Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion 3265
xerid writes "I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night, and the theatre was packed & sold out for each showing. Today, I read on Michael Moore.com about the movie breaking records. However, what I haven't seen was coverage on Slashdot, about the movie's opening day." I saw the film on friday and was really impressed. But while it speaks much truth, and has many funny parts as well as truly heartbreaking ones, I don't know how many votes it will sway. But since there is very little other news so far today, why not talk amongst yourselves!
Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's get back to discussing robots and porn tech!
Dishonest (Score:2, Insightful)
Truth? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dishonest (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Dishonest (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (Score:5, Insightful)
This place is and always has been about "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters to CmdrTaco". He's always posted whatever's of interest to him. I see no reason this should be different.
Slashdot Jumps the Shark with this article (Score:1, Insightful)
Extreme views (Score:3, Insightful)
Michael Moore is an extremist. Extreme left-wing in this case, if I recall correctly. I saw Bowling for Columbine and it was a a good movie, but always, ALWAYS remember that's just ONE side of the spectrum. I'm not much at home at US politics, but I believe that Michael Moore is to left-wing/democrats what Ann Coulter is to the ring-wing/republicans. Except one is a small fat guy with beard and the other... isn't. Don't copy other people's opinions; listen to both sides of the story and make your own.
That said, I still would like to see that movie for fun. I'm no american, so american political views be damned; I just want to see the guy piss over several people!
Farenheit 911 (Score:1, Insightful)
That said,
Uh there's a reason for that (Score:1, Insightful)
*checks upperlefthand corner of webpage, notices the banner still says "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."*
I can't see how this comes even close to News for Nerds, especially the tight way it is defined on the FP of
But while it speaks much truth
There you go. Statements like that. The sort that start 400 reply flamewars and do little but pump up the ad counts on a slow Sunday. I think I'd rather have a forty count of goatse ascii art. Its understandable a reader would submit such a thing (since he considers it "interesting"). It's sad that an Editor would think this is something apropo to this site.
Truth doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
... but I'll defend to the death his right... (Score:4, Insightful)
First few comment (Score:4, Insightful)
This movie is right on. If you scratch your head and wonder why progressives and the world are against the war, watch the movie and see the other point of view. Our media coverage of the war has been very one sided and this movie points it out very clearly.
Don't brainwash yourself and say Michael Moore is this or that. Watch the movie and think for yourself.
Bends the truth (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dishonest (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I thought differently... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, if you consider every single news flash regarding, oh say, SCO, more important than a movie that I believe will make a fundamental impact on the future of how politics are played out in America, the fine, avoid this thread. But personally, I think nerds should be just as educated about how their country is run politically as well as technologically.
And besides, one of the greatest lessons to be learned from this movie (though I would have thought it would have been learned much earlier than this) is as follows: Never try and forcefully hide information from the public. The more you try and supress it, the more intreaguing it becomes and the more demand there is for it. If you really do want to hide something, try to be as discrete about it as possible.
But as soon as Disney tried to put the movie away because of benefits they've received from the Bush family, the press pounced, and Moore had a documentary that was "scandalous", and just like Clinton has proved himself, people love a scandal (and I'm sure
Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (Score:3, Insightful)
Isolationist. The world is beyond your 4 walls. Education is always valuable.
Re:Extreme views (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Don't believe what anyone tells you without going out and doing some research yourself. If what you find confirms what you are told, then and only then can you consider it as fact. I see too many people on both sides pick up quick buzz-phrases and run with them only to be made a complete fool by someone who is more informed. Do your homework.
/wow. this took 4 'Previews'... HTML is rusty
Everybody, before you post (Score:2, Insightful)
I haven't, BTW.
Re:Truth? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dishonest (Score:5, Insightful)
What's funny is I'm not sure whether you were replying to a post about gwb or it was a post on moore. That statement could pretty accurately apply to 90% of people in politics.
Cant see many votes changing (Score:3, Insightful)
What might make a difference is how the rest of the world feels about it given the closed and inaccessible nature of the current US administration.
Re: Dishonest (Score:1, Insightful)
> Regardless of his politics, the man is basically dishonest, so you are left with the task of trying to sort the bullshit from the truth.
Kinda like everyone in the Bush Administraton, who get to spin their version of things on the news every night.
Re:Extreme views (Score:3, Insightful)
AFAIK Moore don't rocks to people and is enough of a capitalist to make Oscar winning movies. And in rational thinking one don't usually think higher of a person because is a slim blonde and lower of other because is fat bearded.
My Review (Score:4, Insightful)
I got the tickets earlier today and I'm glad I did. When I got to the theater there was a line down the block for people waiting to get in. The last time I had to wait in a line outside the theater to get into a movie was when I saw Return of the Jedi in '83. So that part of it was pretty cool.
There really isn't that much new information in the movie, unless all you watch for news is the local news at 11 pm or something. There certainly wasn't any out and out lies. Some of the ways he spliced the footage together was pretty funny, but I wouldn't call it deceptive. There was nothing in the narration that was false though.
There was some stuff in the beginning about the 2000 election that was news to me, and painted Democrats in a pretty pathetic light. Plus there were some pretty extreme cases of the government going overboard in the name of homeland security, but again they were more comical than anything.
There was also some pretty surprising information about how much of our economy the Saudis are in control off. I had never seen that before either. Pretty amazing stuff.
As far as the movies rating, I can see why it would be R, but there's nothing in there that a teenager couldn't handle. I'd have no problem bringing 14 year olds and up to the movie. Anybody out there now who's thinking of enlisting might want to go see the movie. There's some footage of solders talking about there experience that's pretty sobering.
All in all I think it was one of Moore's better films. A lot better than Bowling for Columbine. It is an attack on the President. So if you're one of those types who think that we shouldn't be critical of the President during war, you'll hate it. Otherwise though, I think people will enjoy the film.
Re:Truth? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have specific issues with the facts in this film them lets hear them.
I like how Penn of Penn and Teller put it... (Score:5, Insightful)
"There will always violence and suffering in the world, and Michael Moore will always be there to make a buck off of it."
I liked Michael Moore's work in "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine" made some good points at times. I just do not agree with him on most of his views and I think his personal political conduct has been reprehensible lately. For one, he canceled an interview with Fox News at the last minute. The station is certainly conservative, but shouldn't that mean he should be big enough to stand up and take his case to the other side? Of course he couldn't use any slick editing and he wouldn't be the only one talking, so that might hurt him.
Ok, let's try to be rational (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it presents a specific point of view. It is made by a person taking into account his audience.
He uses a specific set of fact patterns. Other people use other sets of fact patterns. Be an intelligent person and try to get a wide variety of fact patterns before you decide what you will consider the most likely truth. If anyone believe that any single source is going to use an objective set of fact patterns, then that person is naive beyond any help.
And please, don't confuse the office of the President with the person holding the office. Confusing the two, and inducing confusion of the two, is the first step to a dictatorship. The former is an institution. The later is a person who was elected to guard that institution. The former is something that must be protected. The later is someone who should be willing to give his reputation and life to protect and serve. This means that criticizing the person is not treason. Sometimes that person needs to be criticized. Sometimes that person is a liar. Sometimes that person is sex addict. Sometimes, for example, that person is drug addict, and we know the TV has told us that drug addicts support terrorists.
So, no hitting below the belt. No calling people traitors for exercising constitutionally protected free speech. As we used to say, if you don't like it, go to Russia. Or, in other words, if you can't take the heat, get you wussy ass out of the kitchen. So no invoking war scenarios for a war that congress never declared. And remember, all sides are torturing humans, and everyone loves their kids equally.
Re:Uh there's a reason for that (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to disagree - that a DOCUMENTARY (admittedly an sensationalist entertainment led documentary) is opening on so many screens in intellectual backwater that is mainstream US multiplex is pretty damn good news for the nerdy populace!
This is a fact / interpretation of facts based movie, with a relatively minor distributor, beating 'the man' to an extent by even being released.
If some shit Mangaporn going to DVD is news, then Im sure as hell that a major documentary opening is. That said - if the
Re:Extreme views (Score:5, Insightful)
On a political scale within the United States, although it may not appear that way to American Citizens, all parties are on the far right as compared with other nations.
We Canadians have a Liberal Government, literally named, far beyond the left Americans consider acceptable in their political campgains, etc... yet, we have an extreme leftist party called the NDP -- it's a matter of perspective.
I think that Michael Moore takes his own reality, and the facts to back it up to make his point... it's not to say that he fabricates anything, but it's all about how the information is presented, and in his case... 'left-wing' for Americans. Like any editorial, documentary, etc, it's all about how the viewer perceives the information.
There's one thing Slashdotters can agreed on (Score:1, Insightful)
Unfair arguments WORK. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why true freedom of speech on all levels - even when it comes to one-sided or unfair arguments is also necissary for any level of political freedom.
Why? Because innevitably, any form of censorship about non-violence-inciting words will be enforced selectively by the side that controls the enforcement arm. French censorship is not going to arrest people who use words against the non-French, but will use censorship against someone saying something sufficiently controversial about the current leadership, if the issue is a sore one, ESPECIALLY if the statement may be true, but in dispute.
Unfair arguments usually come in the form of someone presuming something, then picking and choosing facts and observations based on how they can "prove" their point. They are used with almost all subjects, in all cultures. For instance, believers in alien abductions surround themselves with many levels of unverifiable and unfair arguments about how people should believe in aliens who choose to abduct people.
Many forms of humor are entirely composed of people making unfair arguments, with a glint in their eye. It's often very surprising and amusing the way different people can connect the things they see, and how that can show the biases they have.
If the audience is small, then unfair arguments can usually be effectively countered by showing WHY the argument is unfair from other perspectives - but even then, many people will still staunchly believe in the validity of known unfair arguments, and will dismiss all other perspectives as "leaving unknowns" - implying that only the unfair argument can fill in the blanks.
When the audience is larger, unfair arguments will be just a part of the environment. Jokes and tenative arguments will form in conversations, and there will not be a chance to counter all of them all the time. Unfortunately, those with the best unfair arguments can usually pull out win on a topic by sheer weight of their unfair arguments. That's why Rush Limbaugh can change the outcome of elections, why every company has their sneaky gossip, etc. Logic alone cannot change this about our cultures.
That's part of why I'm glad that the left in America is finally fighting back. Not because I like their unfair arguments - but I do like the humor, and I realise that it IS necissary. Lead by commedians, the left is unmasking their rhetoric - and they are loosing unfair arguments because there really are not any other ways to combat them anymore.
And it's definetly fun watching both sides try to hoodwink eachother with sneaky arguments. It's like watching a pickpocketing competition between two skilled theives and one rich man with a monacle. Funny and more funny at every step.
Usually, the political parties have thier muckracking organizations separate from their party at large. But now, unfair arguments are so effective and needed by both sides, that the distinction is gone.
And for those of you who are "disgusted" with the left's arguments now - welcome to the world that Rush created. The genie ain't going back. Hopefully the media itself will learn to distinguish fair and unfair arugments better than the CNN/Fox News split we have now, and we'll have a better arguing environment after everything. Until then, get used to the administration being called the equivanent of baby-killers using their own words.
In other words - thanks, Michael!
Ryan Fenton
Re:Extreme views (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent is an Idiot. (Score:5, Insightful)
The film is classified as a documentary. Who sees documentaries, kids? No. Nerds do.
Re:Moore's history of dishonesty (Score:5, Insightful)
Like it or not though, many people are just not intellectually up to the challenge of dealing with Cato Institute, or any of the other instruments of social introspection that may allow commoners to understand the issues with the American coup d'etat currently under way.
Michael Moore is a pop-culture 'documentarist'/'entertainer'. If you want to wake up the masses, don't give them countless reams of reports and articles to attempt to wade through. Save that for the courts.
Remember, America is not the most literate nation on Earth.
Many peoples literary skills stop at the ability to change the channel whenever they see something on TV they don't understand.
While it may be 'popular' to counter the Michael Moore marketing machine with elite intellectual discourse on the condition of the American Empire, most MTV-riddled minds are not up to the task. They just aren't. 50 years of Television programming have brainwashed the American public beyond caring about it if they can't understand it.
Michael Moores' delivery methods serve a very key, very important, very significant demographic.
A very, very important demographic: those who are unable, or unwilling, to peer behind the curtain and try and work out what is going on with their society, while those who are intellectually, corporately, and politically able, engage in nefarious deeds.
Michael Moore, for all his failings (and yes, he does have quite a few), will get to the common man
If you truly believe that an understanding of the nature of the conspiracy against American society is important, you won't discount the actual value of Moore's level of work.
It is just as vital to reach the proles as it is the intellectuals...
Re: Dishonest (Score:1, Insightful)
No suprise (Score:1, Insightful)
F911 and technology (Score:4, Insightful)
Another thing to think about is that while Clinton (whom Moore dislikes just as much as he did Bush) presided over the greatest technology growth in our history, W. seems indifferent to fostering the industry as all of those jobs we used to have float to India.
Just some food for fodder.
Re:First few comment (Score:1, Insightful)
I agree.
People bashing Moore and his film are no different than Khomeini of Iran when he banned the book "Satanic Versus" and then ordered the death of its author Salman Rushdi. People all over the ME agreed with the ban and the death sentence without reading the book.
The topics differed but the approach is the same.
We are dealing with a pro-bush group with the same principles as the some of the worst Fan*tics/Terr*rists ever.
Re:Truth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
co-opted ? (Score:1, Insightful)
I like a heated political debate with the un-informed-and-ignorant-left as well as the next bright-well-informed person...
But Slashdot is not really the place for this.
Slashdot is turning me off more and more these days. I find myself drifting towards fewer and fewer articles and it seems the quality and usefulness or postings is dropping.
Don't encourage this departure from Slashdot's original focus. There are plenty of forums for the uninformed to blather at each other... please don't make this one.
This article should be pulled and someone should start rethinking the editorial policies.
Re:First few comment (Score:5, Insightful)
Well of course it was (and as you said he showed specific quotes of reporters saying, "well yes of course I am biased.") because if they weren't biased they would be boycotted, they would have conservative groups trying to get them expelled from TV, they would be labelled un-American by the president and his staff, and they would probably lose a portion of their viewership to channels that were pro-war.
As far as Michael Moore being this or that... I don't think of that at all. I think of the MOVIE being this or that. Bowling for Columbine was a much better movie than this one. I found this one to be "ok". It certainly didn't show me anything that I didn't know already (and it shouldn't if you are an American with half a brain and you watch/read the news for yourself).
The second half of the movie was not good. It was almost as if he ran out of stuff to rant about and decided to half rally behind the troops overseas. It was poorly done and nearly bored me to sleep (I saw the 12:01am showing on Friday morning).
On a personal note: I don't think it deserves the media attention, the conservative's attention, and I certainly don't believe it deserved multiple standing ovations (LA, NY, Cannes, etc).
We have a free market of ideas in this country... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bias exists in many shapes and forms. Twisting ideas into idealogical talking points is just one, but the most popular (and most people don't even realize it) is leaving out any thing that's true that supports the opposite claim. For instance, Michael Moore has consistently insisted that at least a significant portion of his film is satire and not meant to be taken seriously, but he won't tell us which parts or what makes them untrue. Meanwhile, there are supposedly "intelligent" people in this forum posting comments about how "true" the movie is when they obviously have little to know real knowledge of what comes across the desks and goes through the minds of either Moore or the president.
It doesn't matter which side of the fence any of these people are on. What makes me sick is their incessant whining about rights and truths when neither group understands what they are.
Real research? (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything and anything is always black or white.
There is never anything that even remotely resembles honest exchange of ideas on the Senate or House floors, never mind the White House, because things are run through majority politics.
If Republicans rule, they steamroll their ideology down everyone's throat at all costs. If democrats rule, they'll do the same.
The same polarity on political issues is so prelevant on all mass media that you just can not get any independent research on any issues from any source, foreign sources excluded (BBC tends to be kinda ok, most of the time).
While we are on this subject, I find it extremely dishonest of George W. Bush to have claimed in his election campaign that he would unite the American people. The damn fool has done no such thing. Americans are more divided now than ever.
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Truth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, it's obvious that F9/11 is not a balanced documentary, in fact it doesn't even claim to be. It is a film with a very specific agenda, that is to make Bush loose the elections. In that regard it is more of an op-ed piece than a documentary. However, Moore claims that all the facts presented in the movie were double checked and he's ready to stand by them even in court if necessary.
Holocaust revisionists can make the same claim (Score:5, Insightful)
Just leave out relevant facts,take things out of context and contiuosly draw an opinion not supporeted by the facts you have presented.
Moore lies as much as anyone (Score:1, Insightful)
Your contention that the film "speaks much truth" is as absurd as claiming Fox News is fair and balanced.
You can read some of Moore's distortions from here
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
And by the way Chris Hitchens is *anything* but a right winger.
Re:Dishonest (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that in dealing with social events, presenting events with no spin at all makes the report virtually worthless. Take these hoary old examples:
1) 10 men killed 100 men.
2) 10 patriots successfully defeated a horde of barbarous invaders, killing 100 of them.
3) We regret to report that 100 freedom fighters were killed by government thugs today. 10 members of the government's death squad brutally murdered 100 loyalists.
All three of those statements are true and they all describe the same event. But the most purely objective tells us nothing about what really happened.
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which benefits are those? The only special treatment Disney's received (that I'm aware of) is the absurd copyright protections, and that had nothing to do with Bush -- it was Congress under Clinton, and later the Supreme Court.
Re:Won't change any minds... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, in a democracy, you get votes by giving people money. Isn't that why the Democrats were successful for so many years? Aren't all those social programs simply ways to buy votes?
Re:Truth? (Score:2, Insightful)
I have an issue with the film.
How does he happen to have so much good interview footage with a woman from his hometown whose son happened to die in Iraq... before he died.
Did Moore interview a ton of people and just got ahem.. lucky, or were the earlier interviews staged after the fact?
He should have handled that differently. It makes me wonder what else in the movie was staged to meet his needs.
Re:We have a free market of ideas in this country. (Score:5, Insightful)
"For instance, Michael Moore has consistently insisted that at least a significant portion of his film is satire and not meant to be taken seriously, but he won't tell us which parts or what makes them untrue. "
Which means that you have to think for yourself and search where is the truth in what you've been told ! What a disgussing concept !
With all the reviews I have read - (Score:2, Insightful)
According to webster a documenary is "factual and objective". How can this film be considered a "documentary" when even the most favorable reviewer(CNN in our example) comments that it's not even close to fair or balanced?
Considering Michaels last error and bias filled "documentary" aren't Michael Moores movies more "commentary" or propoganda? Why do people insist in calling obviously biased (ie not objective) and factually inaccurate movies "documentaries"? With so much questionable content - can these films even be called good movies? Remember the first amendment protects false speech just as much as it protects truthful speech.
http://www.mooreexposed.com/ [mooreexposed.com]
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/ [bowlingfortruth.com]
Whats even sadder is that many people will simply ignore the facts if they don't agree with their opinion. With that fact in play, perhaps an objective documentary is dead. After all - a clear and objective presentation would require a great deal of thought on a complicated issue with no easy answers.
Instead of honest debate we get comments like "The arabs aren't ready for democracy". At one time, blacks weren't ready to sit at the front of the bus, women weren't ready to vote and latino's weren't ready for white schools. The pundits that made the aforementioned comments were wrong and bigotted. Some things never change.
cluge
AngryPeopleRule [angrypeoplerule.com]
Moore B.C. to me (Score:2, Insightful)
The first thing I ever saw of his was "The Big One" [michaelmoore.com] a couple of years back on the one of them artsy channels on the satellite. I'm a movie junkie whore and would've watched anything, but when I started watching this documentary about this badly dressed putze walking into big ass corporations and asking why they where downsizing and firing thousands of workers while they were reporting profits - I was thunderstruck!
I starting googling up this Michael Moore guy and found out he was making another movie at that time called...ahhh...let me think...oh yeah "Bowling for Columbine"! I'm sure I actually a handful of people that was actually waiting for the release of that movie to hit the theatres. Then when it finally did I disappointed to find out it was only playing in one theatre that was like 2-3 hours away from me. Oh well, I eventually saw it as obviously many did; as well as his first movie "Roger and Me"; went on a fan rant with all my friends and family about how incredible he was; read "Stupid White Men"; and now in complete anticipation for my days off to go see "Fahrenheit 9/11".
I'm actually surprised many people, other than ranting right-wingers, despise the guy including people I once held in such high respect for such as Dennis Miller. [wikipedia.org] What I really liked about Michael Moore after watching "The Big One" is that despite the fact he's pretty much a sloppy nobody, he makes people accountable. It really is something to see the reaction on a PR or HR personnel's face of some big-ass corporation trying to explain why they laid off thousands of people for no reason other than to save a bit of money upon their already ridiculous profit margin. Without people like Moore being a thorn some of these high powers (no need to mention) could go on doing whatever the hell they want, whenever the hell they want, b/c no-one is challenging them or bringing it to the attention of others.
The flaming right-winging ACs' will no doubt rebuttal from their tiny world.
Re:Dishonest (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dishonest (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure the movie contains at least bits of truth, but given the bias of the producer, I believe he "twisted" situations to meet his views. The major problem I see with the movie is the labelling of it as a documentary. Maybe one could stretch it to be a documentary of Moore's views, but this won't be a standard documentary. I'm sure that another movie could be made to show all the positives of Bush and call it a documentary too and neither would be correctly.
I'm concerned that movie viewers are going to watch it and take it as truth without really thinking about it before coming to that conclusion.
Re:Extreme views (Score:3, Insightful)
Within the United States, the political parties, from left to right, are Green, Democrat, Republican/Libertarian.
Putting Libertarian and Republican together there is not meant to suggest that they are the same; rather, the Libertarian party is further right on some issues and further left on others, but in the long run they tend to even out. Neither of the two major parties within the US is "extreme" on either side.
However, if you take the position of the average Democrat (that includes the South, by the way) and compare it to Michael Moore, you find that Democrats advertise themselves to be much more centrist, but behind closed doors they are much in agreement with the more extreme views of Michael Moore.
Also, as a news editor, I can say with some limited authority on the subject that a professional editor of any publication, documentary, or any other work aims to remove bias from the finished work such that the work doesn't appear to take sides. Most editorial pages in serious newspapers are reasonably successful at this. Mr. Moore, in his documentary, is not.
Re:Dishonest (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Moore's history of dishonesty (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't ignore it. Sure, you shouldn't complete your final anaysis strictly on the basis of who is pushing the reports, but you should not ignore their history, their background, or their 'other efforts on other fronts', if you truly want to remain free.
Never ignore the man behind the curtain, no matter how much you enjoy watching Punch & Judy, or agree with the act
Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Michael Moore knows One Truth (Score:4, Insightful)
A great many people simply don't have the intellectual capacity to view any film (or TV show, or newspaper article) with an adequate amount of skepticism. Consequently, they accept anything presented to them in such a medium as authoritative, and therefore truth.
Does this advance the quality of political debate?
Re:What out for Michael Moore lawsuits through.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:2, Insightful)
Moore just pulled that scandal out of his a**. He knew from the first day that it wasn't going to be distributed by Disney.
Judge for yourself (Score:2, Insightful)
As for its factual accuracy...I'm SURE there are mistakes. But then I'm willing to assert no documentary, article or book written didn't contain SOME mistake. To look only to and for the errors is to miss the forest for the trees.
In any event, anyone seeing the movie will be most moved or swayed by the direct interviews of real people. If you, as an Iraqi, saw your 4 year old's face blown off, could you ever accept that America was your liberator? Or would your anger lead you directly into the arms of the radical anti-American insurrgents/terrorists.? I supported AND support the war in Iraq. (Saddam was evil). For me, however, the documentary emphasized the true price paid by American soldiers, their families and innocent Iraqi's- a price seriously underplayed by mainstream media. I hope history will justify the price.
Now watch this golf shot.
Re:Fahrenheit 9/11: A Conservative Critique (Score:5, Insightful)
IMDB User Comments: Michael Moore is a traitor to his country
I had a lot of driving to do at work the last couple of days and listened to a lot of WBAP 820. There was a lot of talk about Fahrenheit 9/11 and Michael Moore. Every single bit of it was venomous and hate filled. From Rush to Hannity, to every single person on there, there is no way to support our troops while attacking their mission or their commander in chief. And if you happen to do so, you are considered a traitor to the country.
It's so weird because on every other topic, I usually agree with the majority of what these guys have to say. But they make me so mad on the war issue that I feel like some kind of left-wing liberal. I was actually wanting to e-mail them all yesterday and give them a piece of my mind, but decided not to because they would probably turn me in to home land security.
One thing I will say, though, Rush was out and Walter Williams took his place for the day. I still like him.
Usurper_ii
Homeland Security is a Sham (Score:4, Insightful)
It would have been even better if he went down to southern california, arizona and new mexico and showed the nearly 1 million illegal aliens who sneak into the US each year, and the tons and tons of dope that come in.
excellent security down there - no terrorists smuggled in, most definitely. no small 2 pound sacks of anthrax smuggled within the tons of dope, enough to kill tens of thousands of people.
it just shows how homeland security is a sham, just meant to keep an eye on every move the middle class makes, and keep them scared, and not give a real damn about reality
Re:First few comment (Score:2, Insightful)
Are we talking about the same Americans who rarely vote, who idolize Britney Spears, watch WWF, and consistently rank far behind other nations in its science and math literacy?
Phoey (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, I think you leftists would do your cause better justice to tout someone a bit more reputable than Michael Moore. He's the leftist equivilant of Rush Limbaugh. The fact that he's against Bush makes me question my own contempt for Bush.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html [hardylaw.net]
Re:Dishonest (Score:3, Insightful)
And as far as I know, the family disowned Osama in the mid 90's. Somehow these things escaped Moore's research team.
Re:We have a free market of ideas in this country. (Score:4, Insightful)
Showing a child flying a kite, and then cutting to the military preparation for the "shock and awe" campaign, that is satire. It is an absurdity that underscores a deeper truth about the human costs of war. (It might also be a parody of that anti-Goldwater commercial).
His only falsifiable claims have to do with the fact that the Bush family has a cosy relationship with the Saud / Bin Laden family, and that the Bush family and their associates have profited or stand to profit from both wars. Where is the rebuttal to that? Why aren't they pointing out the lies?
Re:We have a free market of ideas in this country. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dishonest (Score:4, Insightful)
Before I get modded flamebait, I am not planning to vote for Bush in the fall. I think the war is wrong, that the American people have been duped, and that atrocities have been committed in the name of oil profits. Despite that, I came out of the film angry and feeling that I'd been misled.
Numerous inciddents bothered me:
* The list of the "coalition of the willing" mentioned only tiny, irrelvant countries, and skipped over really important ones: England, Spain, Poland, the Netherlands. Yes, we did 90% of the work ourselves, but the film implied that we had absolutely no international support, which is simply not true.
* The story of the man who mentioned to guys in a gym that he considered Bush a terrorist and found himself speaking to the FBI the following day rang false. Many, many people accuse Bush of being as bad as terrorists. If a call is placed to the FBI telling them that, they ignore it. Did the man's gym companions accuse him of something worse? It seems clear that there is more to the story here. Moore implies that the FBI is cracking down on people who dislike the President, and I don't think he justified that.
* A man's name was blacked out on one of Bush's army papers. The implication was that this was covering up something evil. But it doesn't appear that the relationship between this man and Bush was a secret, and the paper doesn't imply that they did anything sinister except skip out on their service. I suspect the man's name was blacked out simply because it wasn't relevant: the release concerned Bush's record, not this guy's. The other nasty bits of the relationship between this guy and Bush, like the cozy foreign investments, are irrelevant to this document.
There were others, but I'd need to go through the movie again, point by point. It's not that I disagree with Moore's overall thesis; in fact, I do believe it. But these things, which I consider dishonest, make me wonder about some of the other points he was making where I don't feel I heard the true story:
* The bin Laden family claims to have cut off contact with Osama, which makes the Bush family's cozy relationship with the Saudis far less relevant than Moore implies. His refutation in the movie consisted only of a single wedding of Osama's son, and doesn't even state that Osama was in attendance: Osama has many sons if I recall correctly, and being on the run he might not go to the wedding of each one. Moore never said that the son was a terrorist; do we lay the sins of the father at the feet of the son? It's not that I think the relationship between the Bushes and the bin Ladens is savory, but Moore overstated his point, one he spends a lot of time on.
* He points out that Amnesty International accuses the Saudis of "widespread abuses". I believe that they say the same thing about America.
* His before-the-war footage of Iraq showed happy, smiling children on playgrounds. It skips the grinding poverty, caused by Saddam's refusal to comply with international orders and his skimming of oil profits. It skips the horrific crimes of which his sons stood accused. It skips the thousands of Kurds, dead from the sort of weapons from which Bush claimed we were protecting ourselves. The weapons do not appear to have existed, and the US should not be in the habit of invading every country whose policies we don't like, but to imply that all was sweetness and light in Iraq before we showed up is dishonest.
In the end, there wasn't a single Republican in this audience. The film is designed to preach to the converted, not to make a case to the neutral or the opposition. But in my case, I felt that it wasn't just one-sided; I felt I was being manipulated. That makes me want to lean exactly the opposite way of how I'm being pushed. I won't: I consider Bush a greedy fool and a liar. But Moore's movie says he is a monster, and such an accusation requires a higher standard of proof than Moore gave.
Re:a quick definition. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, if you look at one of the best documentaries ever made, "Hearts and Minds", which was anti-Vietnam, most of it is just clips of prominent figures saying stuff juxtaposed to clips of the war.
Of course, Michael Moore specifically referred to his work as "non-fiction" rather than a documentary, so this conversation itself (and your attack on it) is bunk.
Its shocking (Score:1, Insightful)
requires that you take more of an interest than watching the occasional film to bring you up to date. All of what Moore is talking about is already history, it already happened. Why is the outrage so muted and so late, and why does it take a film to make you believe it finally?
Re: A question for conservatives (Score:4, Insightful)
If a person has to support the troops' mission no matter what...were the citizens of Germany just supposed to support Hitler no matter what? Were they supposed to be "patriotic" and support the troops as they rounded up the Jews?
Now I'm not exactly comparing Bush to Hitler here...but what I'm trying to say is that a person can "not want to see our troops come in harms way" and yet not support the mission they are on. For an intelligent person, what the mission is has to figure into if they support the mission or not. To do otherwise, is a blind flag-waving patriotism that is actually dangerous. A true patriot would ask if the war was a just war and if the war was constitutional. If it is not those things, then it is not unpatriotic to not support it, it is true patriotism.
Usurper_ii
Re:Truth? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Define truth. (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that you think there is any such thing as a non-biased analysis suggests naivity. Everything is biased, the only question is whether you are biased in the same way.
Unfair Arguments? Please clarify! (Score:4, Insightful)
What is an "unfair" argument? My guess is that you mean an argument that isn't "playing by the rules."
Well, what rules are arguments supposed to play by? My answer to that would be, they must play by logic, reason, and evidence, rather than by emotion, deceit, and superstition.
So when you write "unfair arguments", do you actually mean:
1. arguments based in emotion
2. arguments based in lies
3. arguments based in superstition
4. something else?
I think calling an argument "unfair" is an attempt to hide what the real crime is. "Not playing by the rules" seems so much more innocuous than "arguing a point based on completely fabricated bullshit", doesn't it?
Re:Moore's history of dishonesty (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, but I don't think you know what the word literacy means. How could you possibly have this view, if you did? Literacy has -everything- to do with caring. Education is the first step towards caring about anything.
'Literate' means being well-informed, well-educated, on a particular topic. It doesn't mean just 'able to read and write', though that is one common simple definition.
'Literate' also means, informed, educated, and it was in this sense that I was using the word.
I would hardly call anyone, weaned on MTV, whose opinion on 9/11, Terrorism, and Iraq was spoon-fed by CNN and pop-culture to be 'literate'.
American Telivision is a poor substitute for literacy, and alas
This is not literacy.
Americans just don't care. They don't want to hear about war, they don't want to hear about politics, and they especially don't want to learn anything about any of it.
Right. They are un-informed, and un-educated, or they -would -care. Thus illiterate. The less informed about something you are, the less you care about it.
Now, you can't become literate on a particular subject unless you care a little bit about it, enough for you to get interested and overcome any barriers to understanding a particular topic you may come across. But you also don't really start caring unless
It is American Illiteracy which allowed the neo-con fascists to hijack the American political system. It is un-caring Americans, fat on their white picket fence hubris, who remain un-informed, and politically illiterate, who allow Feudal America to persist.
Then you don't know Art. (Score:4, Insightful)
since cavemen were painting their walls.
Art is an expression of Mans inner and outer landscapes. Both are dominated by Religion and Politics. What you say is patently absurd, or you have no grasp of Art at all.
Demographics (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw a 10:30PM show friday; particularly because the 7:40PM (and all previous) shows were sold out. And you know what I noticed?
Nearly everyone in the theater was aged 18-30, from all walks of life. The exact demographic that the issues in f9/11 affected.
I was impressed.
Rush Limbaugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
To add a note of technology to this
So what can open source do to correct the strangle hold that talking heads have on primary information sources?
Re:computers (Score:2, Insightful)
RTFA: the CATO Institute is against the war. (Score:1, Insightful)
And since it's apparent that you don't RTFA's, just consider the titles of their articles:
"Faulty Justifications for War with Iraq"
"War on Terror Does Not Require a War Machine"
"Iraq: Wrong Place, Wrong Time, Wrong War"
"Bush Doctrine Rings Hollow"
"President Bush's Case for Attack on Iraq Is Weak"
"U.S. Should Refrain from Attacking Iraq"
"WMD: Intelligence Without Brains"
"Iraq: Wrong Place, Wrong Time, Wrong War"
"Poised for War but Unprepared for Terrorism"
Re:propaganda techniques (Score:1, Insightful)
Wait, how is a book or newspaper different from a movie? I could just as well say "I don't need to read a book to be capable of thinking for myself. Mainly because I can see."
Alternatively, you're suggesting that you don't need to see/hear/read opinion pieces. That given the facts, you can accurately judge the material. Well, congratulations, but some people (including myself) realise that I don't possess perfect judgements and find it enlightening to look at things from someone else's perspective. That doesn't mean I take it as fact, but that I can gather these new and potentially interesting perspective and analyse it for myself.
When people are suggesting that you watch this film, they might mean that Moore has articulated their opinion (or close approximate thereof) more succinctly than they are capable of expressing themselves. They consider some of the arguments raised compelling and believe you haven't considered these alternate points of views.
By your response, you indicate that you indeed aren't interested in these alternate points of views. You don't have to like it and you don't have to watch it. But your post is utterly unconvincing as to why an independent bystander should or should not watch it.
Re:Moore's history of dishonesty (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmm. The ad on the right of this page is promoting these books:
I'm sure this site is very "relaible".
--falz
Rush Limbaugh....Michael Moore and others (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no doubt that both democrats and republicans both think they have the country's best interest in mind. It seems though, that neither trusts the other enough to sit down at a table to try an understand WHY their opposites think the way they do.
Instead each side assumes that the other side will do anything it can to undermine them and so...they do the same.
The result is people like Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh that would not even consider sitting down with each other because each refuses to believe they would get fair treatment from each other.
Although many would laugh at me for saying this, but this type of atmosphere can lead over time (decades) to an environment that leads to civil war. NO...that's not going to happen in the U.S. today, but if people are not willing to talk to one another and listen to each other's concerns without the insults, it will eventually.
Are they fighting for our freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fighting For Our Freedom?
One of the things that keeps coming up since our troops have gone into harm's way is that they are fighting for our freedom. If a war supporter is asked about the protesters, invariably, the response is that our soldiers are fighting so that the protesters have the freedom to protest.
Could this be true? Is it possible that Saddam's six or seven Scud missiles -- which we can't even agree on as to if they were the "permitted" Scuds or the "illegal" Scuds -- could have affected our freedom here in America? To hear it from anyone in the military, every war we have ever fought was for our freedom here in the US.
Well, was Desert Storm to preserve our freedom? If Saddam had continued to occupy Kuwait after we gave him the green light to take it, would anyone here in America have lost any freedom whatsoever? Well, we might have ended up paying higher prices for gas or -- oh the horror -- been forced to employ Americans to work here in America to pump up American oil.
Does anyone remember the economy in Texas when oil was a booming industry here? I do, and it was nice. Having jobs to put food on the table and keep a roof over your head...with enough left over to save up for the future or send your kids off to college, that sounds like freedom; and instead of keeping that here in America, we closed down entire towns and exported the jobs to the OPEC nations...the very nations that openly despise us.
So if Desert Storm wasn't for our freedom, what was it for? When Saddam originally invaded Kuwait, President Bush, Sr., turned to the United Nations, not the U.S. Constitution to which he'd sworn a solemn oath, for authorization for his military moves. He then began to state his goals -- over and over again:
So here it is painfully obvious that just because we went to war, it wasn't to preserve our freedom here in America, but to empower the United Nations. In fact, not only did Desert Storm not have anything to do with our freedom but in all actuality was more so to enslave us than to free us (those employing the term "New World Order" have sought socialism (economic control) and world government (political control) over mankind. This was also the goal of Bush Sr. for our nation and for the world).
So it is possible for our troops to be in harm's way and it not be for our freedom. And if it is not for our freedom in general but specifically for the "right to protest," legislation is being proposed in Oregon that could make protesting an act of terroris
Re:Dishonest (Score:2, Insightful)
First rule of Jounalism..
NEVER USE THE Washington Times as a REFERENCE. Or any other "unbiased" source such as the WSJ Editorial Page, the NY Post (or any other Murdoch-owned outlet).
Re:opinion from a canadian (Score:2, Insightful)
So the basic lesson to learn here is that someone like Moore can't be trusted to tell the truth any more than the government itself. If this were being presented as a commentary piece or political propeganda, then it wouldn't be so bad. But when it's presented as hard fact in documentary form, it IS a problem because it is NOT hard fact. But most of the people watching it do not realize this.
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:4, Insightful)
I call that an R rating.
Re:I like how Penn of Penn and Teller put it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right along with Halliburton, the Carlyle group and their Saudi investors!
Remember kids, it's not the corporation's fault, it's the whistleblowers who are to blame.
Felt like a democratic party meeting (Score:3, Insightful)
I found this slightly startling as some of the cheers came in points that, after listening to the entire 9/11 report, I am confident that the 9/11 report findings contradicted what Moore was saying.
For me, several points like this counteracted the entire persuasive success of this film to change my opinions. If I can't trust the accuracy of information that I can collaberate, how can I trust the information that I can't easily collaberate?
What did strike me, something that hadn't sunk in for me before, is how emotional and deep the divide is between the extreeme right and extreeme left. I suspect that I would have been mobbed if I had stood up after the movie and yelled "This movie contained lies and I am still voting Republican." (btw, I am not voting Republican, and I am not voting Democrat, but I am voting)
Read, listen, think for yourself, discuss it with people you know, make up your own mind and gain some more understanding of others.
Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (Score:2, Insightful)
The man had a limited interest in facts in Bowling for Columbine and an obvious agenda for which Columbine was exploited to promote, I hear that same accusation was made for a previous "documentary" that I didn't see nor do I remember its name, and it sounds like he used the same format in 911... clips of reality with interviews of people interspersed. That doesn't make it right or accurate and certainly doesn't mean it's fair. It presents Moore's political views, just like Bowling for Columbine did.
Moore is a yellow "journalist" [humboldt.edu] that turns "the high drama of life into a cheap melodrama that leads to stories being twisted into the forms best suited for sales by the hollering newsboy." Moore looks for and exploits controversy and the hardships of others for personal gain and I, for one, do not plan on rewarding that kind of movie-making with my money. I'm sure millions of others will, though, so Moore's ego will grow even larger, his pompous attitude even more pronounced, and his general level of annoyance even higher. And I'm sure he'll get another Oscar next year and he'll probably have to make some political commentary there, too--either accusing the American public of being blind and reelecting Bush, or taking credit for Kerry being the new president. That's my prediction and come the Oscar's we'll see if I'm right.
Re:We have a free market of ideas in this country. (Score:4, Insightful)
"We know where the weapons are . .
Really? Why haven't they found them after more than a YEAR of being there.
A quote from Condi Rice also in the movie from a briefing:
"There is a definite connection between Iraq and 9/11."
How interesting. The 9/11 commission just declared none.
These are facts. Aren't you upset that we have been misled?
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:5, Insightful)
True. Moore's chief product is not his movies, but himself.
It's pretty well-documented that Disney told Moore at least a year ago that they wouldn't distribute it. And no one at Disney tried to suppress it. Moore knew what the deal was, he had plenty of time to make other arrangements, and he was free to do so. As to their reasons for not distributing it, I'm prepared to admit anything could be possible, but still... that's their decision to make as long as there's nothing illegal going on.
And this is not a partisan post. I don't like any of the people involved in this story. Not Moore, not Bush, not the Disney execs. (nor Kerry, Limbaugh, Franken, etc.)
Re:What out for Michael Moore lawsuits through.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Who needs a documentary when this very message is broadcast 24x7 on Fox News (and to a slightly lesser extent CNN)?
And based on what evidence have you concluded that Moore's film is "left wing corporate propoganda"? Sorry, but linking to a review which says there some "inaccuracies" in one of his films doesn't exactly mean something is propaganda.
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's Moore's claim. However, his original version was that Disney killed the film because Jeb Bush would try to take away Disney's tax breaks on DisneyWorld in Florida... that's nice, but no such tax breaks exist for them to lose.
In reality, Disney isn't as worried about retailation from elected officials as much as they're worried about retailation from the public. All mega-corperations hate politics because any time they take a stand in favor of X, all of the people who oppose X will start to dislike the company.
The basic connection is that if Disney was identified as backing Moore's film, then the entire Disney company could get labeled liberal. Even if there's no organized boycott, some conservative families who would have gone to DisneyWorld would instead go to Universal Studios. That's what Disney's worried about.
Documentary: "Factual and Objective" (Score:5, Insightful)
The American Heritage Dictionary [reference.com] defines "documentary" as A work...presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration. Further, it restricts the presentation to "facts" that are presented " objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter , as in a book or film."
According to this definition and Michael Moore's admitting that a significant portion of the documentary is not meant to be taken seriously -- it's only partly true and the rest is meant to be satire, not to mention the lack of objectivity -- then Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a documentary; it is a mockumentary, little more than entertainment with some basis in facts deeply buried beneath the surface of the film (although you wouldn't know it by Moore's presentation) and should be treated as such.
For reasonably objective, reasonably centered reviews from well-respected news organizations (as well as some considered by many to be "left-wing" publications), click the following links:FYI, I have only read the opening paragraphs to each of these reviews, so I have little to no knowledge of any potential direction they may follow. Click at your whim.
Balanced opinion is passé (Score:4, Insightful)
Gas in Afghanistan (Score:3, Insightful)
Unocal notes that they do not want to have anything to do with afghanistan, and determined that it is not in their best interest to develop a pipeline. While Afghanistan has different ideas [bbc.co.uk] Unocal still is staying away.
Michael Moore also asserts that the White House was responsible for the Saudi and Bin Laden families getting out of the United States. Richard Clarke, however, who has been critical of the White House and had been endorsed by Moore had this to say: "I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again." FBI and Clarke Respond [saudi-us-relations.org]
And as for Moore's filmmaking style, I felt particularly horrified at the blacked out screen and sounds of the attack on 9/11 the first time, when I viewed a film called 11'09''01 - September 11 by Alejandro Inarritu. As Picasso said, good artists copy, great artists steal.
And as for lounging around at the school afterwards being an 'idiot' and not acting presidential, I leave you with a letter, offered by a guidance councilor from the school about that day: Emma E. Booker - Lee Martello [k12.fl.us]
I agree, people have rights to make movies, however how did such simple things get past Moore's fact checking? That he even avoided implicating his buddy Richard Clarke in his movie in favor of lying and slandering the President? I don't agree with the President on a lot of things, but I do hate Michael Moore. I would hate him if he was Conservative too. I don't believe in propaganda, I believe strongly in the written truth. I do believe that Saddam Hussein killed people, and i highly doubt he had a Kennel of kittens and puppies that he played with on a daily basis (not seen in the movie, but not proven false, either). The fact that he hung people from meat hooks, used chemical weapons on his own people, and funded suicide bombers and harbored the murderer from the Achille Lauro terrorist incident should not be forgotten.
I offer this as a voice against those who have watched this movie and have taken it at face value. Do your research, look around the news, "use some critical thinking" as my Professors often say. Dig deeper into this movie than just being fanboys. You'll find that, just like in Bownling for Columbine, he has lied about things, many things, and while it is his perogative to, that he does have the right to, just because you have the right, doesn't mean its right.
Re:Christopher Hitchens Review (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyways, here's [frontpagemag.com] a link to the full article rebutting Moore's movie. I'm curious whether this post will be modded down as well... after all, dissenting viewpoints are dangerous...
Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (Score:5, Insightful)
> place to discuss it. This site is supposed to be about
> technology I thought. The only really interesting technical
> tidbit of this film was that it was, IIRC, entirely created on a
> mac using Final Cut pro....
On one hand, I agree with you (although my
However, politics certainly fits under the "stuff that matters" category. And in general, we've seen a melding of technology and politics to the point that they're quickly becoming one. Even aside from the DMCA and the RIAA trying to ruin our ability to listen to music, think about these other random connections:
1. Microsoft hired Bush advisor Ralph Reed to lobby for them against the DOJ-Microsoft law suit. Think about how the DOJ basically dropped the entire case after the U.S. had won a judgment against Microsoft. Is this due to Microsoft's significant support for George W. Bush's campaign in 2000? Is it due to the $4.6M Microsoft it gave in political contributions in the 2000 election?
2. Al Gore is on the board of directors for Apple? Is this just a case of the also-ran political candidate joining forces with the also-ran computer company? Steve Jobs is reportedly serving as an advisor to the Kerry campaign. Al Gore is also a technology advisor for Google.
3. In Moore's movie, he says that Microsoft was one of the sponsoring companies for the "How to Make Money Offa Iraq" conference featured in the film.
4. What does it mean when Bush campaign contributor and HP CEO Carly Fiorina says, "There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore." Furthermore, what does it mean when it's reported (not in the U.S. press, but in the Sydney Morning Herald) that among the companies that provided Iraq in the 1990s with banned dual-purpose items is HP?
5. What does it mean when Bush advisor and chairman of the Defense Policy Board (since resigned because conflict of interest) Richard Perle was hired by technology service provider Global Crossing to help it be acquired by a Chinese company? How about DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe own questionable dealiings with Global Crossing?
I guess that's the ugly truth about the world today. When we were young, along with believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, we believed that technology was about building cool products and politicians were statesmen who worked for America's best interest. Part of growing up is realizing that, among other things, the world is a lot more complicated than that, and believing you can compartmentalize broad subjects like technology and politics is harder than we'd like.
Of course, you can always choose to not read the article.
Re:I like how Penn of Penn and Teller put it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Moore was doing a string of satellite interviews Friday morning through afternoon for various media outlets which is typical when a movie opens. (All of the segments have him against the same Times Square backdrop.) Fox News Channel's McCuddy was scheduled to have a few minutes with Moore as part of this event, but was told that they were running 45 minutes behind and therefore were being dropped.
McCuddy counters that the interview schedule was not off at all because he was able to confirm with local Fox stations that had slots before and after his that were hit on-time. Moore appeared on 20th Centrury Fox's syndicated show Good Day Live, which is produced by the Fox-owned station in Los Angeles without a problem.
McCuddy seems to have a legitimate complaint. He was in his studio ready to do an interview when Moore bailed on him while giving interviews to nearly any other media outlet that wanted one.
Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (Score:2, Insightful)
This movie is a message to the next President! (Score:2, Insightful)
"Be dishonest and try to do something sleazy to the American people. I DARE YOU!"
I am an American citizen, and I am ashamed of my government.
I think that most Americans have been ashamed of their government since the JFK assassination. Ever since then, the country has gone downhill.
What we need now is a President that doesn't try to make peace by killing people. We need a President who understands that we are NOT the policemen of the world, mostly because we were never ASKED TO BE! We need to get our asses out of other country's business and let them do what they are going to do to themselves... and if we're ever asked to come in and help, we'll direct the request to the U.N. It's there for a reason, and that reason is not just to be ignored, as the US has done in this unjust, cold blooded war.
And for those that don't agree with me, let me make one more point before you fire up your flamethrowers:
Iraq was a country where a cold blooded dictator tortured and killed thousands of his people.
Now Iraq is a country where a cold blooded president is ordering the torture and killing of thousands of Iraq people.
What's the difference? Intent?
Re:Truth? (Score:4, Insightful)
But do you know who authorized that? It wasn't Bush. It was Richard Clarke [hillnews.com], the same man who Moore has praised for his comments about Bush's handling of 9/11 and Iraq. Clarke has publicly taken sole responsibility for the flight.
However, in the film, Moore tried to portray Bush as being responsible for it.
Having seen the film, the part that disgusted me the most what when Moore kept making a big deal about Bush's connections to the bin Laden family and making it seem as if that meant that Bush was connected to Osama. Osama was disowned by his family a long time ago.
I once dated the niece of Teb Bundy (the serial killer). Does that mean that I supported his actions? Not at all. Does it mean that she supported his actions, just because they were related? Again, not at all.
I consider a lie to be any statement made with the intent to decieve. That includes outright falsehoods, half-truths, or even the full truth told in a manner to make a personl believe otherwise. Moore's biggest form of lie is in what he ommits, not in what he explicitly says.
Disturbing part is the big lie... (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes you wonder about some of the others.
My motto is - never trust outright propoganda, from anyone - right or left or center.
Re:"Michael Moore Hates America" (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody's going to get a porn film confused with a Hollywood blockbuster. Nobody's going to get Moore's documentary confused with Bradbury's novel. Case dismissed.
Bradbury can complain all he wants, but that's about as far as he's going get. Moore may have stolen his title, but he did so in a way that's most certainly legal.
Double spin example. Bin Laden and Saudi flights (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservative spin: Moore is lying, the airspace was re-opened on 9/13.
Truth: The airspace was opened on 9/13. No airlines were able to get regularly scheduled flights into service that day because they were all grounded in "the wrong places". That day was spent shuffling empty planes back and forth between airports to get ready to start back up. That process took a few days. On 9/14 most flights were still canceled (I had a flight canceled that day too). The U.S. government most likely assisted the Saudis to charter planes to get them out the moment airspace was opened, and could have been the subject of that meeting Bush had with the Saudi ambassador that day, but that's just speculation.
Moore didn't lie, but he could be accused of deceiving trying to make people think the Saudis were in the air when airspace was closed. The conservative response deceives as well, trying to paint a picture that everything was back to normal on 9/13. It wasn't.
People need to learn to read between the lines and think for themselves. If you're conservative and you think only liberals spin to deceive and not conservatives, you're a fool -- and visa-versa.
More than entertainment.... (Score:2, Insightful)
In order to make his argument, Moore draws on facts--appropriately picked out as the strongest ones that fit his case. Moore is often vague in order to make a stroger point than the straight facts will give him (example: in 9/11, Moore is discussing the Saudi presence in American markets with [I'm not sure who]. The man tells Moore that in his estimation, the Saudis control between 6 and 7 percent of the nation's economy, in terms of investments. Moore goes on to say, (paraphrased), "well, if these guys control seven percent..." in his next voice-over.
Moore also employs powerfully emotional footage (Roger and Me, Columbine, and 9/11 all have parts that make me cry) in order to work up the people he's arguing to, thus supplimenting his factual argument.
9/11 is, in essene, an argument for people to vote against Bush in the 2004 election. Fundamentally, that is what Moore wants and what he is using his film to say. Simplifying it down to "entertainment" because it is not a classical documentary does both the film an inustice and also severely impairs your ability to think about the film or the film-maker with any consequence.
Re:Angering and Heartbreaking (Score:5, Insightful)
A guy has to make a movie in order for the americans to be informed what the rest of the world already knows... about America!
Another point that doesn't settle right is that somehow if Bush and Co. doesn't get reelected everything will be just fine!
Excuse me but it was Bill Clinton that ordered a similar bombing campaign against Yugoslavia some years ago. The same international laws were broken then as well. Only many more nations had interests at stake then, so the joyfully backed up that endeavor.
The truth can be only one and most of the times it is very painful. I am amazed how people focus on the details (whether Moore makes money or not, if he is biased, if he twists the truth) when it comes to an action out of the norm (making a documentary about a current political situation), when they completely surrender to the corporate bias for example of Fox News or The NY Times.
Never understood that, I guess never will. I watched the movie and kept a close ear to the reaction of the fellow people around me. This is the first time after the Vietnam War that the American public gets an exposure of its true self, the aggrandazing bubble of benevolence was almost shattered when that Iraqi woman was wailing on camera!
Powerful pictures, powerful reactions. It is so sad and unfortunate that only the loss of a dear one (your serving son) can be a potent wake-up call to the reality around you...
Is Fox News really "conservative"? (Score:2, Insightful)
No doubt, it is more conservative (at certain times of the day) than other networks, but that's only because they actually report the news stories that support the president's administration while all the other networks nearly always refuse to run them. But Fox News criticizes the administration and other Republican interests when events warrant it.
As for Fox News personalities: Bill O'Reilly is certainly not conservative (he's all over the place), Alan Colmes is certainly liberal, and Sean Hannity is certainly conservative -- the political leanings of most other hosts are ambiguous at best. Brit Hume and Tony Snow appear to be conservative some days, but their professionalism disguises it well enough that I still can't make a judgment. I don't watch Greta van Susteren, John Gibson, Neal Cavuto, or Shepard Smith, so I have nothing on them.
The biggest problem I have with Fox News is Oliver North's "War Stories", which would be better on the History channel. But that's still better than hearing Dan Rather complain on the air about a Republican unexpectedly being declared the winner of an election.
Re:Disturbing part is the big lie... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Won't change any minds... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because of the way capitalism constructs labor markets, it is impossible to have no unemployment (and, therefore, no poverty). In fact, labor markets tend to have an optimal level of unemployment. If unemployment gets too low, labor costs become prohibitive.
Even if every working man and woman in the country was a hard working Phd-holder, a fair chunk of them would still be unemployed and living in poverty.
Re:We have a free market of ideas in this country. (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, when Moore says the film is a documentary and it is not, and when he makes it clear that his intention with this mockumentary is to hurt the president's chance of re-election, then what he has done by disguising his own biased opinions and even some intentionally hidden satirical mistruths in the film is, as you say, a disgusting concept.
Re:What out for Michael Moore lawsuits through.... (Score:3, Insightful)
So "libel" Moore and get a lawsuit. The hypocrisy!
It would be hypocritical only if he was himself guilty of libel, instead of being guilty of showing people in their worst light.
Free speech is not a free ticket to tell all the lies you want. That is why the libel suits exist. There are limits to free speech, and they aren't "disagreeing with the Leader when the Leader has declared war", they are: telling outright lies about people, hate speech, stuff like that.
"Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker."
See, he didn't sue, he said he didn't expect people who agree with him to be so critical of him.
Maybe he expected people who agree with his message to give him a break on the quality of the format his message was in. I'm pretty glad that fellow did his job and called it like he saw it.
if Disney produced a documentary prasing Bush and making Saddam look like Hitler?
If? Its called "ABC News", from 2001 to 2003.
What is to stop Rupert Murdoch and 20th Century Fox from producting a series of right-wing documentaries.
Again, watch the war time coverage from Fox News and CNN, and pay attention this time!
Seriously, be amazed as you see U.S. soldiers looting conquered palaces as a commentator refers to them "taking souvenirs"! Marvel at the positive spin "to keep up morale" on everything the "good guys" do!
Can't believe you need to be told all this...
Re:Truth? (Score:1, Insightful)
By the way: Richard Clarke may have authorized the flight, but do you honestly believe there wasn't pressure from Bush? He has multi-billion dollar contracts with these people and he will do anything to protect himself and appear separate. What better way than to have on the record as someone else authorizing such things. What did Clarke have to gain from sending them out? Nothing. What did Bush stand to possibly lose had they stayed? A lot.
And lastly, you are underestimating the connections between these families. There are oil contracts and other agreements that are worth billions between the two, and this isn't the only film to acknowoledge that. I've seen at least two other documentaries before this film and both addressed the issue of the "tit for tat" that exists between both families.
Remember that this is about money. Our safety, our well-being, and in general, anything to do with us comes second for those who have it, such as the Bushes. This is the same for any person who is potentially worth in the billions. If you think that they will put your interests above their own, then you have become much too naive for reality.
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Moore's Politics (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dishonest (Score:2, Insightful)
Definitely. And on this point I'd disagree with Moore on the significance of flying out Bin Laden family members during and/or after the restrictions. People will make dubious associations and point the finger at people who have nothing to do with the behaviour of someone they have an association with. I am not responsible or accountable for whatever any of my family members do (excepting perhaps my kids if I had them and they lived under my roof). In this case, the "administration" may well have just done the sensible thing and protected these people from such accusations and their possible consequences. My conclusion differs from Moore's.
Having said that, disagreeing with one point does not automatically call for the dismissal of the subsequent points in this film. I think that would be absurd and shortsighted. I have friends with whom I totally disagree about some things and agree on others. To be fair and sensible you'd have to hear them all judge each of them accordingly. Not to mention take all the points together and judge if it makes for a coherent concern.
Finally, let's not forget how Bush himself and members of his administration have made an equally dubious connection to Al Queida and the Iraqi government. One official met another official. Wow! They're working together! Not. And was this dubious connection put to use? Of course it was. Is this connection still contested amongst the general public? Of course it is. Does this call for the automatic dismissal of all the Bush has ever done? Or should we look at each event and statement in turn to get the entire picture?
Re:Holocaust revisionists can make the same claim (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Moore's Politics (Score:4, Insightful)
Falsely invaded two countries which had nothing to with terrorism? You're implying that AFghanistan had nothing to do with terrorism" Now, I wasn't pro-war in the case of Iraq, but absolutely was in AFghanistan. I think someone has a little problem telling lies on slashdot--quit trying to lie and say that Afghanistan wasn't part of the terrorist problem.
Re:Moore's Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
The real tragedy of the invasion of Iraq is that Bush took a legitimate, powerful precendent against terrorism (that any nation that aided terrorists would pay the price) and completely diluted it by sneaking his own personal mission in under the auspices of it. While a lot of eyes are being opened belatedly now, but there were a lot of cynical people asking WTF Iraq had to do with 9/11 or Afghanistan long ago, but amazingly the American public came to believe that it was all one and same. This completely destroyed the anti-terrorism campaign in the world's eyes. Now that we've seen that some absolutely insane individuals in the administration think they can get away with an end run around the Geneva convention (as Ronald Reagan's own son calls it dismissively of the Bush administration), global support has absolutely disappeared, and even if another major terrorist attack occurred few around the globe would trust or believe US intelligence (which seems to just say whatever serves their agenda), or would support US operations. Bush entirely holds the blame for this.
How we see America from Europe (Score:5, Insightful)
There has been a _lot_ of censorship on the American media in this second Iraq war. This has been criticized very much around here, but I don't know if Americans are aware of that, and if they access uncensored information by reading international press or simply blogs.
Unfortunately, anti-americanism is growing up all over the world, not only in muslim countries, and this is very worrying. I think you (and us, of course) should try to see things from the different points of view that people have outside the US.
Re:Longtime Michael Moore Follower (Score:2, Insightful)
Haven't seen Roger & Me but I do feel like I can add to this thread just a tad.
It does sound like Moore was using two specific, practically unrelated, occurances to push his own agenda. Those techniques have been used by those who desire to make "points" for a long time.
Think of the "She's a witch" argument made so comically in Monty Python's The Holy Grail.
Personally, I don't have a problem with Moore doing that, as long as it's understood that that's what it is. Some don't get it though.
But back to President Reagan and the Flint Michigan factory closing X number years later.
President Reagan was campaigning during a period when there were lines of cars stretching around the block waiting for gas.
Prime interest rates were 20+ percent (if you don't know what a prime interest rate is just add it and about 15 more percent to get what your credit card interest rate might be).
The standing President (Carter) at that time was an incredibly poor leader, he actually was taking the time to plan the specifics of all the meals at the whitehouse while my family was sitting in some stupid line waiting for gas. You would think he could have spent his time doing something more productive.
Reagan's statement was a message he was making at every campaign stop, and that message was that he was going to help the country as a whole.
Sure he probably tossed in a few "You"s, and derivatives thereof, in his speech, but that was to make the speech "reach" his audience better.
Heck, who wants to hear, "I'm going to make the country's problems go away" versus "I'm going to make YOUR problems go away".
And as we know, the policies invoked by Reagan's administration got our country moving again, economically at least.
Yes, the Flint factory closed, but Reagan's policies certainly weren't designed to pin-point a solution for one factory.
If it's to be expected that if a politician says "You" during a campaign speech that they must have a pinpoint policy then I beg to differ.
I certainly have sympathy for the folks who lost their jobs, I've lost mine in a factory closing also.
One need only look at the quality or desireability of the cars produced in the 70s and 80s by the big three to get an idea why that factory might have closed.
But, to say that Reagan was disingenuos is to be totally naive about politics in general. And to believe everything Moore spouts out is naive as well.
Re:What Nader said... (Score:5, Insightful)
First, consider the source. Ralph's ego is so big it get's 2 zip codes. He's just jealous because he is not the focus of Moore's approbrium. Of course, he wouldn't be. Moore is not a member of the Democratic Party. I think he is an independent who voted for, guess who, Nader.
Second, consider this statement:
"Mel Gibson is the Right's Leni Riefenstahl."
If you know anything about Leni Riefenstahl, you would see that the latter is more accurate esp. in terms of Fascistic imagery and personal "I'm a martyr" protestations. Did you see the movie "The Patriot?" Did you know that the British DID NOT commit the atrocities depicted in the film? Of course not.
Also, notice I say "the Right." Democrats are not leftists unless the US suddenly has become the Fundamentalist Theocratic Police State that so few (but so powerful) want. Wait for it....
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no issue with our attack on Afghanastan. They harboured known terrorists who attacked us.
But the attack on Iraq is bizzare. He did not follow the advice of his own father (IMHO, is one of our better presidents) about avoiding invading Iraq and certainly not without world consensous. While Sadaam was a mad man and was a threat to his ppl, he was no real threat to USA. Whereas N. Korea government is a clear and present danger to their country, the USA, and the rest of the world, W. basically ignores them.
Re:Won't change any minds... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Longtime Michael Moore Follower (Score:2, Insightful)
Watch the Homer Badman [tvtome.com] episode.
Everyone needs to remember, there is always Willie's side to the story... People are so often blinded by what they want to believe, they don't realize they're being dupped.
I'm sure Michael Moore goes to bed each night thinking "Thank god for the ignorant masses, and useful idiots".
Re:We have a free market of ideas in this country. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:While waiting to see this movie in New Zealand (Score:3, Insightful)
implied lies (Score:3, Insightful)
And of course, this is the perfect way to counter the exact same method being used by BushCo. The most notable example, of course, is conspicuously inserting 9-11 and Al Qaida into every pre-war discussion of Iraq. They never directly said "Iraq was involved in 9-11", but somehow 2/3rds of US citizens came to believe it.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dishonest (Score:5, Insightful)
The list of the "coalition of the willing" mentioned only tiny, irrelvant countries, and skipped over really important ones: England, Spain, Poland, the Netherlands. Yes, we did 90% of the work ourselves, but the film implied that we had absolutely no international support, which is simply not true.
You missed the Netherlands. Remember the guy lighting up the bong? That was his reference to the Netherlands (yes, the name of the Netherlands was displayed, too). The Netherlands have 1,300 troops in Iraq, making them one of the larger contingents.
Moore didn't bother to mention England, Poland, or Spain because the administration has mentioned them dozens of times. His point was that the grand coalition numbers of countries included a number of countries who actually had nothing to contribute but lip service.
My own criticism is that he ridiculed some of the people in these countries with his choice of images. The Amsterdam pot-head was probably the LEAST insulting of the images he chose.
The story of the man who mentioned to guys in a gym that he considered Bush a terrorist and found himself speaking to the FBI the following day rang false. Many, many people accuse Bush of being as bad as terrorists. If a call is placed to the FBI telling them that, they ignore it. Did the man's gym companions accuse him of something worse? It seems clear that there is more to the story here. Moore implies that the FBI is cracking down on people who dislike the President, and I don't think he justified that.
I don't think you quite understood this. The point was not that the FBI was as a whole cracking down on dissent; it was that the USA Patriot act gives the FBI and other law enforcement agencies the ability to crack down on dissent if they so chose. I think the idea was that this particular FBI office was playing Stasi because they could - not that the entire FBI was out to stop dissent.
A man's name was blacked out on one of Bush's army papers. The implication was that this was covering up something evil. But it doesn't appear that the relationship between this man and Bush was a secret, and the paper doesn't imply that they did anything sinister except skip out on their service. I suspect the man's name was blacked out simply because it wasn't relevant: the release concerned Bush's record, not this guy's. The other nasty bits of the relationship between this guy and Bush, like the cozy foreign investments, are irrelevant to this document.
Not at all. Let's keep in mind - the man's name was not blacked out when Moore got the documents in 2000. They were when he got the documents in 2003. Why? The fellow was a foreign investment advisor for the Bin Laden family, who is listed in the documents as having skipped out on a medical exam at the same time Bush did (the two paragraphs, one on Bush's failure to be examined, one on this guy's failure to be examined, were in sequence). The fellow also invested some money HIMSELF in Bush's own oil drilling company. The implication is that the Administration deliberately censored the document after 9/11 because the fellow was someone investing Bin Laden money who invested his own money in Bush, suggesting the possibility that perhaps Bin Laden money was behind Bush's first oil drilling company. This was of a piece with the point that Bandar has a Secret Service protection squad (which is not normal for Ambassadors), and that one of the Bin Ladens was at a meeting of the Carlyle board with GHW Bush on September 10, 2001, and that the arrangement to spirit the Bin Ladens out of the country when all other passenger flights were grounded did not allow the Bin Ladens to be questioned by the FBI regarding possible financial ties with Osama Bin Laden.
There were others, but I'd need to go through the movie again, point by point. It's not that I disagree with Moore's overall thesis; in fact, I do believe it. But these things, which I consider dishonest, make me wonder about some of the other points he was maki
Re:Longtime Michael Moore Follower (Score:5, Insightful)
If GM had closed the plant within a year of this speech, it would have necessarily been because of President Carter's economic policies, as those things take time to implement and take effect. So, on a political time scale, almost as soon as Reagan's economic policies were fully in force, replacing Carter's, Flint experienced massive layoffs.
The Washington D.C. state machine is rather slower than anything you could implement on a PC.
For a person who believed Reagan's promises and bought a house, six years is barely halfway through the mortgage, and you would feel somewhat rushed as you went into bankruptcy, losing your job, sitting in an unsellable house that's half unpaid. In that perspective, it's like sitting on packed bags, as foresight would have demanded staying in rented housing without laying down roots in the community, ready to rip your kids out of school and relocate down south or west in search of work.
Re:Sports writer says: ... most powerful movie ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sports writer says: ... most powerful movie ... (Score:1, Insightful)
I realize that 'Bowling for Columbine' won an Oscar and if this piece of propoganda does too, I will place the Oscars in the same category as all the others above: old, tired institutions which shat on their own reputations in order to pursue a politically inspired agenda.
National defense information and work product was given to China in the 90s in exchange for campaign cash from the People's Liberation Army under Clinton's watch is acceptable behavior?
I don't think Bush's former business relationships are in the same league as this matter but Mike Moore wants you to believe that conducting legitimate business prior to taking office which is not approved of by Michael Moore is not; and Moore wants you to believe that Rich White Men(tm) have it in for democracy. Well, if that is true, then at the top of the list is Michael Moore and his films.
Readers should also consider what the Bush administration has done to protect the USA from further attack from terrorists and what Mike Moore has done. One element has taken pro-active and solid steps for our nations security, the other is like a yelping 300 pound chihuahua, complaining loudly about what Bush did, all the while failing to offer what he should have done.
It may not happen this year but I feel certain that F911 along with 'Bowling for Columbine' will be shown to be propoganda films, not documentaries, and the awards presented to them will be forever stained with this stigma.
My problem with it (Score:2, Insightful)
From what I've seen of it (and from what I know of Michael Moore), this is less of an issue based intelligent discussion than a hate based rant against Bush. The former I might be interested in seeing, the latter, well I think I'll keep my $9.
I love a good debate, thats one of the main reasons I keep coming here. Scrolling through the comments that have been made already today I saw a bunch of people making fun of Fox News for being conservative propaganda. Well, guess what? Fox News has actual debates. Yes, they may be often made with the conservative view acting as the 'home team' if you will, but you still see an intelligent analysis of the opinions of both sides. The other day I say a debate between Juan Williams and Fred Barnes, two intelligent people of very different political persuasions. As a consequence, by hearing both sides (and on any controversial issue there are always at least two sides) my viewpoint on the issues they discussed has grown.
A one-sided rant does not do this. It does not matter if all Moore's facts are strictly true, such a film does not illuminate truth, it only clouds it. Anyone who has studied logical fallacies knows this. Using nothing but strictly true facts I could argue just about anything. The thing that illuminates truth is not such a rant, but rather intelligent debates which (from what I have seen) Moore's film lacks.
I don't really mind such rants as long as they are billed as entertainment. I enjoy watching South Park which often has such rants. I enjoy late night comedians who will often make political jokes. And I even liked Moore's earlier film "Canadian Bacon" which I found quite funny. But in this case, the stated goal of the film is persuasion, not entertainment. Thus it is a miserable failure.
Re:We have a free market of ideas in this country. (Score:5, Insightful)
Beyond that, look at the right. Ann Coulier clearly and repeatedly lies outright in her books. In many casses her attributions are ourtight fabrications. Yet no one says a damn thing about her. Look at Rush. The man also lies on a repeated and regular basis. The chorus of silence criticizing him is deafening. The same goes for almost all of the crackpot commentators on the right like Michael Savage and even Bill O'Reilly. These people have a political agenda, and have no concern for the truth whatsoever.
Compare this to Michael Moore who at least has facts to back up his claims. Does he make the counterargument against himself? No. Is that his job? No.
I'm just sick of the hipocracy in this country that hold the left to a *much much* higher standard then the right. Progressives can't make tiny mistakes without being torn apart by the wolves, yet the right gets free reign to do and say anythign they want and essentially recieve no accountability for their actions.
All you have to look at to see this is a man who has suggested life imprisonment for drug offenders, and I believe at least once executions who turned out to be a drug abuser himself - and *nothing* happened to him. Rush Limbaugh.
SO if you are going to throw your stones at the left, you might want to watch out for your conservative glass house first.
Re:Truth? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Extreme views (Score:2, Insightful)
Opposing viewpoints are propaganda? (Score:2, Insightful)
Think for a moment about the comparison you have made. Condsider what might have happened if people like Moore had spoken out in Germany while the Third Reich was taking power. It is disgraceful that many people will eat up anything the Bush administration says as gospel truth but can't even let a guy with an opposing viewpoint call his film a documentary.
Re:Moore's history of dishonesty (Score:3, Insightful)
Well said - a point which unfortunately gets ignored far too often these days.
When you have a largely uneducated population (I don't say that to be offensive) it's even more important to reach the proles.
Apathy allows for massive change in the direction that a minority wants and desires, albeit using small steps. For change to occur in a direction that the masses want and desire the masses need to rise up. Revolutions cannot happen without significant support from the general population.
Re:Disturbing part is the big lie... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not as bad as leaving the country while flights were grounded, but they were certainly granted special treatment nonetheless. And, as already mentioned, the problem most americans should have isn't exactly that they were in the air, rather that they were granted special treatment in the first place, & NOT QUESTIONED AT ALL REGARDING THE RECENT TERRORIST ATTACKS. We let them go without a word, because we were "worried about their safety" - while, since then, we've had no problem terrorizing Muslim americans in the name of catching those darned terrorists
We are at war folks... (Score:0, Insightful)
"There is a big difference between liberals and conservatives. We're not talking apples and oranges, folks, but apples and orgies. In her latest book, "Treason", Ann Coulter puts it clearly:
"Conservatives believe man was created in God's image, while liberals believe they are gods. All of the behavioral tics of the liberals proceed from their godless belief that they can murder the unborn because they, the liberals, are themselves gods. They try to forcibly create 'equality' through affirmative action and wealth redistribution because they are gods. They flat-out lie, with no higher power to constrain them, because they are gods. They adore pornography and the mechanization of sex because man is just an animal, and they are gods. They revere the U.N. and not the U.S. because they aren't Americans--they are gods."
It-s hard for salt of the earth, hard working, hard playing pro-American types to wrap their minds around why their liberal neighbors hate the U.S. so much. But liberals do, and it's a staple of their worldview's diet. They reflexively root for that which will undo our great land.
As far as the liberals are concerned, the battle is joined
Concerned citizens of our amazing country need to be aware of the fear and loathing of the liberals and meet them head on at the polls, through the media and in the public square.
Re:Sports writer says: ... most powerful movie ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:First few comment (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the current media seems to appeal to the lowest common demoninator. Either it allows itself to be bullied into printing the type of illogical causality that you mention or it allows it's pursuit of advertising revenue to interfere with it's responsibility to the public. Of course there are also a large number of those in both politics and the media who promote this dishonest causality.
I think that the severe decline of primary education and accessibility to secondary education is contributing to public's willingness to accept such low academic standards for subjects that are so important. If you'll remember, before the advent of Limbaugh, there was a general malaise in the news markets. The rise of talk radio, with it's drudge-like standards for intellectual honesty, managed to appeal to an uninformed populace who easily confuses their culture and religion with the government of the US. In a search for revenue, the increasingly corporate owned media has allowed this yellow-journalism to creep into it's mainstream.
The free market is not friendly to the marketplace of idea's. The free market encourages actors to raise the barriers to entry for competition, which if unchecked, stagnates innovation. The marketplace of idea's is what drives innovation and progress. The goal is to find a balance, which requires an informed and rational populace.
I believe that Moore has been able to rise to fame, by having true talent to communicate, much like Limbaugh. He's a pretty humorous guy, but he sacrifices intellectual honesty in order to cover a lot of ground, to make a point about a larger picture. I also believe that this method emphasizes points that are easily defeated in debate and involve too much speculation. In 9/11, Moore spent way too much time questioning the President's behavior on 9/11 and the links between the Bush and Saud families. 9/11 was a unique situation, it is difficult to effectively question the actions of anyone in that situation, because too many people will be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. The links between the Bush family and the House of Saud goes to motive, which is irrelevent to realpolitik. Motive is only a factor in a criminal court, it helps you to understand a person's goals, but the measure of politics is the outcome. Moore's general point, that the Bush administration is a disaster and the US should keep these people from power as much as possible, could be argued based on the facts. From any measure, this administration appears to be incompetent. They have managed to repeat every mistake of the past 40 years.
The unfortunate thing, is that if Moore had simply presented the case this way, he probably would have lost the majority of the audience. He might have made it to PBS or Sundance's docDay, but that's about it. I can't say that I'm opposed to the extremes on the right and left getting more people interested in politics. It's much easier to rationally argue political points, to someone who has them based on unfounded assumptions, than it is to interest the apathetic.
In my mind, Moore isn't as bad as Limbaugh or O'Reilly, and he has been able to logically defend his criticisms much more effectively. Let's put it this way, the populist right wing media is like Area 51 alien/black UN helicopter documentary films, the left wing populist media (Air America Radio, Moore) is more like Carl Sagan. Sagan was never accepted by academics because he was such a populist and would speculate too much on information that hadn't been truly vetted. For myself, I got interested in science at a very early age due to Sagan on Cosmos. That interest has made it so I can at least discern the difference between actual science and things that pa
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't seen the Bush Administration's movie in my local theaters, so I can't comment on that.
Re:What out for Michael Moore lawsuits through.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's really interesting to me. In the absence of evidence against Moore's film, you assume it is misleading and untruthful. That's just not rational.
Re:Bradbury is a fuzzy old man (Score:2, Insightful)
Therefore it is not an effective rebuttal to the parent's post.
Re:Sports writer says: ... most powerful movie ... (Score:3, Insightful)
You might as well say that it was a jury of British origin, since most people in America have a british ancestor somewhere in their family.
However your point about the fact that whilst it was a French film festival but only one jury member was actually French is a good one. Anyone feeble-minded enough to equate "French" with "Evil" should keep munching their "freedom fries" and tear down the Statue of Liberty (a gift from the French) immediately.
Re:Michael Moore is wrong....let me count the ways (Score:3, Insightful)
Columbine wasn't the fault of guns, TV, movies, video games, what have you. It was the fault of the two teenagers who did it.
9/11 was the fault of 19 hijackers and the people who funded them.
The latest rape in $city was the fault of the man who perpetrated it, not his parents, his upbringing, whatever.
Whatever happened to the notion of personal responsibility? It's not always someone else's fault, quit trying to blame someone else, and maybe try looking in at yourself for a moment.
Re:You ARE the Sheep (Score:1, Insightful)
Hello... hypocrisy alert!!
Re:Longtime Michael Moore Follower (Score:2, Insightful)
We should all be thankful that there is still room in this society for more than one voice. It may be confusing to some to have to actually listen to various perspectives and draw their own conclusion--but I posit that that is far better than being told what-is-what.
Re:Sports writer says: ... most powerful movie ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Like convincing a billion moslems that the BS Al Qaeda tells them is true: "Americans want to invade us ! Kill them all before they kill you !"
This man and the lunatics that manipulate him have turned an unprecedented worldwide wave of support for the US (just after 9/11 and even during the war in Afghanistan, hell, even the FRENCH were in it !) into a global backlash of anti-americanism.
Yeah, he got rid of Saddam. Great. Even in the most wildly optimistic scenario (Iraq is stabilised, foreign terrorism and local resistance are halted, a democratic government emerges, Iraqis do not vote for an Iran-like theocracy), it will take decades before Iraqis can lead an almost normal life.
In the meantime, Al Qaeda expanded its base (no pun intended) twentyfold without doing anything.
(I know, you were trolling. But some people do believe what you said)
Thomas Miconi
Re:Sports writer says: ... most powerful movie ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right... they're at Cannes because they're Francophiles and not because it's the most prominent film festival in the world.
-a
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:5, Insightful)
Moore does seem to have some of that, but I think it's been greatly blown out of proportion. I buy what Moore's saying about what happened with Farenheir 9/11, his story there doesn't see fishy, and I'm glad that the movie is seeing wide release instead of dumped into the garbage bin.
I admit I don't have an excellent understanding of the situation concerning Moore, Disney, Miramax, and the ownership of the film, but as far as I can tell, Disney *owned* the film. They paid for it, and as Moore said, from one source Disney was saying "we're not going to distribute it," while another kept handing them money to get it completed.
What would I do in that circumstance? Shut up, finish the movie, and worry about it afterwards. Funding opportunities don't grow on trees, and complaining too loudly about the discontinuity would probably alert the Disney upper brass that the funding's still going on, and halt it. When you're already into production, you'd like to not have wasted the time you've already put into it.
Just my perspective.
As for hating everyone involved with this... I find that's a more and more common reaction these days, to view everyone with a political motiviation with distrust. I think that shows a certain weariness with the process, and also a recognition that neither "side" has entirely clean hands.
I don't know if I agree with that view, but I can certainly understand it.
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with this movie is that it stretches the truth very far, doesn't show the entire situations, and then tries to bash him for the most stupid things (staying with the children for 7 minutes after learning about the attack). I have been in a similary situation (on a much much smaller scale) where something apeshit bad happened and I was in charge. I reacted in a similar matter. He did what most good leaders would do in that situation.
Re:Extreme views (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dishonest (Score:3, Insightful)
2) 10 patriots successfully defeated a horde of barbarous invaders, killing 100 of them.
3) We regret to report that 100 freedom fighters were killed by government thugs today. 10 members of the government's death squad brutally murdered 100 loyalists.
I think what you mean to say is that purely objective reporting cannot affect us. We will not appreciate the context.
Because your claim that the "objective" version must be without context is wrong. You deliberately made statement 1 contain less information than the other two, when it could have said "10 government loyalists defeated 100 rebels." You could even add which side attacked the other (which is unclear from your descriptions above).
-a
Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, you want a tyranny. No wonder you'll be voting for Bush.
Michael Moore clearly does not hate America (Score:2, Insightful)
The primary accusations that Moore makes in his film:
- Bush has received millions of dollars from the Saud family, this has resulted in unprecendented access.
- In August of 2001, Bush took a vacation when the threat was building.
- The morning of 9/11, Bush made a photo-op appearance at a school. There is footage showing Bush sitting in shock with a stupid look on his face after he is notified of the attacks.
- There is a very moving interview with a mother from Flint, Michigan... She talks about opportunities, Flint, America... then later she talks about her feelings following the death of her son in Iraq.
So what Moore is saying... Bush doesn't give a shit about Americans, and he's a uncertain leader in a time of crisis.
The accuastions Moore's critics make is nit picking about some petty details. But not once do they ever address the substance of Moore's claims. That video showing Bush is pretty damning, and maybe that's why they want you to avoid looking at it.
Re:opinion from a canadian (Score:1, Insightful)
The actual dialogue in the film goes like this:
MM: hello sir, I'm MM, this is cpt. Henderson
MM: do you have any kids
Congressman#1: why yes, I have...xxx...yyy
MM: are they in the military
C#1: no
MM: I was wondering if your kids would be interested in supporting the war effort and enlist, we have have an application form right here
MM: there's only one congressman who has his son enlisted
C#1:
MM: Here, can you please take these (army) fliers and distribute them among your colleagues
C#1: (takes fliers) I'd be happy to
----
MM: hello sir, I'm MM, I'm trying to get congressmen to encourage their children to enlist
C#2: (money look on his face, like what planet are you from)
----
MM: hello sir (extends hand)
C#3: (acrobatic contortion to avoid handshake, walks away briskly)
Re:Michael Moore is wrong....let me count the ways (Score:3, Insightful)
"Gee, I really want to break the law and shoot this guy, but the law says I can't own an assault weapon".
Never mind that what nobody bothers to mention is that weapons like the AR-15 aren't assault weapons. They're semi-automatic rifles. It's a very important distinction.
Re:We have a free market of ideas in this country. (Score:3, Insightful)
What's your point?
If "too many" people can't think for themselves, too bad for them. Is that a reason to not show the whole movie? Face it, we live in a world where much of what hits our senses is unjust, untrue, disgusting, whatever. It is each of our jobs to use our crap filter and not take everything as gospel. The world has always been like this, I believe, and is unlikely to ever change.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Please mod parent as TROLL (Score:5, Insightful)
That is such a small amount that hardly justifies the action taken. It is also not clear when or how those entered Iraq.
The way the Bush administration talked it up, there was just tons and tons of such weapons laying around. Hmmmm . .
There were connections between al- Qaida and Saddam Hussein's government.
I never said this wasn't true. There is no connection with Iraq and 9/11. Period. The 9/11 commission was very clear on that point.
To date, there has not been an effort by the Bush administration to truly justify this war. They have just quipped sound bytes here and there. There were two reasons they tried to harp on to go to war:
1) Iraq had tons and tons of WMD in their possession and
2) Iraq was somehow INVOLVED with 9/11.
So far, neither arguments have held any water. After that became clear, the arguments then became, "Well, he was such a bad person anyway we have done the world a favor."
This war wasn't justified for the reasons it was started. The real question is were these the real reasons for war or was it more about oil and money as Moore and many many others suspect?
What a documentary should be? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, Moore fails to initiate real reflection about what really matters.
First, this is really a petrolum war. Given past posts on /. about the gas crisis and the growing dependancy of America and the Western world on the Persian Gulf oil (25% today to 50% in about 5 years for USA).
It fails to present the real issue to us: The oil embargo on Iraq cannot just continue as it was before the war. Not only Iraqii were penalized by it, but also Western world was penalized since oil dependancy is shifting swiftly to the Persian Gulf. So, would you remove the embargo on Iraqian oil with a guy like Saddam Hussein at the commands of the country?
Since the embargo program was a failure because some corruption exists within the UN administrators of the program (and this is under investigation by UN itself right now, but don't count on Moore to let you know more about this) and Saddam was able to manage to sell more oil than he was supposed to and keep the money instead of buying food for the Iraqis, he was able to stay at the commands of the nation with the help of some UN insiders. It is not impossible at all that some opposing countries were just trying to get a commercial advantage on Iraq oil with the cooperation of Saddam Hussein knowing how much they can sell back this oil to the America.
On his side, bin Laden is just trying to control oil exportation from Persian Gulf countries using the Al-Qaeda terrorism organization. So, he is just trying to break the distribution channels everywhere in the Persian Gulf countries. Democracy is surely his number one ennemy. It is much more easier to make an agreement with half a dozen dictators or war lords than with a democratic country.
At my sense, Michael Moore is just a clown with his so-called documentary movie Farenheit 9/11.
BTW, since some of you have raised the issue about the other Palme d'or winner documentary from Jacques-Yves Cousteau, just keep in mind at the time Slient World was produced it was a real technical advance in the cinematography art to be able to produce an underwater movie. This, itself, justify the Palme d'or. Nothing like that in Moore's movie.
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:5, Insightful)
The responsibility to use it wisely. When we attack a country it should be to defend our shores, land, society, etc and if it is not to defend our shores, then it should be in conjuction with world approval. When Al Qaida attacks us, then hides in a country that protects it, then we have the right to go after them.
So you have no issue with innocent people being killed as long as it is for a "good cause"?But we should not be invading countries. When Iraq invade Kuwait, Bush built a global coalition to stop that. The group promised to not invade Iraq. They kept to their word. W. invaded Iraq on known false premises. That is irresponsible from both a global perspective as well as a US perspective.
Do I like bombs killing innocent ppl? No. But I think that every nation has the right to protect them selves. If a country is going to harbour terrorists, then they should be prepared for a counter attack.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:4, Insightful)
Your kidding right. Yeah he lists his sources and uses parts of them. The trick is to the "parts of them" that he uses. He is at good at editing the truth and getting people to believe his innuendos and half-truths as the Nazi propagandist were.
For example: Moore rushes a Senator unexpectedly and starts asking him questions about his family contributing its kids for the war. The Senator replies that he has two nephews in the military and one is about to be deployed to the Middle East. Him asking the question is in the movie. The Senators response is not though, leading those people watching the movie to beleive in a LIE.
This is what Moore is good at. Distorting the truth so much and so well, that his followers eventually think that it is the truth. Moore is so full of BS he could fertilize the world into farming land.
Re:Are they fighting for our freedom? (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the things that keeps coming up since our troops have gone into harm's way is that they are fighting for our freedom.
This is a subject I hold forth on whenever I have the chance. It's very, very important, but so few people seem to even see that there's an issue to think about.
The military does not and never has fought for our freedom. It cannot. All the military can do is to preserver our independence as a nation, giving us the opportunity to structure our society as we please. The military can prevent people from some other nation from taking away our freedoms, but it is up to *us* to decide if we as individuals will be free or not.
Individual freedom is won or lost in the legislative and judicial processes, and the electoral processes which control them. The military has nothing to do with it.
What's really amazing is how this meme (military preserves freedom) has become so deeply rooted in the American psyche that no one questions it. It's clearly a legacy of World War II and the Cold War, two wars during which there was an external enemy who wanted to impose upon us a social structure that denied important freedoms. In the face of those enemies, loss of national independence would have meant loss of individual freedoms. Because of that, we've now confused the two for nearly three generations, and I think much of our loss of individual freedom is directly attributable to the fact that so few Americans today seem to understand what it is, why it matters, or how it is achieved/maintained.
Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm. The documentary is chuck full of facts.
Just as a White House Press Conference is chuck full of facts.
What they both lack is truth. They are both facades, they are facts presented in a way to make an argument. The White House wants you to believe that the President is self-assured, and competent. Michael Moore wants to show you the other side... the vacant look on his face when he learns of the atacks, how he is very chummy with the House of Saud and oil companies.
Or are you claiming that Moore's movie lacks facts? That these things never happened? That the footage he has is also computer generated? That's a pretty bold claim.
If you ever took a course on philosophy, you'd know that the truth isn't so easy to find. It is up to the viewer to take the argument that Moore has composed, and place it in contrast to the facade that the White House Press Office puts forth, and decide... which one is closer to the truth.
I remember Roger & Me, and you're nit picking. Whether the plant closing took place 7 years later, or 1 year later, the fact is that Flint, Michigan was ignored. That's all Moore was trying to point out in that film.
Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (Score:3, Insightful)
$200B/250m = ~$800 for each man woman and child. (That's the total USA cost of the war so far, divided by the population of the USA.)
For a family of four, that's $2400 the president is going to have to take out of someones pocket. (What do you want to bet Haliburton isn't going to be paying it?)
That "tax credit" you got last year, $400/family? Well that's long gone by now.
The government is competing against you in the borrowing market, and you're the cosigner on their loan too. What a deal huh?
Cheers,
Greg
Re:Sports writer says: ... most powerful movie ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cite a factual error or gross oversimplification of the facts in 9/11. Cite how the Peace Prize and UN have been perverted by politics anymore than the GOP or the corporate dominated media. You accuse these institutions, run by fallable humans, without citing anything as damning as ignoring a real threat to the country to pursue an ideologically driven war against a hypothetical threat.
I am willing to accept mistakes, I am unwilling to accept incompetence and irresponsibility.
National defense information and work product was given to China in the 90s in exchange for campaign cash from the People's Liberation Army under Clinton's watch is acceptable behavior?
I don't think Bush's former business relationships are in the same league as this matter but Mike Moore wants you to believe that conducting legitimate business prior to taking office which is not approved of by Michael Moore is not; and Moore wants you to believe that Rich White Men(tm) have it in for democracy. Well, if that is true, then at the top of the list is Michael Moore and his films.
Where does Moore, or anyone else for that matter, come out and say that Mr. Chung or Mr. Ghandi should not have been indicted or tried? I don't remember anyone from the DNC doing anything other than returning any questionable funds, which totalled less than $500,000 out of $1 Billion in contributions for the 1996 campaign season. Ethics charges have been filed in the House against Tom DeLay (R-Texas) for campaign contribution violations. Rep. Nick Smith (R-Mich) alleges that he was promised $100,000 for his son's campaign by the RNC and threatened with marginalization if he refused to vote yes on the Medicare bill in Nov '03. Moore doesn't attribute this to Bush or his Administration directly, why do you attribute problems with the DNC fund raising arm with the Clinton Administration?
The Bush administration have shown little leadership when dealing with the Israelis or Saudis. They have been more concerned with Iraq than the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, they have faltered in pressuring real reform in Saudi Arabia. This could have been accomplished by securing Israeli concessions in the West Bank and Gaza. Clinton was much closer to securing some peace there, which most experts on the area (both Arab and Western) agree that the issue is the number one recruiting/fund-raising poster for real terrorists.
Readers should also consider what the Bush administration has done to protect the USA from further attack from terrorists and what Mike Moore has done. One element has taken pro-active and solid steps for our nations security, the other is like a yelping 300 pound chihuahua, complaining loudly about what Bush did, all the while failing to offer what he should have done.
It may not happen this year but I feel certain that F911 along with 'Bowling for Columbine' will be shown to be propoganda films, not documentaries, and the awards presented to them will be forever stained with this stigma.
Moore is simply stating that the emporer has no clothes. If you would like to state that the emporer has clothes, then you will need to back that up. Moore has claimed that his facts have all been vetted. Either point out ones that haven't or counter them with your own. Distracting the discussion with motive, or trying to discredit the ideas with guilt by association does not accomplish anything. I personally think that Moore falls into that trap sometimes in an attempt to reach a less informed audience, but you fail to even point out where he makes logical errors or overly-speculative arguments. And Moore has talked enourmously about how all of these things should have been handled. He refers to a lot of other policy wonks who actuall
America the Beautiful, Biased and Babooned (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:computers (Score:1, Insightful)
In the end, these selective type of litanies are the biggest type of lies of all.
Moore hates America (Score:2, Insightful)
But he is doing the duty of EVERY patriotic American. He is pushing his ideas on how to make a better America. Every citizen of every country has the same duty.
Rather then blindly sitting by he is trying to promote change in the behaviour of the people.
He has not given any aid the the enemy, he is only trying to stop a war.
I've had people say "the time to argue is over, don't try to change things, this is the way it is".
If that was the way democracy was blacks wouldn't be people, and women wouldn't have the vote.
Re:The New York Times on Moore's facts... (Score:3, Insightful)
Gee... Maybe Michael Moore used actual facts taken entirely out of context and mixed them with his own bogus theories and spin. Remember the scene when he talks about the memo given to condoleeza rice that was titled bin laden determined to attack in america? He played that little clip of rice saying the name of the memo, which was fact of course, and then proceeded to offer his own spin about how the memo warned of impending attacks in america by hijacking planes. I'm sorry, but did any of you actually watch the full testimony? After she states the name of the memo she proceeds to entirely shoot down the questioner's insinuation that the memo actually did give new specfific threats and warnings about attacks in america. It was totally bogus. The entire movie consisted of little snippets like these. Comments made without hearing the questions that these people were being asked or even anything close the full response. Of course anyone can look bad when everything they say is taken entirely out of context. Hell, someone could make an entire movie out of john kerry saying something he believes in, and then in the next scene saying he believes something completely the opposite. At least bush doesn't flip flop on the issues. He sticks with what he believes, popular or not.
Re:America the Beautiful, Biased and Babooned (Score:2, Insightful)
If they truly respected YOU, they would encourage you to go see the movie and let draw your own conclusions instead of treating you like a dumbass and hiding you from it.
America! where you're encouraged to not watch the evidence for yourself, where you're encouraged to keep your head in the sand and just tow the party line! baaaaa baaa baaaa!
Re:"Unfairenheit 9/11" (Score:2, Insightful)
Simple simmian! you're great!
you are the perfect example of what is so damn wrong with your people!
You don't like someone's opinion, so you make fun of his appearance!
I love it when you Dubya lovers make yourselves look so stupid!
You must have at least seen the commercials for the movie, where bush himself jokes about being with his own kind of people
Ya it was a joke he was making, but his choice of humour so blatantly tells us how he really feels about things.
Re:Intel, Slashdot Moderatoration (Score:1, Insightful)
Your own government trained, supported, and armed Osama Bin Laden to fight against the Soviets when they were occupying Afghanistan.
You stomp around the world like a bull in a chinashop, breaking everything you touch and then are somehow surprised when the enemies you have created come back and bite you?
Treat the world with some respect! Accept that other peoples, other countries have just as much right to be on this planet as you do
Oh, and by posting your political statement, then complaining how such statements shouldnt be on slashdot, you've made yourself a typical american hypocrite. you can't have it both ways!
Re:We have a free market of ideas in this country. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are.
how worthy of the world's hate my country is
It's not.
how stupid we are as Americans
Some are, although I'd say some are ignorant of the damage being inflicted to the US by Bush.
You are confusing the fact that the US is a country founded on the Constitution guaranteeing freedom and justice for all with select people. The US population is certainly as diverse as anything in the world. That also means there are many opinions out there, ranging from extreme left to extreme right. That makes your country as a whole unworthy of hate. In fact, there is much to be admired of the US. However, your leader is certainly a lying hateful corrupt person and a puppet to the neo-cons. Take it personally if you want, but I don't see the fluke of an election is the result of the "stupidity" of the Americans and worthy of being offended by it. What would be stupid is to re-elect the guy who supports the destruction of the environment (for $$), puts the country in deeper debt than any presidents in the US history (for $$), jeopardizes the education for children (for $$), supports the export of jobs outside the US for ($$) etc. etc.. Hey, that is your country... if you hate it so much, by all means, re-elect Bush.
Re:Two hour movie vs. 24/7 right-wing propaganda (Score:2, Insightful)
Many people have the mistaken impression that Fox News is politically neutral. "Fair and Balanced" and "We report, you decide". C'mon, who is really trying to hide obvious bias? At least MM, admits to his bias.
In fact, I would be willing to bet more people will recognize the bias and opinion of this movie than are able to discern bias in radio and television news. Every criticism of MM could be just as easily made of every daily news broadcast, but somehow that doesn't warrant the hype you see over this movie.
I still see no difference between the two mediums other than the fact that TV and radio are more far reaching and can use the ultimate tool of propaganda: repetition. That is, say it enough times and people will start to believe it's true.
Hell, using this logic... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes.
yeah, I'll bite... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Define truth. (Score:5, Insightful)
Either does Fox News, but they claim to be "Fair and Balanced".
I don't understand this. Why is this barrier only placed for liberal opinion?
Moore has never claimed to be balanced, he wears his bias on his sleeve. He doesn't deny that, why is this a complaint of yours?
I mean come on, what does Moore have to worry about, if bush is as bad as he wants everyone to believe, he could have been fair and balanced and everyone would have reacted the same way? Right? Right?
We'll let the people decide. They've been subjected to one side of the story by the mainstream media. Now they can see the other side from indy film producer Michael Moore.
They get their choice in November.
My Take on 9/11 (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I tend to look at most things, Moore's movies included, with a critical eye. The biggest problems I have with this movie are not with its content, but the way the content will be recieved. Moore has created an extremely powerful movie, but will it meet its goal of persuading people to change their minds about Bush or the war against terrorism? I really don't think so, and I'll explain why.
The crowd at the theater had already made up their minds about Bush. The movies main points - Bush was elected unfairly, Bush is an idiot who didn't know what to do for seven minutes after the second plane hit the tower, Bush diverted attention to creating a war against Iraq as soon as possible, and that he lied to the American people - were all applauded loudly by the crowd inside. Moore used an extreme amount of artistic licence and left out many facts to make his point, and the audience lapped up his viewpoint without question. This was not an audience that needed any additional persuading not to vote for Bush. Perhaps conservatives are seeing the movie in other theaters or waiting until the lines die down. But I didn't see them or hear any of them at the showing I attended.
The thing is, people who are still on the fence about who to vote for this November are likely to be those who need to understand both sides of the story. This movie deliberately sidesteps anything that could be used to question its points of view. Anyone who needs to see a different viewpoint about the things in Moore's movie will have to look elsewhere. When they do, it will become immediately apparent how Moore deliberately avoided lots of obvious things to make the points he did.
For instance, the movie states that with any possible recount, Gore would have been re-elected. That's a rather narrow viewpoint, because with both the recount the Supreme Court stopped and with the recount Gore wanted, Gore still would have lost. What Moore meant, but didn't say was that with any possible statewide recount with a certain arbitrary standard applied uniformly, Gore would have come out ahead. But we are made to believe that the Supreme Court stopped a process that would have resulted in a Gore presidency. Not true.
Richard Clarke appears in this movie where he states the Bush administration too quickly focused on Iraq, which weakened our war with Al-Qaeda. The movie also makes you believe that Bush was behind getting the Bin Laden's family out of the U.S. before the general ban on flight was lifted. What it doesn't say is that the flights didn't begin until the ban was lifted - and the authorization to get the Bin Ladens out of the country was made by Clarke himself.
Anyone wanting to dig a little will have no problem finding out that Moore was against taking action against Afghanistan when we did. But one of this movie's main points was that we didn't go after Osama hard enough and fast enough.
Moore portrays Iraq before we bombed it as an idyllic place, with children playing in the streets and happy citizens going about their business. This at the very least ignores the basic facts about Sadaam's murderous regime. For someone who really wanted to examine the facts, they could easily find out that more people were killed and maimed each year under Sadaam's regime than under the occupation. But this is opposite of the impression we get from this movie.
That's not to say this movie didn't score any points with this skeptical viewer. The scene of the contractors convention designed to teach people how to profit from the war turned my stomach. Watching the blank stare on Bush's face after he was told about the second plane made me seriously wonder about his competence. And I hadn't realized the extent the
tool (Score:3, Insightful)
He makes up "controversy [independent.co.uk]".
He pretends his movies are 'documentaries', and lets them be promoted as such, but when confronted, he'll tell you, "oh, by the way, they are just my opinion" (on the most recent Daily Show).
He fakes his films - such as cutting together 2 week apart film to make it look as if you could walk into a bank and walk out with a gun, when, in fact, he arranged to have the gun delievered there, after his 2 week waiting period.
And more than anything, his 'need to be heard'. That smacks of a fat, lonely bastard, with a need to be the center of attention, and I hate that kind of person. He needs to go back to writing a weblog like a normal, attention-starved 14yr old girl.
This has nothing to do with his politics. Point of fact, I can't stand to sit thru any of his garbage for the way it's presented, so I don't know much about his politics. He's a poseur, in the worst sense of the term, and he should not be listened to by anyone with a useful brain cell.
But that's just me, and I prefer to think for myself,
-bZj
Re:BEFORE the flamewar commences... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Parent is an Idiot. (Score:3, Insightful)
Name another documentary not reporting on technology that made the front page of
Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly, the liberals out there would never subject us to any kind of excessive government control if they had a chance...oh, wait again.
*sigh*
That article basically says "Bush hampers stem cell research" (which is stupid, IMHO, but hey...he's a religious guy, and I'm not), and "Russian scientists were hampered by politics". Hardly a decent argument that GWB has created a tyranny in the US.
Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you (does anyone, for that matter) *really* think Bush and Hitler are comparable in any way that's remotely important?
Actually, if you want to argue politics, I know of a good place [talk-politics.com] to do it. The crowd leans a bit liberal, but most there can hold there own in an argument. Watch out for Paul..he's cranky.
Bush paralyzed for 7 minutes after 2nd plane hit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it true that for 7 minutes after Bush was told that the second plane hit the WTC, he continued to read to elementary schoolkids?
This came one month after he had received a briefing entitled "Bin Ladin determined to attack in US" which described how Al Qaeda operatives were in the US planning to hijack planes, and 8 years after an earlier attack on the WTC.
It would seem that the President, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military, would not want to waste 7 minutes before taking steps to organize defenses (such as issuing orders to defend against other airliner attacks, which were the sole responsibility of the president under rules in place at the time).
Has GW ever gone on the record explaining what he was doing for those 7 minutes? Did the 9/11 commission ask him about it?
I had never heard about that fact before this film. My first impression was that it made GW look like a clueless moron who had no idea what to do. It's as if he can't think on his feet, he needs someone to tell him what to do.
Re:yeah, I'll bite... (Score:0, Insightful)
I live on this planet and I did not support this invasion. Nor did I support anything that followed after.
BooHoo about americans Dying... It's a "war", people die, deal with it.
Re:yeah, I'll bite... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's only one global superpower, and we're it.
Max
Re:BEFORE the flamewar commences... (Score:3, Insightful)
How can you say that Moore is stealing when he uses that title, but when Lindows steals from Microsoft (Lindows/Windows) it is parody?
(this is assuming you support Lindows right to have that name, a google search [google.com] makes me think so)
Re:BEFORE the flamewar commences... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm Canadian, and having spent a lot of time in the U.S., I knew you were "a bunch of obnoxious idiots" long before I ever heard about Michael Moore. Not all of you are obnoxious idiots, but Bush and Moore are two of the biggest. Moore is quite funny though, and I appreciate humour.
Re:BEFORE the flamewar commences... (Score:2, Insightful)
Fever Swamps (Score:3, Insightful)
1. People on both sides of the aisle put so much stock in FACTS yet they always conveniently forget about the CONTEXT. Facts are cold and hard, context gives them warmth. Translate that however you like.
2. I am struck constantly as of late as to how arrogant, self-righteous and self-absorbed some of the Left is in the country. Several commentors have made an effort to come across as fair and balanced, but instead have given off a scent of arrogance, especially when talking of the unwashed masses of the very stupid and caveman-ish American public. It is convenient to believe that people who don't believe what you believe are cretons, much easier to just right them off I suppose. I used to believe the same, but I no longer do. People _ARE_ smarter than you think, perhaps you need to try harder to explain your case. And to the Right, you aren't innocent here either, a lot of the same criticisms apply.
3. The Right has nothing to fear from this film. Moore will make a lot of money, some will see confirmation of their views in his film, others will see the opposite. In the end, though, Moore is still a ghoulish opportunist who is more interested in fanning the flames of discontent than anything else, especially if it enhances his standing as spokesperson of the Left and it makes money.
4. Fishbowls are a dangerous place to be. For all those who may visit a website, see a lot of people who agree with you, and then assume that that must be so across the board: big mistake!
5. What is with all the anti-Christianity stuff? For a group who proclaims to be all about acceptance, understanding, loving your fellow man, diversity, there is a lot of intolerance here, an uncomfortable amount.
6. Those on the Left with a seething hatred for Bush. Stop it, it makes you look foolish and petty and turns off those who are in the middle. You want the moderate vote, so don't alienate them. You are in big enough trouble already by having Kerry, don't make it worse.
tekan - somewhere in the middle
Re:BEFORE the flamewar commences... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do any other non-Americans find this as hilarious as I do ?
Whatever happened to discourse? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that this polarization has been steadily increasing since Reagan left office. And now it has reached a point where the country is nearly evenly divided between conservative and liberal. The liberals who I know have become very much more liberal and the conseravtives much more conservative and each side believes that the other is idiotoic, distorts the facts, lies, and spews venom and vile for political gain. With these views being held by both sides, it's now impossible to even simply debate the issues. It's sad that we have reached such a point where "we" are right and "they" are wrong. I fear where our politcs are heading when there is unwillingness to listen to and a hatred of those with different views.
Missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it funny that in a country as big as America, there's only ONE person - ONLY ONE - that's got enough courage to produce something different from the mainstream! Americans always talk about freedom of speech and being able to say what you want, but when someone like Michael Moore comes along and does just that, he's pulled through the dirt instantly. No matter how many lies are in his movies, I think he may be one of the greates patriots around at the moment. He sees problems with his country and attempts to make people aware of these problems to improve things.
Even the biggest Michael Moore hater must admit that something's wrong when billions (trillions?) of dollars are spent on a war in Iraq, when people in your own country are dying in the streets because they don't have access to health care, food, education and shelter. I'll just talk about one of the facts that struck me as horrible from Bowling for Columbine (I'm not sure if this fact is true, but if it is it's just absolutely horrible!). The fact I'm refering to is that welfare is being privatized! How can this possibly work?! There's nothing to be gained for a private organisation from running a welfare system for the general public. As a result that welfare system will of course suffer greatly. How can a government allow something like this to happen?!
Re:Are they fighting for our freedom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parents have done lots of things because "they love their children". Yell at them. Beat them. Murder them.
The fact that "they loved them" has nothing to do with whether what they did or did not do is right or wrong, nor does it help us decide whether a given proposed action is an optimal solution to making the world a happier nicer place with the fewest bad things happening overall.
I'm sorry, both you and Michael Moore are idiots, and I'm glad you're not making decisions for us.
> A good analogy here would be a parent that educates himself on vaccines and learns that more children die from taking the vaccines than the diseases they were meant to prevent.
Was that before we spent 10 years giving the vacines and nearly eradicating the disease, or after? What will happen if we stop giving the vacine to *anyone* and the disease explodes again? Isn't it true that the only reason your child isn't at risk of getting it is because everyone else's children have been vacinated and thus aren't in a position to infect your child?
If it's so clear cut, then surely eventually the NIH/etc/etc will do the math and change.
Ooohhh, wait, it's all a *conspiracy*, isn't it.
Very few things are simple and straight forward, or black and white. If you try and treat the world that way, you'll end up in much more trouble than you can imagine.
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:3, Insightful)
No. It's sad, but it happens. By your logic, the Allies should not have joined in WWII and should have let Hitler and the Japanese Emporer take over the world and wipe out all Jew, Chinese, and other undersireables, since after all, civilians might die and in fact many did die. It's exactly that kind of thinking that let them get as far as they did before they were opposed.
I know you liberals can't admit it, but sometimes war is justified or is neccesary. Now, I'm not saying I like war or that it's a good thing, or even that we should be in Iraq. I'm just saying that while war is an evil, it is not the greatest evil.
Now, I don't like the idea of purposely targeting civilians to lower morale (the British and, reluctantly, the US) did this in WWII. But in the case of the atomic bombs, they probably saved more lives along with the entire country of Japan.
Your idiotic post just proves to me again that it's a good thing that most people aren't as pacifistic as you, or else, we'd be conquered and oppressed by the first group of people with sharp sticks and the will to use them to come along.
Wishful thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sports writer says: ... most powerful movie ... (Score:4, Insightful)
People say "Michael Moore wants you to believe..." but they ignore that that is what Michael Moore believes, too. I'm convinced he actually believes in the statements of every movie he makes.
Also, rich white politicians have been crying out against Rich White Men for several years now, and it's not always hypocrisy. Moore simply contends that the Bush administration has a conflict of interest, or at the very least, a good old boy's club.
Moore also offers several suggestions (well, usually other people's suggestions) for what should have been done in the film:
- Listened more to the FBI and CIA about terror threats inside the US (Clinton may have done poorly on this front; most likely Clinton AND Bush both did a bad job - can you handle THAT?)
- Gone after al Qaeda sooner and with more strength
- Not passed USA PATRIOT Act (or at least not so quickly and not with so many rights taken away)
- Not attempt to manipulate the public with terror warning levels or vauge terror warnings
- Not grasp at al Qaeda-Iraq link straws
- Not invaded Iraq
The first two are positive recommendations of action, or suggestions of what should have been done. The last four are negative, but all except the critique of the USA PATRIOT Act are critiques of policies that he claims had no effect on terrorism.
In short, Moore offers plenty of suggestions of what he should have done. Also, remember that these are simply points the film makes; my point is that there are plenty of suggestions.
Moore is very clearly biased against Bush, but I think calling it "propoganada," while probably technically true, has, in everyday usage, implies a message from the government or other trusted source and is the only source of information given to the public, and also calls unneccessarily tries to tie it to World War II atrocities.
I'm not entirely sure what category this film would be in if not "Documentary." Roger Ebert himself says that there are always biases in documentaries, and even if they try to be unbiased, they always reflect the bias of the creator anyway.
--Stephen
Re:Fever Swamps (Score:2, Insightful)
Most people I know on the left have no problem with the concept of christianity per se, hell Jesus was a leftie through and through, however what they object to is the structures that have arisen around christianity. The churches, cathedrals and priests have all, over two thousand years been built to one end, keeping the structure going. This has meant in the past, persecution of any one challanging the churches doctorine, to protecting those who have committed crimes that need to be brought to a court of law(Render Unto Ceaser that which is Ceasers) but instead because it puts the church in a bad light, they are shipped off out of sight.
And before you get all in a huff, yes all other regligions are guilty of the same sins to a greater or lesser extent.
Of course this is a film that the left will love and the right will loath, its preaching to the converted, but hell so does FOX.
I am a lefty and while I think Bush is a complete idiot with all the foreign policy talent of a drunken newt, I don't hate him. I think the people to hate are the second time rounders, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of them. Instead of concentrating on tackling the true threat to both the US and my country (Australia) they allowed their hatred of Saddam to divert much needed resources into an invasion which despite all protestations to the contrary, is not going well and threatens to leave Iraq a splintered shattered shell used as a proxy battlefield for the regions players.
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan because the Taliban had with Al-Queda declared war on America. However as with Iraq, once the US had won the war, they don't know how to win the peace. The warlords are splintering again, the Taliban is making a small but noticable come back, and Afghanistans main export (poppy) is thriving. It is this failure to follow through and learn from past mistakes that tends to piss people off.
Well I've had my rant and rave, and before I go just let me say that there is plenty about the US that I do admire, the Bill of Rights for one, and the ideals that founded it.
Re:Bet the French would've applauded these films t (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:5, Insightful)
I really wonder how Bush could get more than 1 vote! What credibility does he have left?
Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not Ann Coulter (Score:3, Insightful)
Moore is sensational at times but he takes more care with the truth than pretty much any celebrity journalist you see on the air these days, particularly those of the "fair and balanced" variety on Fox.
Moore's critics tend to focus on minutiae while conceding that his larger points are correct. For example, many complained about the scene in Bowling for Columbine where he was given a rifle for opening up a new account. Some say he could not have picked up the gun from the bank immediately, he would have had to wait for it to be delivered. Moore might have got that point wrong, or he might not have, I haven't been convinced either way, but no one disputes that the bank really was giving away guns for opening new accounts. Most of Moore's critics "smoking guns" are of this caliber.
Ann Coulter, on the other hand, has never been caught saying anything that remotely resembles the truth. She's made a living out of appearing regularly on all major political TV shows while complaining that the overwhelming liberal bias of American media prevents conservatives from being heard. She also says liberals can't argue from policy, that all they do is ad hominem attacks, while in the same breath she labels everyone to the left of Joe McCarthy a traitor.
Really, the only reason she was ever featured on TV was because of her looks. Happily, judging from the recent pictures I've seen of her, this is no longer a factor and hopefully her period of undeserved fame is just about finished.
No - they're kindness (Score:2, Insightful)
No - they're a reflection of the idea that we're civilized enough that we don't want to leave the poor to starve and die on our streets, and we're rich enough that we can afford to feed them.
We don't feed poor children in our cities because we want their votes; we feed them because we're not heartless bastards.
Re:Sports writer says: ... most powerful movie ... (Score:0, Insightful)
So, in summary, the granting of a prestigious award to this film is to be expected and downplayed because many of the judges probably don't hate the French.
it is what he did not say (Score:3, Insightful)
The crowd that seems likely to find this movie believable are as paranoid as those who are convinced that Clinton had Vince Foster killed. Please read Hitchens [msn.com] for a good retort. BTW for those who are unfamiliar with Cristopher Hitchens, he is a conservative, brilliant writer who is no great fan of Bush.
USA was like that until Bush came along (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, for most Americans, they are the only source of information. People like Greg Pelast, who was writing exposes about the corruption of the 2000 election right after it happened, had to go to other countries to get published.
The American press won't print anything that goes against the business or political interests of the leaders of the handful of corporation that control all American media. And this is the real crisis, one that will last long after the Chimp-in-Chief has left the stage.
how it works (Score:2, Insightful)
So to keep from turning into crackpots ourselves, and as voters, dangerous ones, Americans should seek out a wide range of information sources. Certainly any American can understand BBC coverage, or that by The Economist magazine. It's interesting how much more critical of America it is than that of our mainstream press. And these are our allies, and in the case of The Economist, conservatives! Regarding diversity of information sources, keep in mind that there's a difference in legitimacy, in terms of fact checking, between news coverage and radio-show opinion that is spontaneously generated in response to a caller on the phone.
In the US, the neo-con right is rejecting the most accessible sources of information by dismissing the media as "liberal", and slowly turning into ignorant crackpots. And ignorant crackpots *inside* the US are even more dangerous that ignorant crackpots *outside*. Just look at who they elected to see what I mean -- one of their own.
BTW, how do you think the press got to be so "liberal"? Do you suppose researching the suffering of other people opened the eyes and hearts of one journalist after another? Maybe the essence of liberalism is "wanting to help those not your own". Or "making everyone your own". I can see how covering the news would do that to a person.
Re:Truth? (Score:2, Insightful)
Many people have come out and said that Iraq posed no immediate threat, including Richard Clarke and this "anonymous" senior CIA official who is now coming out.
If you really want to know what Richard Clarke thinks about the War on Terror and Iraq, read his book. Personally, I have read it cover to cover, and find it very informative.
Some of the things he says:
I don't like Bush, but I detest Moore (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that you've (hopefully) read that site, lets apply what we know about Moore to his new movie. First, he's a rabid anti-republican. How many of you would pay any attention to a movie about democrats that was filmed by Rush Limbaugh? Hopefully none. It's stupid, it'd be like asking a satanist to tell you about christianity.
Finally, check http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ . This page is written by a fairly left-wing guy, and he tears apart this piece of crap that Moore has shat out.
I don't like Bush. I'm a libertarian, and a limited-government guy. Bush certainly doesn't appeal to me, but Moore has taken a que from Big Brother about dis-information. To him IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH and lies are truth.
Re:BEFORE the flamewar commences... (Score:5, Insightful)
What?!
Look bunky, the title is homage (since in Moore's view the political atmosphere in the United States is approaching that depicted in the book). No matter what Mr. Bradbury says, you can't copyright titles. (I can't believe that man is upset, by the way -- someone must have got to him.) If you could, the available namespace for new creative works would be impossibly cluttered by now. To call naming your movie similarly to another work in order to make a point about similarity ungraciously stealing from another artist is unconscionable.
But I wouldn't be angry at you, except you made that damnable "limousine liberal" crack. If you think it's possible to get rich off of producing documentaries than you are a schmuck, pardon my Yiddish.
Moore's comes from a working class background, a fact that's obvious to anyone whose seen Roger & Me and don't give me that crap about it being full of lies. His father and grandfather worked for General Motors. He had to sell his home to get Roger & Me made. Take a look for yourself. [yahoo.com] It's impossible he got into this business expecting to make boatloads of cash; that he's succeeded at it means he should be lauded, not condemned for the crime of success. If you're a documentary filmmaker who somehow makes money you must have a spark of genius in you, just like Rush Limbaugh must have for proving talk radio to be profitable. (Whether I agree with him is something else -- but Rush did made it work.)
Conservatives should be lauding his success, but instead they try to prevent people from seeing his movie, all because Moore doesn't agree with them.
Re:My Pet Goat (Score:3, Insightful)
You've been watching too many films where American Presidents single-handidly defeat a place load of terrorists, attack alien spacecraft and save the whales.
Life isn't Hollywood, nothing like 9/11 had ever happened before. Only in Hollywood would a president instinctively connect a briefing six weeks ago regarding Bin Laden's evil terrorist network to the news about a place crash.
Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why the Kurds were killed when the good old US of A abandoned them to be killed by some of the same millitary aid we shipped to Saddam when he was "the enemy of mine enemy."
We encouraged the Kurds and Shia to "rise up" against Saddam H. The result? We did nothing and many of those people died. Just who was in charge when this happened? George HW Bush.
Finally, nice bait and switch.
This was was authorized as an action against the people/countries behind 9/11 - go read the congressional authorization given to GW Bush - you'll see it didn't authorize force because of the poor oppressed Kurds (or any of Saddams other oppressed population) and it wasn't because of WMD.
The very last and least important item in GWB's reason list was that Saddam was a "bad guy."
If the war was about humanitarian reasons, it should have been "pitched" that way. It wasn't either about it, or pitched as such.
Finally, as sick as I think it is, No, I don't think most Americans would think it worth $2400 a family to invade Iraq. Sad to say. I'm not sure I'd think it was worth it, but for other reasons.
The point is, this war is costing a huge amount. I don't think the USA public signed up as a knowing participant at this level of cost and for these reasons. That will impact the desire of the public to be involved, and stay involved. If the war turns out to be a failure because the US public wouldn't support it, then GWB ought to shoulder the blame, rather than the public as the public was completely misled.
Bug GWB can't seem to figure out any mistakes he's made. (This clearly is a recepie for disaster...)
Cheers,
Greg
Re:BEFORE the flamewar commences... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you think so, you clearly indicate your ignorance and political bias.
Ann Coulter makes probably the MOST stupid baseless claims of ANYONE on any side that I know of today.
This movie was not as good as Columbine; however, factually it will not have the troubles columbine did. Columbine has some fact issues.
Maybe I could see you comparing him with RUSH.
9-11 is VERY mild and VERY careful. He could go so much in depth and make reasonable theories without a single lie---- but he does NOT. Its almost like its a clever ploy to get people to FREAK out about next to nothing just to illustrate how bad things have become.
Remember people it was ANN and RUSH who talked of clinton having mass graves in AK....
Re:Moore's Politics (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple, Bush & Co. had to have a plausible excuse to go into Iraq and finish what his father started in Gulf War version 1.0.
Also as payback for the time Saddam tried to have the senior Bush assassinated.
Having been born and raised in Texas, I can tell you that some of the people still have a frontier attitude towards meting out justice: "You tried to kill my daddy so I'ma gonna come over there and kick your a$$!" Fortunately, not everyone in Texas thinks that way. Unfortunately, we have a person in power that has the ability to send others into the line of fire to do his dirty work rather than risking his own a$$. He also believes that God has rubber-stamped "OK" on all his actions.
As for Moore, he has the right to say what he wants and, like many others have already said, I'll defend his right to say it. However, he comes across as loud-mouthed, ego-centric, and a bit of a bully in his interviewing tactics.
Instead of worrying about Mr. Moore's political views, worry about your own views. Challenge what you believe, read opposing viewpoints, educate yourself on the issues America faces, and VOTE for the person you think will do the best job as President of the USA. Don't allow other people to tell you how to vote or what to think; discover it for yourself. Voting along party lines is double plus ungood.
Re:Rush Limbaugh... (Score:3, Insightful)
I see several messages in the film. What follows is a series of non-sequiturs which may or may not form a coherent argument. What's the matter with me? Well, I just saw the film last night, and I haven't finished processing what I think of it. For the longest time, I've wanted someone else, a great communicator, someone people listen to, to show everyone what I've known is happening all along. But judging from some of the responses I've read here, it's all being distorted by election year petty liberal vs. conservative bickering. As IF IT MATTERS wether you want progression or stability!! WE ARE THE LITTLE PEOPLE, we work at their pace. There's 592 people in Congress who are supposed to be representing us and THEY ARE ALL BUDDIES and they are all making a lot of money. They are competing, just like us, on a playing field where each man/woman is trying to get money/stuff/luxury, whatever. They don't care about you any more than you care about the next guy, the guy who's going to get the job you wanted, the guy who's stealing your girlfriend away because he's better looking and drives a BMW. At the end of the film, Moore sums it up with the quote from 1984. I have a better one:
Moore's films ask the all important question--can you depend on the mainstream media? Can you depend on CNN and NBC, our daily sources of information, to report on something this obvious, to care about their customers (the uninformed public) enough to AT LEAST give both sides of the story? And of course, you can ask the same thing about his film--can you depend on him to tell the truth? Certainly if this IS the truth, it took some serious SERIOUS balls to come out and say something this inflamatory. But maybe he's showing that these people aren't that big after all, that one man is willing to stand up to a few of these big corporations/politicians and flip them off to their face and get away scott free.
"Ignorance is Strength
Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.
The aims of these groups are entirely irreconcilable.. --George Orwell, 1984"
He also frequently focuses on the lower class, the base that the whole system stands upon, the bottom row of bricks in the pyramid you see on every dollar.
Why them? Because everything is messed up in the favor of the rich and always has been! Why is it that all of us are just as smart, just as good, just as much PEOPLE as the people who run the show, but we're starving, working hard just to make up for the theft they perform on society on a daily basis? America was supposed to be something different from the beginning. America was meant to let the little people have the opportunity to compete with one another to form infinite class stratification. The idea is that living isn't worth living if you're not competing, and therefore it keeps us all busy.
The real disturbing part of the movie is when the FBI came and investigated some guy who was basically just talking bad about Bush in his local gym. It's a model for how we ALL felt right after the plane crashes. No one could say anything execpt the media, and all they could do was infuse fear and distrust into the American people. Moore goes on to show how the media was USED to distract the public while laws were introduced that couldn't b
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:5, Insightful)
I just quoted your own words to prove that you think Moore is a liar. Those are your words, right? Then how could I possibly be misrepresenting your opinion?
Re:BEFORE the flamewar commences... (Score:5, Insightful)
Success makes alot of people forget who they are/were and often is the failing point that make people who have achived drop back to were they came from. The problem is that this time around they don't like any of it. They dispise the roots that help image them into a person admired and successfull that even you become a fanboy. The grandparrent poster was correctly portraying moore from the perception of us non-fanboy liberals/?/.
Re:Moore's Politics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:yeah, I'll bite... (Score:5, Insightful)
It happened to the Greeks, the Romans, to some extend the French, the Spaniards, (heck the Germans too).
I actually read an article a long time ago in "Scientific America" (I think), putting forth the theory that every super power will eventually vanish, due to complacency and self rightousness and exploitation by a few rich people.
Just look around you, you can already see it. Kids are already overweight at age of six, sitting in front of the TV all day. People watch their "games", cheering their heroic soldiers while drinking beer. Education is declining. People watch nothing but so called "reality" shows. Typically both spouses have to work now in order to keep a lifestyle that could be supported by only one income just a decade ago. Politics are reduced cheap TV shows (infotainment). All political discussion has been reduced to "Democratic or Republican". Etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.
(All this is of course not limited to the US, but seen in many western countries)
The US maybe be currently the strongest military power on this planet financed by a $480.000.000.000/Year military budget, at the expense of US citizens (and that is excluding current Afghanistan and Iraq war costs).
Ironically that does not even seem to be enough to control a little arabic country that has been bled out by over 10 years of economic sanctions.
And as violence tends to create more violence, it is not even used to keep the american people safe.
It's all so rediculous, if it wasn't so serious it would be actually funny.
How long are the american people willing to pay for that (at the expense of education, health care, social security, high long term interest rates, etc, etc)? Right now there's some kind of almost blind patriotism that keeps people on the line, but it can't hide the truth forever.
Just look at this number again: $480.000.000.000/Year plus currently $200.000.000.000 for Iraq. Does anybody realize how much money that is? Doesn't anybody else think this money could be better spent then using it to essentially piss of the rest of the population of this planet, and especially Muslims?
In terms of economic output the US is already second in line behind the EU. And BTW George W. was great for the EU, leading to a common mindset to accept less somewhat national independence in order to be able to jointly withstand US interests (at least this is how it is perceived by many).
Re:Hello (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We have a free market of ideas in this country. (Score:4, Insightful)
The bin Laden family is a HUGE family. From what I understand the family patriarch had 54 children, not counting the hundreds of cousins. Osama was the black sheep of the family. He was disowned kicked out of his home country. This is strike one against Mr. Moore, because any ties between Bush and the bin Laden family are completely irrelevant to anything Osama did.
It's not a big deal that bin Ladens attending university in the US were flown out of the country. This was for their protection. If non-Arab sikhs were killed (one was killed in my hometown a week after 9/11) just because they wore turbans, how much more danger would people be if they were named "bin Laden"?
Michael Moore found a tiny molehill in the flight of some bin Laden family members out of the country. It doesn't surprise me that he managed to make an entire 90 minute propaganda film out of this molehill. What is truly amazing are the hordes of people who think this is significant.
Re:BEFORE the flamewar commences... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let in the common sense about Moore & the Dems (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that Moore pulled marketing stunts to increase the popularity of his movie has no bearing on the amount of merit there may or may not be in the message of the movie. A lot of people seem to be unable to separate the two; they diss the movie itself because they don't like Moore's marketing methods. Whether or not people like the messenger (or the message itself for that matter) should not affect their willingness to hear a message that is true, but it does :/ Myself, I don't see any problem with him marketing his documentaries. There is nothing wrong with either trying to make money off of your documentary or with trying to get a message that you believe in out to as wide an audience as possible. And yet people seem to think he should rather shrink back and humbly stand quietly in the corner. Hmph.
Sadly, you're right (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrast this with how many of my allegedly university educated (and college educated) friends look at the Americans - often times the reactions are vitriolic, uncharitable, and reflect only a superficial interface with *actual* Americans, as opposed to some sort of caricature seen on TV or presented in Canadian (opinionated, spin-doctoring, discontent-formenting) media.
If they're all so smart and well educated, they should be able to 'walk a mile in the other guys shoes' and should know better than to form opinions of a whole body of people by the outliers. And they should know that it makes little sense to form opinions with little data. But this paucity of data seems to lead to very nasty and very mean-spirited opinions.
Whether we as Canadians should or should not have joined the war in Iraq, whether we should support the war on terror, whether we have serious border issues ourselves with our own intelligence and police agencies reporting fairly significant terrorist planning and fundraising activities within our borders, etc. - all of these things are things that should be calmly discussed and upon which differing points of view can be coped-with. We should still be able to maintain a civil relationships with our US neighbours.
It is no mark of distinction, no badge of honour, no sign of integrity or eductation to blindly bash those you've never met, to categorize them blankly based on a few noisy mouthpieces, nor to show your own small-hearted nature by vilifying people who have (for the most part) very similar aspirations, lives, and motivations...
To my mind, this kind of behaviour (especially given the way we open our arms to people the rest of the world over) is just pathetic. We should have our own opinions, but we shouldn't be obnoxious buttheads when it comes to our neighbours in the south.
Many of my American friends have apologized for the kind of stereo-typical American tourista that you sometimes encounter ("Those are the kind of people that we even wince about... they make us all look bad.") I feel very much that way about Canadians that can't disagree with their American counterparts without resorting to unthoughtful and unflattering epithets, errant classifications, and bilious polemic. This kind of conduct is unjustified and makes me want to disown these boorish clowns... or at least makes me embarassed to admit to being from the same country, which is sad, because I love the place and I took and Oath to defend it... I just wish some of the people would act a bit more like polite, rational adults and less like petulant, self-absorbed, egocentric children....
Re:My Take on 9/11 (Score:1, Insightful)
I too confess I am Moore fan and I must also confess that I haven't seen this movie, but, I want to address some of the points you raised regarding the movie.
. 1. Anyone wanting to dig a little will have no problem finding out that Moore was against taking action against Afghanistan when we did. But one of this movie's main points was that we didn't go after Osama hard enough and fast enough. I think Moore's point on this is that the real culprits in the 9/11 attacks were Osama and the Saudis. Afganistan was a convenient target because Osama was located there and they had poor defenses, but the true funders and perpetrators of terror were in Saudi Arabia. My personal opinion is that Afganistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia should have been considered enemies of the United States and attacked. The first two for harboring terrorists and the latter for funding it. Let's not forget who 15 of the 19 bastards were. It is truly puzzling about the lengths to which this administration has protected Saudi Arabia from the slightest admonition - which naturally leads to legitimatee questions about the the ties between Bush & the Saudis.2. Moore portrays Iraq before we bombed it as an idyllic place, with children playing in the streets and happy citizens going about their business. This at the very least ignores the basic facts about Sadaam's murderous regime. For someone who really wanted to examine the facts, they could easily find out that more people were killed and maimed each year under Sadaam's regime than under the occupation. But this is opposite of the impression we get from this movie.
Moore makes the point that we attacked Iraq under false pretenses: that they were colluding with Osama (a falsehood) and they had WMDs (another falsehood). Saddam was a murderer but could there be a better way to avenge 9/11 attacks than killing civilians as collateral damage to secure non-existent weapons or non-existent Al-Qaeda members? I think Moore makes a labored point about this rather than laying out the case - maybe its not cinematically appealing?
Re:Dishonest (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, man. They're really doing this?! They actually consider the term "suicide bomber" to be left-biased, and thus feel the need to change it to "homicide bomber," thinking that correcting that percieved bias with a lame, jokey, redundant modifier is more important than clearly presenting the story?
If that's true, then I think two things are obvious:
1. They are tools.
2. Never before has so much Jello been so wrongly not dumped down so many's trousers.
Re:BEFORE the flamewar commences... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's amazing just how far right the US thinks the middle is.
I haven't heard Kerry OR Moore say anything I'd interpret even as "left" let alone "extreme left".
So to all you kids in the US of A I say this: Try to get whatever foreign news you can! If it rates well they'll put more of it on! You might even get some world news in your local broadcasts!
Moore is a sensationalist (Score:3, Insightful)
My views are more aligned than opposed to what Moore has to say, and I still wish he'd shut up. He's a logically-terminant fool, with no insight other than the party line: he's the liberal Rush Limbaugh.
I don't trust Moore any more than I do Fox News. He's skirted nearly every 'unavoidable' question about his motives with strawman questions (ie, "What is your motivation for making this film? Is it to be in the lime light?" answer: "Do I look like the kind of person that would make a good impression on a stage?" - or some proximity). If he can't answer a question directed to him in an honest manner, he can't be trusted to answer questions of his own chosing.
Re:Double spin example. Bin Laden and Saudi flight (Score:3, Insightful)
Conservative spin: Moore is lying, the airspace was re-opened on 9/13.
Liberal response: you missed the whole point. The point is that the U.S. government should have detained and interviewed these people to learn as much as possible about Osama bin Laden. But someone very high up owed these people a favor, and though it to be more important to make them happy than to get to the bottom of the 9/11 terror attacks. So they got to board flights out of the country long before many other important people did, not to mention regular travelers.
Re:Moore's history of honesty (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Christopher Hitchens Review (Score:1, Insightful)
Specifically...
As a character assasination of Mr. Moore it is moderately effective. As a rebuttal to the MOVIE, however, it is utterly pathetic. Basically the article calls Mr. Moore names, presents a number of facts from the movie, throws some text on the page that looks sort of like logic until you read it, then goes back to playground insults. Almost every sentence of "proof" in the article provides a nice specific example of a logical fallacy. For example in the paragraph immediately following the facts presented form the film (which, given the general tone of the article can be said to represent an error of Accent):
"It must be evident...": Prejudicial Language. I can say "It must be evident to anyone that the sky is green" but that doesn't make it so.
"Either the Saudis run U.S. policy...or they do not." Non-sequitur and/or False Dilemma depending on how you read it.
"As allies..." Ditto.
etc.
Re:Michael Moore clearly does not hate America (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless of how one feels about whether we should have bombed Afganistan or removed Saddam from power, the amount of profiteering that Moore suggests the Bush administration is facilitating to the benefit of their closest friends/advisors/contributors is sickening.
As he says at the beginning of the film...There's no secret sinister motive for world domination, this administration's goal has been, and will continue to be, making as much money as possible. And that goal supercedes all other priorities including the wellfare of our nation and the lives of the troops fighting in Iraq.
Re:"Unfairenheit 9/11" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (Score:5, Insightful)
This analogy is silly. Let's also say that the thing you're looking for was purpoted to weigh hundreds of tons and need an untold amount of support hardware and shelter in order to exist. Thousands of people would have to have at least have some clue where the thing is; you've had unfettered access to these people for more than a year. And you've had 100,000 people looking for it using spy satellites and the most advanced technology we have for more than a year as well. If the weapons really do exist they must have been hidden so well that they themselves didn't know where it was.
Is there ever going to be a point where you are going to change your mind on this? Say, five years from now, will you still be holding onto this line? You'll still be able to say it then -- the argument would still be exactly the same: Iraq will still be a big country, I'm sure there will be all sorts vague signs you will be able to interpret in just the right way. What's the threshold here?
Re:BEFORE the flamewar commences... (Score:2, Insightful)
Moore's title-theft, however, is different. First point of difference: Fahrenheit 451 refers to the temperature at which paper burns, which is integral to the movie. Fahrenheit 9/11 makes reference to the movie content with the "9/11" part, but what does "Fahrenheit" have to do with anything? Because there was a fire in the buildings? woohoo. It's not integral to the theme of the movie that there was a fire. The movie is political propaganda, designed by a skilled lier to attempt to sway an election. To mistake it as anything more significant is folly. That no one has taken Moore out in the streets and publicly flogged him for idiocy and for lying to the public through his agitpropumentaries is telling of the sad state of our society.
News for Nerds (Score:2, Insightful)
This stirring up controversy and fanning the flame is fitting if the subject is Linux vs Microsoft, Free vs Java, paper-trail vs Diebold, vi vs emacs, etc. It is not fitting when the subject is hate-the-president vs love-the-president.
Maybe someone should start a "News for Freedom Fighters" or "News for Foolproof Voters" site. Maybe someone already has.
A Review by Jeff Jarvis (Score:3, Insightful)
Jeff Jarvis, a well-respected and popular blogger, has put together the best review of Fahrenheit 9/11 [buzzmachine.com] I have seen so far.
Back a few months ago, I had written a couple of personal [earthlink.net] thoughts [earthlink.net] about Michael Moore and his rhetoric.
The executive summary of all my nonsensical ranting is that I've always believed the Iraq situation is far from being the black and white portrait Moore attempts to paint with his rhetoric. While blaming everything on Bush would make things a whole lot easier, and has been serving Moore's book and movie sales very well, I believe this approach oversimplifies a set of very convoluted problems and sets us up for future failures in our foreign policies.
While it is important to acknowledge and reflect on Bush's failures, it is equally as important to look beyond the conspiracy theories, acknowledge the fact that regardless of what party you're looking at, regardless of which country, under-the-table deals and corporate interests always have and always will be a part of the picture, attempt to find what the right course of action is, pursue it and limit casualties on all sides.
The fact that the official democratic candidate, John Kerry, was one of the few to vote for the military intervention, should at least get people to think that maybe, just maybe, there were good reasons for it, even if the ones invoked by this administration (immediate threat, WMD) appear to have been wrong.
a movie about a man about a man about a man... (Score:2, Insightful)
So will Moore do a movie about him and he do another about Moore.... until we have a nothing but scraps of hair and film left?
But, seriously as Moore is not American... isn't this just another attack on all Americans our institutions and everything in America? Wouldn't it be much more honest if he was an American instead of the product of a foreign culture that hates America's?
Re:Bush paralyzed for 7 minutes after 2nd plane hi (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's something else most of us, unfortunately with hindsight blinding us, have forgotten about those crucial minutes after the second plane hit:
No one knew at the time that the ATTACK was over.
There could've been six other planes (ten planes was the original plan) getting ready to line up their sights with various targets around the country (including the very school Bush was having a photo-op that morning). Hell, there could've been all sorts of other terrorist acts, never mind airplane crashes, that would've been all tied to occur as close to 9AM Eastern that morning of Sept. 11. In those seven minutes, Bush could've been doing many many many things to set things in motion as a response.
He could've done all those things in as frantic a manner as possible; I don't care if he scared the entire classroom and left the children there crying scared out of their minds, but instead what we witness, as captured on videotape, is of a person that has absolutely no clue as to what to do.
Hell, I've gotten phone calls of my son throwing up in school, and even if I'm in a very important client meeting I don't wait seven minutes, let alone two, before I've excused myself and checked in on what's happening. Is it so preposterous to expect our president to do the same for the nation? Giuliani projected strength and calm while my city was under attack, yet you can bet he wasn't sitting stoned-face in order to do so.
Re:Sports writer says: ... most powerful movie ... (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, this idea of labelling anyone who drinks a glass of wine or eats french toast or (god forbid) attends a film festival in France as a francophile (in a pejoritive sense) is ridiculous. About as ridiculous as it would be to label everyone who likes kids as a pedophile.
-a
Re:OK, how about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't he say or imply that bin Laden family members left the US while all flights were grounded and without interviews, when in fact they left after flights resumed and they were made available for interviews, with some interviewed and some not?
No. he says (and shows the departure records to support it) that the Saudis were given priority queueing to be the first ones allowed to leave the country when the FAA finally began resuming flights, on 9/13/01.
Didn't he make a big deal of Bush et al getting hair/makeup care before public appearances, making them appear vain and shallow?
No, he simply showed that footage to fill some time during the opening credits. Moore certainly never makes any mention about it in the movie, and you could replace those scenes with frolicking puppies and not alter the movie's points one iota.
We could go on, but the fact is Moore is vociferous and entertaining, but not terribly talented nor concerned with the truth.
You're one to talk...
Re:This proves it.. Slashdot is indeed biased. (Score:1, Insightful)
For the rest of you: read parent carefully. THIS is why the US is hated so in the rest of the world: this is EXACTLY why.
Learn a lesson.
Re:Won't change "YOUR" mind... (Score:4, Insightful)
He should be made a national hero for calling attiontion to certain facts and promoting the American people and culture.
The fact that he can get his film shown, has made me realise that America may truly still have (some) freedom left after all! (But perhaps it's just because Moore is so persistant?)
Kudos to Moore. Hurrah!
(Perhaps he is just doing this for the money, but it certainly is not doing America any harm! Retrospect and introspection has never been painless, but has always been healing.)
Can't wait to see the movie in sub-Saharan Africa... where we have more freedom of speech than the USA currently has... tsk, tsk.
Structured Arguments? (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Facts
2. ???
3. Conclusion!!!
That 2+2=4 does not prove Fermat's last theorem, and that Bush has a tendency to make a fool of himself on television does not prove that he is a bad president.
Re:Truth? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not entirely shure it's what you meant, but this looks like you are saying her grief couldn't be fake because it's so much like a FICTIONAL characters FAKE grief.
Again not shure if that was your intent or not, but that's what it looks like.
Mycroft
Re: A question for conservatives (Score:2, Insightful)
--Theodore Roosevelt
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
--Thomas Paine
Re:Despising one's roots... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now the 'Limousine Liberals', as i understand it, are despised by the other liberals themselves. It isn't a republican-democrate thing, it is a inter social liberal thing. Some liberal are as you describe, some are even better then you describe, The 'Limousine Liberals' as I also understand is a person that claims to be a liberal concerned about the poor and even pays lipservice because it is the popular or hip thing to do but never offers anythign to help the poor. They are basically riding on the coat tails of the liberal movment for whatever political/financial/social gain they can aquire from it. They are basicaly the equivilent of the corperate-jet conservatives (another slure from withing the movement but the conservative movement instead).
As for you rambling about the military and 800 dead soldiers, you are missing some news somewere, they have punished some of them, not all the ones they wanted but it is an effort that is under way and it will probably happen. I don't think i need to go any deeper into this that i already have, the current events and happening after the situation you refered to says enough.
If you think "anythign to get bush out" is the way to go, then you are saddly in a world of hurt. I would agree that it might be beeter if bush was gone but not at the expense of the country. There is no viable replacement running that will be as good if not better then Bush. This is one thing that puzzles me. Nobody really liked gore, he wasn't exactly leadership material, thats why it was so easy for bush to compete with him. It would have made more sence to have him run as vice president again for lieberman instead.
There are plenty of people that i'm sure would do a far better job in office then Bush. some on the republican side of the scale and some on the democrate side, while still others on the independant side. The problem is that they aren't running for office. There is no one running that is as good or better then bush. I don't know if this is a result of clinton presidency of if they all are hiding somethign that they do not want in the open. Needless to say, if Kerry is elected, I predict the country going back to the carter days in economics and perhaps with the mishadling of foreign and demestic affairs too. I honestly think that kerry will do more harm for the country then bush is capable of doing. The only reason he is the democratic canidate is because he is seen as electable, not better. Nothing comming from his campain is indecating otherwise either. So go and vote for him because you don't like bush, screw the country and have a good day.. IT will all be over in another 4 years. Then maybe by the time my little ones start voting, we will get off this petty hate bullshit and start looking at what is right for the country. There hasn't been one president that didn't do somethign to upset someone.. Most of us concentrate on what they do good for the country and hope it is enough.
Re:I like how Penn of Penn and Teller put it... (Score:1, Insightful)
This is a man whos famous for un-plugging the mic on his guests & screaming over them. He uses the same debate tactics as my 5-year-old nephew. I wouldnt want to go on his show either.
Re:BEFORE the flamewar commences... (Score:2, Insightful)
All these other nations may be truely left. They also enjoy a higher standard of living. The only saving feature that dosnt keep ameirca a backwater of starvation and disease is the fact theyve never hosted a modern war, are still cutting virgin territory (ie. killed the original inhabitants). It is easier to build something new and cheap than lasting cities like Tokyo, Paris, Moscow and Lisbon. If any American thinks that its current Right-leaning will last (and avoid A) Facism or B) The Agressor role in WWIII) ive youve got another thing coming. It is serve-the-self selfishness that really fuels the right (not libertarianism-bootstrap-religion nonsense that the jingos like to hear from the corporate media) -- and that fuel will run out in time... its all about history here folks. History. The USA may well be wealthy now, but it is by no means an example of success. The world knows it, I know it, the REAL American Left knows it -- but the Plutocracy is so entrenched in the USA that we are going to have an incredibly hard time unseating them without causing them to start WWIII.
Re:BEFORE the flamewar commences... (Score:3, Insightful)
And just what is Moore's point -- what is burning here? Not books, not buildings...Freedom. And what exactly is in the recipe for burning freedom? How about using the worst event of our generation as a catalyst to coerce the public to lower it's guard against attacks against constitutionally guaranteed rights to privacy and due process?
Granted, Moore may be an excellent propagandist doing nothing more than taking potshots at very easy targets. But it is also valid argument to say that the current administration not only brought these issues on themselves, but deserve to have their own idiocies exploited back at them to the fullest extent possible. Remember that this isn't an fight over who's right or wrong -- it's a fight over who controls the country, and in this case, it's a very dangerous group of people who have done nothing to deserve our trust or respect.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Re: Sacharine nonsense.... (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with mocking your origins or people whom you were exposed to who are stupid, lazy or simply unlucky. If there were, no comedy act would last for more than thirty seconds. You have no point here except to hold Moore up to an unattainable and (quite probably) undesirable standard of virtue.
Before you talk about accuracy, please consider the accuracy of an Anne Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. I cannot mind a little demagoguery on the part of Liberals, the competition makes me think, 'God, why not?'
Who is despised by whom does nothing whatsoever to invalidate the quality of what they actually say. I could be loathed by multitudes and still have (true) things to say.
You don't really seem to grasp 9/11.
I live and work in New York City: I got to spend weeks smelling the bodies of my neighbors from several miles from what became ludicrously known as 'ground zero', first burning and then rotting in the cold thin rain that followed the event. At that point, the only thing that mattered in the whole world was revenge. As far as I was concerned, the only function of the U.S. government was to provide me and my fellow New Yorkers with a long, loving photographic exploration of Osama bin Laden's head on a spike on the President's desk in the oval office. Had Curious George provided me with that in a timely fashion, in a set of military actions that ranged across half of Asia, demonstrating to the terrorists in the process that an attack on the United States was very like calling down the wrath of God, I would be holding back my vomit with respect to everything else about the Bush administration and *ACTIVELY WORKING* for the Bush reelection campaign.
Instead of this, as witness after witness has shown, the current administration has engaged in a military adventure with a coherence of thought and purpose ordinarily reserved for an acid trip: he has invaded a country other than the one that harbored and still harbors our enemies (probably Pakistan). By invading Iraq, he has actively demonstrated the limits of U.S. Military power in a way that he should have left alone, by making clear an obscure truth: with the weapons available to our military, we could withdraw every U.S. serviceperson and turn Iraq into a radioactive desert in a single afternoon, but we cannot make everyone in Iraq do what we want them to. In other words, the current administration has missed what was patently obvious: we cannot turn Iraq into a secular democracy in a timetable measurable in anything short of decades, if ever.
To put it another way, we've spent tens of billions of dollars and hundreds of lives to accomplish less than nothi
Disservice (Score:3, Insightful)
Micheal Moore's film is entertaining, sensational, contains snippets of facts taken out of context that are artfully woven together to provoke an emotional response, convincing people of a position by means other than careful, rational analysis.
That is to say, his approach is the same abominable approach use by the right wring ideologues that dominate so much of popular media (talk radio, Newscorp).
I sympathisize with Moore's position, but decry the use of those tactics in his film. It is good that he will provoke debate; but it is bad that opponents, while mixing jibes about his weight problem and how he looks like a homeless person, will have an opportunity to counter his film by logical analysis.
If you want to see a more compelling and credible advocate than Micheal Moore, then I suggest you consider the Nobel laureates [palmbeachpost.com] concerns about science policy of the current administration and the group of former ambassadors and high-ranking military officers [iht.com] (from both parties) concerns about what the current foreign policies are doing to the United States interests abroad, and not see F9/11. (Unless you won't take it seriously and consider rather as entertainment in the same vein as listening to Rush Limbaugh is entertaining).
Re:Moore's Politics (Score:3, Insightful)
Chemical and biological WMDs only have a "shelf life" of 3-5 years, under ideal storage conditions. The WMDs Saddam had in 1990 wouldn't do him any good in 2003.
Rebuttal (Score:4, Insightful)
Richard Clarke, who can hardly be labelled as a Bush supporter at this point, has come out recently and publically said that he was responsible for getting the bin Laden family out of the US after 9/11, and that no one above him ordered it or even knew about it.
Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.
Next!
Re:Bush paralyzed for 7 minutes after 2nd plane hi (Score:2, Insightful)
How about asking if anyone has claimed responsibility? How about declaring it a federal holiday and evacuating the White House, the Pentagon, and other likely targets? How about checking on the MO and seeing if there were any other planes that turned off their transponders and changed course toward a major city?
Just because there exists some action that would be bad does not mean that all action would have been bad. But then, you must use such logical fallacies to defend the gross inaction of that day.
Re:Moore's Politics (Score:2, Insightful)
His advisors know that the American public does not have an attention span longer than 6 months. If we were out of Iraq 6 months ago, no one would care now that the invasion was predicated on a web of lies. If we were out of Iraq 6 months ago, no one would care about Fahrenheit 9/11. So why shouldn't they lie, if they expect that it won't bite them in the ass?
If they didn't lie and claim WMDs and ties to 9/11, could they have gotten support for an invasion? I don't think so. So they quoted discredited claims of Iraq buying uranium in Africa, claimed that Al Queda asking Saddam for help is a "relationship" (even though the answer to the request was "no"), and other such stretches. They hoped that just one of them was true, so they could play down the ones that weren't. However, none of their made-up excuses turned out to be true, so they have egg on their face. It was a political gamble. They lost. Time to make them pay the consequences for lying to the American public.
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:1, Insightful)
WMDs were the main pretext for war and you know it. Bush wouldn't have had public support otherwise. It's now painfully obvious that this was a trumped-up case - take off the blindfold.
You are right about Bush deciding to do what he thinks is best for the country, unfortunately his resolve is steadfast in the face of all facts, reason, and public or world opinion.