Michael Moore's Commentary on George W. Bush and the Enron Corporation

[U2live]

Got really dizzy and nauceous scrolling through that Actung, appro. name isn't it.

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
How about 20 million a week.

Compare that to the fact that 136,218,800 people listened to the radio weekly for at least 15 minutes in Spring 2001, according to Arbitron. That "20 million" amounts to approximately 6.18% of listeners. Not exactly worthy of a "king," now is it?

While I have Melon's attention...

Oh I am all ears...

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
I admitted to not making any arguments. Melon, where the FUCK is "my argument" and how does all this make me seem "not that bright"?

When you made a blanket statement that people who agree with Moore aren't that bright and don't even substantiate it with a reason is why it sounded "not that bright." I think we've argued enough over personal attacks over time, to the point that it just goes in circles and goes nowhere, so, hopefully, we can leave it at that.

If the defenders of Michael Moore, a man who is an extremist on ANYONE'S scale, can defend him without being required to add anything thoughtful to the discussion, then the detractors should have that feedom as well.

In case you haven't picked up on public opinion outside of your immediate environment, the general consensus is that Rush Limbaugh is a right-wing extremist not even worthy of listening to. Shall I now call everyone who listens to him (which does include you) an extremist and "not that bright"?

It's like the NRA supporting an established pro-gun candidate. I believe it is the normal way of politics; groups support candidates that already champion their causes.

And if the former leadership of the NRA dominated the inner circle of a president's administration and the head of the NRA starting personally crafting policy next to the Vice President, we'd have Enron. "Support" is one thing, but this has potentially gone beyond "support."

Basically, it's only bad if the contributions caused the politician to do something he wouldn't have done without the funding.

I'm not even talking about campaign funding at this point.

As an example, the suggestion that Enron's chiefs "interviewed" candidates for Administration positions is so speculative that very few others are touching it. Given that there are quite a few who in the mainstream press who desparately want to find a scandal, this seems to indicate there's NONE to find.

Bubba, Bubba, Bubba...are you trying to tell me that if the "action news" doesn't report on it, it isn't true? Our media, nowadays, is little more than broadcast tabloids and quick snippets. Much of what Moore is talking about here is what the "action news" crews consider "ancient history." It's just like Jon-Benet Ramsey and Gary Condit/Chandra Levy...still happened, but it is old news.

An example of (1)? Bush hiring people he personally knows in the oil and energy industries should be expected; presidents hire who they know and can trust, just as Clinton hired lawyer friends. Bush's handling of the energy problems in California, energy policies in general, and tax policy fall clearly under conservative ideaology. Thus, one can't point to Enron and say, "That's why he did it!"

Here's another example. California, during it's energy crisis, asks for help to stop the wholesale energy price gouging, which was selling for several times more than what it was normally worth. The Bush Administration refuses. How funny, considering Enron is in the business of wholesale energy trading. Now did the Bush Administration really not regulate the price out of true "supply and demand" concerns, or to make his pal, Kenneth Lay of Enron, happy? The "action news" won't report on this, because the California energy crisis is ancient history.

WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO BUY THAT STOCK?

I really would love to see the scenario if you had worked at Enron for twenty to thirty years and watched your $1 million pension fund fall into oblivion, helpless as you are forbidden to sell. Meanwhile, Lay runs off with over $100 million. But I guess this thing called "empathy" doesn't fit into "supply and demand" theories.

Bush would make Enron stock immediately worthless.

As it is now.

Besides, I actually believe Cheney when he says that Bush was ignorant of all this. I don't think Bush is the one running our nation anyway.

Finally, my last major complaint is that, as a writer, he's sloppy. The title of the article is "George W. in the Garden of Gethsemane", an allusion to Christ's final prayer before being turned over to the Romans. If he's making the comparison between Bush and Christ, then he's ignoring a REALLY salient part of the story of Gethsemane: Christ was falsely accused.

Well, that is a worthy criticism of Moore. In the midst of his arguments, he resorts to histrionics and partisanship. But I am not talking about that. I think you are smart enough to discern the attempts at comedics from actual factual discussion.

Michael Moore is a hateful, hateful man; his hate makes his arguments unreasonable and his prose unreadable.

That is why I dislike the man and disdain those who find him so profound.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but, likewise, I see your pal, Rush Limbaugh, as a hateful, hateful man. The difference, of course, being that you agree with your despot and I tend to agree with my own. That, Bubba, is the nature of politics. In the middle of it all, the truth never comes out.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[zonelistener]

Wow, this was fun! Can we do it again tomorrow?

Melon, I would say 6% of listeners would be high. I'm sure Mr. Stern's program is up there. And ad revenue, I doubt you can beat Mr. Stern. Wish I could actually find the numbers on the web.

Bubba - Melon's right. Limbaugh is just as bad as Moore - and the people who follow him like puppy dogs, waiting on his every word (I knew a few in college, God save them), could also be viewed as Idiots.

[Achtung Bubba]

Four things stuck out in your last post:

In no particular order...

Bubba, Bubba, Bubba...are you trying to tell me that if the "action news" doesn't report on it, it isn't true? Our media, nowadays, is little more than broadcast tabloids and quick snippets. Much of what Moore is talking about here is what the "action news" crews consider "ancient history." It's just like Jon-Benet Ramsey and Gary Condit/Chandra Levy...still happened, but it is old news.

No, but I *am* saying that enough in the media and in Congress are gunning after Bush that the mainstream media is covering the biggest stories in this so-called scandal.

And I can say this because I remember Clinton protraying the Republican Congress as wanting to starve children and kill senior citizens - and he WASN'T nailed for what was clearly bullshit.

(Oh, I know, Melon. We DO want to kill old folks, right? We're also homophobes and racists who want nothing more than seeing the little guy in the world bled dry. Did that cover all the stereotypes?)


Here's another example. California, during it's energy crisis, asks for help to stop the wholesale energy price gouging, which was selling for several times more than what it was normally worth. The Bush Administration refuses. How funny, considering Enron is in the business of wholesale energy trading. Now did the Bush Administration really not regulate the price out of true "supply and demand" concerns, or to make his pal, Kenneth Lay of Enron, happy? The "action news" won't report on this, because the California energy crisis is ancient history.

The question is, would Bush be doing this if it weren't for the Enron contributions? If so, it's further evidence that the contributions don't matter, and there is no scandal.

You can certainly dispute whether the policy is good, but that's beyond the scope of the seemingly brilliant Moore article.

(By the way, it's not really an article, is it? I mean, he wrote it, sure. But is ANYBODY on God's green Earth publishing this? Is this thread alone doubling or tripling the number of people that give a shit about what Moore thinks?)


I really would love to see the scenario if you had worked at Enron for twenty to thirty years and watched your $1 million pension fund fall into oblivion, helpless as you are forbidden to sell. Meanwhile, Lay runs off with over $100 million. But I guess this thing called "empathy" doesn't fit into "supply and demand" theories.

No, empathy fits, just not government-funded empathy.

And it still begs the question, what should Bush have done? Reminding us of the tragedy the Enron employees have gone through brings us no closer to an answer to that question.

Or should I simply lump you in with Moore and suggest that neither of you have anything constructive to say?


Finally, I'm damn tired of the comparisons between Moore and Limbaugh. Moore is clearly more extreme, even within the liberal movement; obviously less popular, as no one apparently publishes him; and more hateful, in that I've yet to see him actually suggest any solutions to the apparent problems.

In case you haven't picked up on public opinion outside of your immediate environment, the general consensus is that Rush Limbaugh is a right-wing extremist not even worthy of listening to. Shall I now call everyone who listens to him (which does include you) an extremist and "not that bright"?

No, I haven't picked up on the "consensus".

And I don't think you have either.

Do you have any - oh, what's the word? - EVIDENCE to support your claim?

Yes? No?

Care to retract your claim?

[hotasahandbag]

dano, thanks for the post. had to forward it on, priceless. to those that disagree or are offended, i have this to say: i respect and enjoy healthy debate, but when one resorts to name-calling and insults, it screams volumes about the one insulting and says nothing about the one being insulted. for that reason i rarely choose to post in these political discussions. although i have read many interesting threads, i choose not to waste my days engaged in pissing contests with total strangers. to that end-a brief word of knee jerk support----so true! lynn

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by zonelistener:
Melon, I would say 6% of listeners would be high. I'm sure Mr. Stern's program is up there. And ad revenue, I doubt you can beat Mr. Stern. Wish I could actually find the numbers on the web..

Up there? Did you miss my post covering that?

Stern: 42 stations.

Rush: SIX HUNDRED STATIONS.

There are two web sources, one being part of the Official Rush Homepage, the other a Stern fan site.

Now, Stern's clearly a New York kinda guy, and to prove it he has five stations in that state alone.

Rush has fifteen - five of which are on Stern's list. This means Stern does NOT air in a city without Rush's presence.

California, our largest state? Stern has four, Rush has FORTY, including the four on Stern's list.

TEN TIMES AS MANY.

Think about this: nine out of Sterns 42 stations are in just two states. That leaves 33 stations to be distributed among the other 48 states. Surely, quite a few states don't hear Stern at all.

And yet, Rush is heard in ten stations in Montana alone. (Wow! Rush is heard on ten stations in just Montana, and Stern is on only nine in NEW YORK and CALIFORNIA.)


Logic suggests this:

Stern might POTENTIALLY be able to draw as large a following as Rush with fewer stations, assuming that he simply DOMINATES those markets - and assuming those markets are all large markets.

But, if that were the case, if he drew big numbers whereever he was, MORE STATIONS would pick him up.

And yet, he has one-third the cities Rush has in New York and one-tenth in California.

I *think* Dr. Laura is actually the second most popular radio talk show host in the U.S., but either way, it's unavoidable: as much as you clearly love Howard Stern, his numbers pale in comparison to those of Rush.

Howard Stern is not "King of All Media" as he often professed. He's not even king of his OWN media. He's not even heir to the throne.

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by hotasahandbag:
dano, thanks for the post. had to forward it on, priceless. to those that disagree or are offended, i have this to say: i respect and enjoy healthy debate, but when one resorts to name-calling and insults, it screams volumes about the one insulting and says nothing about the one being insulted. for that reason i rarely choose to post in these political discussions. although i have read many interesting threads, i choose not to waste my days engaged in pissing contests with total strangers. to that end-a brief word of knee jerk support----so true! lynn

CLAP.

CLAP.

CLAP.

[zonelistener]

Yes Bubba - Rush wins the big "more stations" argument. Great for Rush!

And I will again state that they are probably lower-reach AM stations in smaller markets all over America. Yes, again you are correct.

Stern is in major markets on high-powered FM stations. You won't see Stern in Keokouk, IA because 1) the station probably cannot afford to have Stern in their market and 2) he too brash for many of these smaller markets.

Dr. Laura and Rush are both distributed by the same company (Premiere Radio Networks). I would not be suprised if many affiliates have a distribution agreement that says "run more than one of our programs, you get a cut on the price." Smart business - quick distribution! Makes for highly distributed programs - but does not mean superior programming (and I will NEVER argue Stern is superior programming - truly lowest common denominator stuff - Rush's stuff is more intelligent).

As for sources on the web, I was hoping to find some Arbitron stuff - not a Stern fan site and Rush's site. That would be like soley using Moore's site to argue the whole Enron thing - it's just a propaganda beast. Better example - could you possibly believe everything you read about U2 you find here?

[zonelistener]

...and Premiere Radio Networks is a subsidary of Clear Channel, which owns more radio stations than any other group in the country - so of course this "Rush" program is distributed widely throughout the states. Does that make him the "King" of the medium? No, it makes Clear Channel the "King of the Medium." He's just a pawn.

[80sU2isBest]

Michael Moore IS an idiot. And no, I don't ahve to provide my own arguments for that, when Spiral_Staircase provided soem great points on it. I defer to Spiral.
Keep up the good fight, Bubba.

[TylerDurden]

Arthur Anderson sound like the idiots. They've just been caught out here in Australia for doing funny book keeping with a really massive company that went belly up recently.

[Achtung Bubba]

Still the most popular radio talk show host ON EARTH, since you asked.

Roger and Me. Released during the first year of the elder Bush Administration: 1989. Since then, Moore had a TV show for one season, and, well, that's about it.

(Oh, and a music video for Rage Against the Machine, other malcontents feeding on the economic system they loathed; that is, before they fell apart too.)

Mr. Entertainment, Michael Moore.

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 02-01-2002).]

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
That's nice. Feel better about yourself now?

Thanks for posting the letter, Dano.

Actually, I tire from having to repeat myself.

And please don't patronize me.

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 02-01-2002).]

[Diamond The U2 Patriot]

Bubba's the man.
Melon were praying for.
Michael Moore is a predictable oppurtunist.

End of story.
Diamond

[Angela Harlem]

Originally posted by TylerDurden:
Arthur Anderson sound like the idiots. They've just been caught out here in Australia for doing funny book keeping with a really massive company that went belly up recently.

Gosh which major co. would that be I wonder?
We have so many to choose from lately!

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
as much as you clearly love Howard Stern, his numbers pale in comparison to those of Rush.

Oh my...now this statement is very disconcerting.

Your logic assumes this:

If one hates Rush Limbaugh, one must love Howard Stern.

However, did I once even imply that I loved Howard Stern? In fact, I cannot stand the guy. Any moron can resort to crass humor and cheap sex jokes. He is as predictable as Jerry Springer or those fucking stupid "Girls Gone Wild" videos. I find him to simply be a virus, whom I will only give credit for showing the weakness of government regulation in general in that it is more profitable to break the law and pay fines than to adhere to the law.

Regardless, I believe that Stern has a right to be on the air, and, even though I hate Rush Limbaugh, I will defend his right to be on the air as well.

My point of posting ratings statistics was to state the futility of proclaiming any one person the "king" of radio. You may state 20 million listeners per week for Limbaugh, but when stacked up against the 136 million per week who do listen to the radio, that statistic isn't that impressive, now is it?

I will grant you the reality that Howard Stern likely does get far less in ratings than Rush Limbaugh, but I honestly don't know why people lump those two together. They have nothing in common. Stern is not a political commentator, but a shock jock whose primary aim is to entertain.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[melon]

Originally posted by Diamond The U2 Patriot:
Michael Moore is a predictable oppurtunist.

Speaking of predictable opportunists...

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[melon]

Originally posted by zonelistener:
...and Premiere Radio Networks is a subsidary of Clear Channel, which owns more radio stations than any other group in the country - so of course this "Rush" program is distributed widely throughout the states. Does that make him the "King" of the medium? No, it makes Clear Channel the "King of the Medium." He's just a pawn.

That is another thing to put into consideration. Clear Channel (divested from SFX) owns over 1/3 of all American radio stations, much thanks to ownership deregulation in 1996. Howard Stern is owned by Infinity Broadcasting (part of CBS), which is much smaller.

But there is also the fact that AM radio, in particular, is dominated by conservative listeners.

Of course, people like Rush Limbaugh and that fake "Dr." Laura Schlessinger are going to do fantastic with that kind of listenership, especially when owned by the largest owner of radio stations in the U.S., but the statistics are misleading. Radio listenership, in general, is in severe decline, compared to three decades ago, and AM radio is near financial collapse, sustained barely by the talk radio/news format. Rush has certainly found his home in right-wing AM radio, but floundered in the more ideologically diverse television market. The same with "Dr." Laura...how long did her TV talk show last?

What a silly argument this is becoming. I think I've made my point.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[This message has been edited by melon (edited 02-02-2002).]

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by zonelistener:
Yes Bubba - Rush wins the big "more stations" argument. Great for Rush!

And I will again state that they are probably lower-reach AM stations in smaller markets all over America. Yes, again you are correct.

Stern is in major markets on high-powered FM stations. You won't see Stern in Keokouk, IA because 1) the station probably cannot afford to have Stern in their market and 2) he too brash for many of these smaller markets.

Dr. Laura and Rush are both distributed by the same company (Premiere Radio Networks). I would not be suprised if many affiliates have a distribution agreement that says "run more than one of our programs, you get a cut on the price." Smart business - quick distribution! Makes for highly distributed programs - but does not mean superior programming (and I will NEVER argue Stern is superior programming - truly lowest common denominator stuff - Rush's stuff is more intelligent).

As for sources on the web, I was hoping to find some Arbitron stuff - not a Stern fan site and Rush's site. That would be like soley using Moore's site to argue the whole Enron thing - it's just a propaganda beast. Better example - could you possibly believe everything you read about U2 you find here?

Not only does Rush win the "more stations" argument, it appears that he is in EVERY market that Stern is in.

Yes, Stern is in some "major markets". But Rush is in the same markets AND THEN SOME. It's not a question of a few large markets vs. many small markets, it's a question of a few large markets vs. those same large markets + the many small markets.

Further, I'm aware of the practice of tying shows together in deals, but that usually inflates the numbers for the LESS popular show; stations will air show X in order to show Rush, or Paul Harvey, or whatever.

Again, Stern is only in 40-odd cities; Rush is in the SAME 40 cities, plus some 560 others. It's like caparing the capacity of a drinking glass and a bathtub; your arguments may make the glass slightly bigger or the bathtub slightly smaller, but Rush sitll dominates, and I believe the stats will demonstrate that.