a people that murdering millions of Jews and other undesirables is very lovely.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 2, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Apr 02 said:


> "Anne Coulter lies and distorts, big time. Michael Moore lies and distorts, big time"
> 
> And they both have four appendages. The comparison doesn't go much farther than that.
> 
> ...


Two final points:

1. Hillary made health care an issue long before Moore got involved and it would have been had he never made his "documentary." 
2. Fine, so his lies are not as bad as the Nazi propagandist but they are as bad as Coulter's.

I suspect you do not mind lies, or exaggerations as you like to call them, very much if they serve a purpose you agree with. And that kind of mindset is what leads to the mess the Bush Administration got us into.


----------



## blue (Apr 2, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Apr 02 said:


> And they both have four appendages.



I'm pretty sure Coulter has one more.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 2, 2008)

"I suspect you do not mind lies, or exaggerations as you like to call them, very much if they serve a purpose you agree with."

Your suspicion is wrong! But they don't mean that everything else Michael Moore is saying isn't true.

Hillary made healthcare an issue when she was First Lady, but are you sure it was a campaign issue before his "documentary?" (Besides, what were the horrible lies in Sicko?)

And what horrible lies did Michael Moore tell that are so upsetting?


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 2, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Apr 02 said:


> "I suspect you do not mind lies, or exaggerations as you like to call them, very much if they serve a purpose you agree with."
> 
> Your suspicion is wrong! But they don't mean that everything else Michael Moore is saying isn't true.
> 
> ...



Yes. I am sure it was.

There are entire websites devoted to this if you are interested.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 2, 2008)

"There are entire websites devoted to this if you are interested"

www.Annecoulter.com is probably one of them...


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 3, 2008)

I see arguments that try to negate Michael Moore's films all the time.

They're not fair. He's a film maker, not a professor. Political documentaries exist to provoke, and to put forward a strong point of view. In some cases, they exist to distort for the purpose of forcing a conversation.

If the criteria for a good political documentary were "fair and balanced," then all political documentaries would sound like college telecourses, and would be classified as sleep aids.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 3, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Thu Apr 03 said:


> I see arguments that try to negate Michael Moore's films all the time.
> 
> They're not fair. He's a film maker, not a professor. Political documentaries exist to provoke, and to put forward a strong point of view. In some cases, they exist to distort for the purpose of forcing a conversation.
> 
> If the criteria for a good political documentary were "fair and balanced," then all political documentaries would sound like college telecourses, and would be classified as sleep aids.



Bruce, Moore claims he makes documentaries. He won an Academy Award for Best Documentary.

By dictionary definition, a documentary is a "factual record" as opposed to a polemic, which is "a written or verbal attack on someone or something."

Moore makes polemics, not documentaries. And the only conversation I have seen Moore interested in is about how great Moore is. When Dr. Sanjay Gupta had the nerve to rather politely dispute some of the "facts" in "Sicko" on CNN, Moore rudely attacked him, called him a corporate tool, and was completely nasty.

I stand by my original statement that he is a big, fat, lying sack of shit.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 3, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Apr 02 said:


> "There are entire websites devoted to this if you are interested"
> 
> www.Annecoulter.com is probably one of them...



A skinny, lying, sack of shit.


----------



## rJames (Apr 3, 2008)

Jay, I know I am out of my area of expertise here (I don't know if I actually have one of those) because I have never seen a Moore documentary. I've probably seen the same soundbites that most have seen in newsstories and Academy Awards shows...

But I think that documentaries will always have a bias from the director. And that POV could probably be disputed.

Example Al Gore's documentary...whatever its called (haven't seen it either). It is purely factual to some and purely fantasy to others.

History itself is "recorded by the victor."


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 3, 2008)

Jay, I don't understand why you're beyond hyper about Michael Moore (or Anne Coulter for that matter, because she is inconsequential). Do you have anything against Michael Moore's larger points other than minor quibbles like an attack on Charleton Heston's cold dead character, an overstatement of the Bush/Saudi connection, or some details of healthcare?

I saw the interview with Dr. Sanjay Gupta and Michael Moore, and while I forget what they were saying, I do remember that the argument was about absolutely nothing. Those are your big fat horrendous Nazi murderous lies?! And I also remember that after it was all over, Gupta agreed with Moore other than for a couple of details! Moore didn't look good, I agree, but to go way over the top makes me think you're listening to conservative talk radio lying sacks of shit rather than reason.

That's the real outrage: 24/7 propaganda peppering the red area of this country with morons like Rush Limbaugh. And the outrage is that people with the same vote you and I have listen to these asses.

But when it comes to Moore you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater, methinks, and you're palpitating unnecessarily. And that's even more true with Anne Coulter, who is so ridiculous that it's beyond me why anyone, let alone someone like you of otherwise sound mind, would bother to pay the slightest bit of attention to her.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 3, 2008)

rJames @ Thu Apr 03 said:


> Jay, I know I am out of my area of expertise here (I don't know if I actually have one of those) because I have never seen a Moore documentary. I've probably seen the same soundbites that most have seen in newsstories and Academy Awards shows...
> 
> But I think that documentaries will always have a bias from the director. And that POV could probably be disputed.
> 
> ...



Bias is one thing, outright distortion is quite another. I have no problem with him having a point of view, I have a problem with his not being honest to make his points.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 3, 2008)

So do I and I think so does Bruce, but again: why are you SO over the top outraged by that?


----------



## rJames (Apr 3, 2008)

Nick, I'll tell you why I'm worried about Ann Coulter...because she has a national voice. You can bet that when someone is on TV, they have an audience that is gathered round waiting for advice.

As long as she is on CNN or Fox News and I never get a decent national interview, I'll worry about her.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 3, 2008)

> Example Al Gore's documentary...whatever its called (haven't seen it either). It is purely factual to some and purely fantasy to others



You should see it!

And whether the earth is warming due to man-made causes is not an issue with two equal sides that depend on the victor. It's reality to those who agree and those who think it's fantasy, and if we don't do anything about it and about eleven other worldwide issues we will face ecological collapse.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 3, 2008)

And I guess that if I'm going to worry about Rush Limbaugh I should worry about Anne Coulter too. You're right, Ron - she does have a national audience.

But why? There are millions of intelligent women who are far more attractive and entertaining than her, and who can argue conservative politics.


----------



## rJames (Apr 3, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Apr 03 said:


> But why? There are millions of intelligent women who are far more attractive and entertaining than her, and who can argue conservative politics.



Showmanship! People like over-the-top.


----------



## Moonchilde (Apr 3, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ April 3rd 2008 said:


> And I guess that if I'm going to worry about Rush Limbaugh I should worry about Anne Coulter too. You're right, Ron - she does have a national audience.
> 
> But why? There are millions of intelligent women who are far more attractive and entertaining than her, and who can argue conservative politics.



Because she has something all those women don't. An Adam's Apple.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 3, 2008)




----------



## Moonchilde (Apr 3, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ April 3rd 2008 said:


> And whether the earth is warming due to man-made causes is not an issue with two equal sides that depend on the victor. It's reality to those who agree and those who think it's fantasy, and if we don't do anything about it and about eleven other worldwide issues we will face ecological collapse.



Is there still debate about whether or not the Earth's climate has risen? I think it is mostly the magnitude of the so called problem now, isn't it? Less than 1 degree, no doubt it has risen, but I suppose the debates now are does it matter and whether or not we are the cause.


----------



## Moonchilde (Apr 3, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ April 3rd 2008 said:


>



At first glance, you can't even tell!


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 3, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Apr 03 said:


> So do I and I think so does Bruce, but again: why are you SO over the top outraged by that?



1. Because I believe in beating your opponents fairly.
2. Because I believe he damages the Democratic Party's (my party) credibility with fair minded independents.
3. Because misguided liberals like Nick approve of giving him money, praise, and awards that they would not give to someone who employs exactly the same tactics in a cause they do not agree with.

I will say this again: the proof of a person's integrity is his/her willingness to speak out against someone they agree with when it is warranted.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 3, 2008)

"Because misguided liberals like Nick approve of giving him money, praise, and awards that they would not give to someone who employs exactly the same tactics in a cause they do not agree with"

That's because:

1. I obviously have no integrity.

2. I'm totally misguided.

3. Any cause I don't agree with is wrong.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Apr 3, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Apr 03 said:


>



:lol: I think I'd rather sleep with her... (o) 

Michael Moore is far left and that's very bad! According to Fox news that is...

Seriously, i don't get all the Michael Moore bashing. I always thought it was a smear campaign organized buy the Republican party, and God knows they are good at this sort of things, but then i see the same thing here? :? Maybe it is a smear campaign and the Republican supporters are just mindlessly repeating it?... 

I love M. Moore and I'm not ashame to say it. I really believes the guy means well. I'm not saying he's perfect but i haven't seen anything extraordinary wrong about the guy. 

Go M. Moore!


----------



## Fernando Warez (Apr 3, 2008)

rJames @ Thu Apr 03 said:


> Nick, I'll tell you why I'm worried about Ann Coulter...because she has a national voice.



And you're absolutely right. The women is dangerous.


----------

