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!
Moore's Politics (Score:4, Interesting)
Angering and Heartbreaking (Score:3, Interesting)
computers (Score:5, Interesting)
Longtime Michael Moore Follower (Score:5, Interesting)
I first studied Michael Moore in college, in a film class, when the only major work he had done was Roger and Me. This was at it's nature a political film, but the political venom was many notches below his last two movies (Columbine and 9/11).
The prime point that EVERYONE should remember is that Michael Moore can be used as a case study of why to be wary of 'documentaries'. His style as a director is textbook in the art of time manipulation for the purpose of making a point where one would not have existed before.
I will provide an example: In Roger and Me, he had a clip where Ronald Reagan visited Flint Michigan, promising to bring economic properity that did not exist during the end of the 1970s. The film then explained that GM immediately closed a plant and laid off thousands of workers.
This example implies that one led to another directly. In fact, there was a gap of 7 years between the two events; one when Reagan was a candidate in 1979...the other in 1986 when the cuts were announced.
Just remember: he is manipulating to make a point, but to say it is true would be untrue.
This is just one example; I'm surprised no one has written a book on Michael Moore, because there is a lot of evidence that could be covered.
Personally, it's entertainment. If you are spending your hard earned money looking for truth or fact, please look elsewhere.
Re:Extreme views (Score:5, Interesting)
And from the standpoint of someone who is an American, I think many of us would like to see that too... if only because it would be a great change of pace after having our civil liberties pissed on by.... certain individuals.
German Release (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Extreme views (Score:2, Interesting)
I wouldn't go that far. Ann Coulter is basically the equivelant of Howard Stern, but for neo-conservatives rather than frat guys. She tells blatant lies and basically says whatever she can say to get people riled up the most. I mean, she actually named her book "Treason", implying that anyone not supporting the Bush administration or any one of the wars our president starts is a traitor and should be killed. This is way over the top. Michael Moore, on the other hand, while he might have what some consider left-wing views, does not advocate stringing up Republicans and killing them for their viewpoints.
I haven't seen the film (Score:2, Interesting)
Michael Moore does make some good points, but he also fails to check his facts, and if often so innacurate that his honesty becomes questionable, and misses the point a number of times.
For example, he claims that the US government gave permission only to Bin Ladens family out of the US after the September 11th attacks. Further checking of facts will reveal that it was the Saudi government that arranged for all of its citizens to return home should they so desire. And while flights were limited at the time, there were a number permitted for important reasons.
Then there's the complaints that certain politicians want to outlaw abortions "even in cases of rape". That's because some people consider it murder! Now, whether you agree with them or not in this respect, I don't think you can criticise them for not wanting to kill a child because his father was a rapist.
Then there's his "Cold hard statistics". He talks about how the richest 1 percent saw their wages go up by 147%, whereas the poorest 20 percent are earning $100 less (adjusted for inflation). Those are two totally different statistics!
And my final complaint - He seems totally unable to comprehend how any black person could possibly be oopposed to Affermative Action.
Re:Dishonest (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:AMAZING mov[i]e (Score:5, Interesting)
Just a movie (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Slashdot Jumps the Shark with this article (Score:0, Interesting)
"Jumps the Shark" came about when The Fonz in Happy Days jumped a shark on his surf board. It was the pivotal point noted where the show declined in popularity and quality.
Re:Farenheit 911 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Mod parent up...!! (Score:2, Interesting)
But at the same time, there's plenty of evidence to be found on the net, that shows he twisted quite a few facts in "Columbine". So please give the parent poster some credit for putting a question mark behind Mr.Moore's integrity, okay?
It's kind of sad, because Moore has got some good points, and there exist more than enough facts, to stick it to the public. No need to twist the facts.
BTW: Can anyone give a view on how much truth-twisting is done in "Fahrenheit"?
What out for Michael Moore lawsuits through..... (Score:1, Interesting)
I agree that theaters shouldn't be pressured into showing his film. However, it doesn't seem as if Moore agrees with free speech all that much:
From Moore: "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court." From http://slate.msn.com/id/2102725/ [msn.com]
Also from the Slate article: "The Times also reported that Moore "has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation," and that he's established a "war room" to monitor attacks on the film. Lest anybody miss his threat, the filmmaker repeated it the same day on This Week With George Stephanopoulos and in the pages of the San Francisco Chronicle, and will probably whistle the same libel tune all week long in publicity interviews for the film, which opens Friday."
So "libel" Moore and get a lawsuit. The hypocrisy!
And its not as if Moore hasn't been "fact-challenged" before. Roger Ebert, reciently wrote a great article in the Chicago Sun-Times about Moore's "fact-challenged" previous work "Bowling for Columbine". Mr. Ebert writes:
"Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. 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. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine."
From http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr- moore18.html [suntimes.com]
Brian EllenbergerP.S. While Disney got rocked from the left for claims of "censorship" for not releasing Moore's movie, would the left had reacted the same if Disney produced a documentary prasing Bush and making Saddam look like Hitler? Or would the left have villified Disney as "corporate-propaganda". What makes a left-wing corporate-propaganda film wonderful and thought-provoking and a right-wing corporate-propaganda film evil? Nothing, they are both corporate-propaganda.
And isn't it dangerous in this age of campaign finance reform to invite corporations into the political process through "documentaries"? What is to stop Rupert Murdoch and 20th Century Fox from producting a series of right-wing documentaries. The left has no room to complain. From there it only gets worse...
Moore's history of honesty (Score:5, Interesting)
From the http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/schlussel/s chlussel_014.htm [politicalusa.com] link:
See How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine" [michaelmoore.com]. He addresses the above criticism about half-way down:opinion from a canadian (Score:5, Interesting)
its always odd as an "outsider" to watch americans. anyone that speaks out about the government is branded a radical, an extremist. round here in canada this is absolutely normal, the evening news has all sorts of people saying all sorts of critiques about the government and its not odd for people to talk about it on the street. and its not a group of people that do, EVERYONE does. no one looks at you funny, no one says you are anti-canadian. a term that is not used at all, either is unpatriotic. this is a states thing, its used to shut you up, make you feel bad. its wrong. moore isnt an extremist, he is a hero. exposing truths is patriotic. dont listen to the shills that call you names. the amount of brainwashing you poor people get is also astounding. i dont claim to live in some perfect society but its night and day with some things and i hope this movie wakes up many people to reality.
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:4, Interesting)
Since a fair number of ppl here are not from the US, this discussion is going to get interesting. I wonder how many have been able to see it?
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Extreme views (Score:5, Interesting)
For one thing, if you insist on classifying the entire world as left/right you miss a huge degree of differences. What's the difference in right/left terms between hitler, stalin, mao, and gandhi? Probably not as much as you think. Not to mention that right and left mean very different things in Britain (where I *believe* the terms originated) mainland Europe and America. Not to mention, Republicans wouldn't even fit in with most Right wing parties in Europe, many of which aren't classicaly liberal at all. Besides which, saying America is far-right is pretty ridiculous. We may not be as bad a social state as mainland Europe, but it's only a matter of degree.
question, where do the classical liberals fall? The Austrian economists? Popular Swiss ideology? Norwegians? What about Nationalist socialist parties?
Making the US to be some extreme right wing country is nuts.
sorry for rambling.
Re:First few comment (Score:1, Interesting)
> otherwise, please state specific claims.
Funny, I always thought that the person making the accusation, raising the issue, making the bold statement, is obliged to deliver proof. Silly me...
Anyway, quite a few people did, and rather eloquently [msn.com]
And even those who like the movie state [msn.com]that you should not confuse it for a factual portrayal of reality...
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:First few comment (Score:5, Interesting)
"According to XXX inserst statistic Y here".
Often he asks questions in his movies like
"If X is true and Y is true, does that make Z true?"
People will sall him a liar if Z is in fact false. But he never said Z was true, he only asked. I met this man at U of R just after he won his oscar. He is extremely meticulous in the details and the information. Nobody is going to slip one by. For every fact he actually stated as fact he has evidence to back it up.
How he gets you is that the average american ingoramus who walks away from one of his movies believes that Z is true. He never said it was, but the masses will walk away believing it like the sheep they are.
Now, I don't agree with Moore. He is really a socialist green party hippy type underneath. Let me tell you, I like my Adam Smith. Even before this movie I was determined to vote against Bush. And after I get this movie in a format where I can watch it piece by piece I can extract the facts from the implications and get a lot more ammo to use against that corporate asshat.
Re:Dishonest (Score:1, Interesting)
Basically lowbrow, foaming-at-the-mouth types take offense at his documentaries, people that are open minded and enjoy thinking about things on their own love his documentaries.. Hell, Bowling for Columbine had many of us in the group arguing for days about points made, yet we all gave that film 5 thumbs up and though it was one of the best documentaries made in a long time.... including the one guy that disagreed with everything in the film.
Take it as a litmus test.... those that are fuming and ranting about it are the freaks that are just a few inches away from the unwashed madman on the street screaming profanity at the traffic and wearing the sign that says "the end is near"
and yes, I have one of those loonies at my work, and he seems to become more and more unhinged as the years go by.
Re:... but I'll defend to the death his right... (Score:3, Interesting)
Fahrenheit 9/11: A Conservative Critique (Score:5, Interesting)
by William Norman Grigg
I just returned from viewing Fahrenheit 9/11 here in Appleton, WI. I went to the 1:30 PM showing, which was - astonishingly - sold out. The crowd was overwhelmingly white and middle-class (this IS Wisconsin, remember), ranging in age from early teens to retirees. The people were polite, friendly, well-mannered (something we shouldn't take for granted on the part of contemporary theater crowds). There was tumultuous applause at the end, punctuated by a moment of reflective silence as we read the dedication card invoking those murdered by terrorists on 9/11, and those murdered through state terrorism in the aftermath.
The film itself very much reflects its creator: It's shaggy, flabby, occasionally witty, and frequently infuriating. It will have a HUGE impact because Moore - his facile leftist economics notwithstanding - has nailed his case against the Bush regime flush to the plank. It will be all but impossible for anybody who sits still and watches this film to view Bush the Lesser as anything other than a petty, spiteful, dim-witted, bloody-handed little fool - and the figurehead of a murderous power elite. This explains why the Bu'ushists are threatening to go Abu Ghraib on Moore: They're busted.
The most powerful moments in the film are those that humanize U.S. troops, several of whom are shown on-screen criticizing the regime. A major arc of the film is devoted to a Flint, Michigan housewife from a military family whose son, just prior to being killed in Iraq, wrote a letter condemning "George 'I wanna be like my Daddy' Bush" for staging this useless, unjust war. Moore himself, who narrates the film (and makes himself too much a part of the story, incidentally) observes that the largest immorality of this entire enterprise is the actions of a dishonest president lying our country into war and forcing decent young men (and women) to do immoral things.
It should be pointed out as well that the film - despite being lambasted as an exercise in unalloyed Bush-bashing - doesn't spare Democrats who acquiesced in Bush the Lesser's power grabs and his criminal war against Iraq. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle comes off particularly poorly, which in his case merely requires a recording device of some kind.
An interesting encounter immediately after seeing the film underscores its fundamentally non-partisan nature. Some poor schlep had positioned himself outside the theater with a clipboard soliciting signatures on a nominating position for a would-be Democrat congressional candidate. A couple of people seized the petition and started to sign. Impertinent sort that I am, I asked, "What's this fellow's position on the war?"
The scribbling stopped, and several sets of eyes focused intently on the hapless volunteer. "Well, um, ah, he thinks we should do something," he began, stammeringly. "Ah, he just thinks we should be more careful." On hearing this, a lady looked at her husband, who had signed the petition, and snapped, "Scratch off your name." I told the volunteer that I'm what most people would regard as an "ultra-conservative - not just a `conservative' - but if your guy came out against the war I'd vote for him, and knock on doors." "Well, I can't really address all the details of his positions," the increasingly flustered guy responded. "Just let him know what I said," I suggested, telling him that there are a lot of people who have the same point of view.
I chatted with several other people as they left the theater, all of them roughly my age (early 40s) and of similar economic and cultural background. Each of them indicated that he or she would urge friends to see the film - which means that it will have "legs" even if the GOP and FEC were to choke off advertising somehow.
There were no screaming Bolsheviks (one viewer had an anti-animal rights T-shirt) or marijuana-scented bohemians in the crowd. This wasn't the sort of crowd you'd see at a Phish concert, or storming McDonald's at an an
Re:Extreme views (Score:2, Interesting)
NPR has been discussing the boldfaced lies coming out of the whitehouse about that and the weapons of mass destruction for the past week. and so have many other news outlets...
The propaganda that some news companies grabbed and ran with WITHOUT verification is starting to come back and bite them... hopefully it will not simply pass under the radar of the general public.
Re:Dishonest (Score:4, Interesting)
So many questions about our current government and so little facts.
Re:Moore's history of dishonesty (Score:3, Interesting)
If you had even bothered to read the link posted about Cato (which it doesn't surprise me that you didn't--why deal in the realm of facts when you can deal in propaganda and feel good blame games).
I'll put it plain, since I wouldn't want to strain your fact checking muscles.
According to disinfopedia, Cato has an annual income of ~17 million.
Cato is known to have received $30,000 from ExxonMobil during one year. $30,000 is about 0.18% of 17 million.
Now, what was the point of Moore's film? That if someone receives pennies from someone you don't approve of, you can't believe anything they say?
Cato is what it says it is, and nothing more. I would challenge you to dispute that.
And my ass is classified as a work of art, too (Score:1, Interesting)
Until Iraq came along Moore thought we never should have invaded Afghanistan. Now that Iraq is here, the fighting in Iraq is now a "distraction" from the important fighing in Afghanistan.
Go ahead - mod this down. Censor any thoughts that don't spout the pro-Moore, anti-Bush mantra. That won't hide the fact that Moore is an oppurtinistic, hypocritical rabble-rouser and propagandist, not a documentary film maker.
"Michael Moore Hates America" (Score:5, Interesting)
Check out their links page for plenty of sites by people working to track down inaccuracies in Moore's works and an article about how Ray Bradbury is annoyed that Moore stole the title from his similarly titled book without asking and without returning his calls to Moore.
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:4, Interesting)
Michael Eisner is quoted in the press as saying that he didn't want to risk having certain tax benefit revoked by distributing a film that was so political.
www.mooreexposed.com (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone asking about what facts Moore has ever twisted or lied about should check out www.mooreexposed.com [mooreexposed.com]. Interesting site--particularly about bowling for columbine.
Re:Won't change any minds... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Dishonest (Score:2, Interesting)
That being said, I saw the movie at a packed house Saturday night (complete with armed cops to control the non-violent protesters). I don't agree with all of Moore's conclusions but he made his arguements with his usual flair and humor.
On a closing note, if you want to complement or criticise Moore for his movie, he is having a national town meeting Monday evening (June 28) sponsored by MoveOn Pac [moveonpac.org]
Re:Moore's Politics (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not American (Score:5, Interesting)
Michael Moore is bringing to the big screen things that all American news sources ignored while the rest of the world knew perfectly well about it. If anything Moore is showing Americans that they have been duped by the US media. The facts he brings out were commonly seen in the rest of the world except the US. I'm talking about the staged elections, the blacks not being allowed to vote, the false "intelligence", the lacking weapons of mass desctruction, etc...
If anything Moore balances out the very biased news sources you guys have in the states with a refreshing bit of reality. This war was for oil and weapons money and Ben Laden has more chances of being unearth by France than by the US.
Truth? (Score:4, Interesting)
I saw a bit yesterday when he asked that congressman if he'd be willing to let his kids sign up to go to war (the point being that those in power don't mind sacrificing the lives of other peoples' children). The congressman declined and that made it into the movie. However, in an interview with someone else, the congressman stated that Moore cut off the part of the interview where he said his nephew just got shipped off to Afghanistan.
Take a Moore film as good entertainment, but do not treat it as a documentary, do not believe everything you see in it.
A Nation of Morons (Score:2, Interesting)
produced media events, press conferences and speeches. Plus the daily feed from Fox, NBC/ABC/CBS, Rush...
I've visited the pro and con blog sites, and read quite a few books that present the current view of the left and the right.
I've read most of the comments posted in this thread so far.
There's one clear point of commonality that runs through all of this:
The US is a nation of morons. Shallow, greedy, bullshit artists or duplicitous sheep.
How else can you explain how the current president got elected?
King of the morons. We found the dumbest guy we could to represent us and
tell ourselves that ignorance is his charm and virtue.
We can't even be honest with ourselves. If we want to take over another country
to take it's resources and strengthen our power base, then just say it! Don't wrap
it all in ideological bullshit. Don't say it's because the imaginary guy in the sky
told us to do it. Don't call ourselves liberators. We're bloodthirsty invaders that
worship big cars that go fast, cheap shiny toys, hot sex, big bombs, the winning team,
and pity anyone that gets in our way.
Bush will get another four years. Good. We deserve it.
Maybe after that, we'll at least learn to be honest with ourselves about who we really are.
Re:Extreme views (Score:3, Interesting)
If the attacks had been on Canada and I said "Why are you bombing CANADA for disagreeing with US policy?", would that mean I advocate killing Americans?
Very honest (Score:4, Interesting)
* The list of the "coalition of the willing" mentioned only tiny, irrelvant countries, and skipped over really important ones
I suspect this was done more for comedic effect than anything else. As you yourself admit, the United States is doing 90%+ of the fighting in Iraq; Moore is simply reminding us of this.
* 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.
It might ring false to you, but I've read a few articles on this guy, and his story is the same as the way Moore presents it -- make anti-Bush comments in public, get CIA on your doorstep. Short of hooking up the guy to a lie detector and grilling him, how can you accuse him of lying just because you didn't get an honest vibe?
* 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.
See the movie again. Moore's point is not that Bath was dangerous and his name needed to be covered -- his name was uncovered without incident in the pre-9/11 version of the document Moore got from the government -- but that, after 9/11, the White House was actively burying all links between Bush and the Saudis.
The other nasty bits of the relationship between this guy and Bush, like the cozy foreign investments, are irrelevant to this document.
Given that the movie does make a point over the heavy ties between the Sauds and the US, I think this is a relevant topic.
* 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.
Again, go see the movie and pay attention. The point was that Osama had a son who was getting married, Osama was there (see the video), and at least one of Osama's own brothers were there, despite the whole "black sheep" claims from the Bin Laden family. You can also find examples of numerous other active ties between Osama and the Bin Laden clan in House of Bush, House of Saud, so Moore isn't talking out of his ass here.
* 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.
I think Moore's point here was simply that pre-war Iraq was not a menace to the United States, despite Bush's attempt to paint it as such. There was no need to talk about Iraq's internal problems; Bush has already done that for the last 3.5 years anyway. And showing happy Iraqis living their regular lives was IMO a necessary counterbalance to all the evil-Iraqi-imminent-threat bullshit we've been getting from the White House. Those bombs we dropped didn't fall only on Saddam's head, y'know.
The film is designed to preach to the converted, not to make a case to the neutral or the opposition.
I think it does make a case for the undecided. And the whole point of all documentaries is to convince the viewer to a particular POV, so Moore is hardly doing anything unort
Re:Dishonest (Score:3, Interesting)
Given Bush's actions in office, that is evidence of Moore's patriotism.
If you check Moore's website, you will see where he refutes the baseless attacks in your first link.
Then links to the Washington Post and the Washington Times. Both of those are pure propaganda rags. I really trust Rupert Murdoch and a psychopathic, criminal cult leader.
Nice try, but no.. it was a pathetic try. Sorry.
It's not just a USA issue. (Score:4, Interesting)
Many of the problems we could face tomorrow would be a direct result of Bush and friends. They tend to have 'something' agaist other races/cultures.
Politics does cross over to 'geekland' when it starts passing laws on patents/privacy and other arb laws that effect us on the other side of the pond.
The USA != The known world.
My first thoughts on opening night (Score:4, Interesting)
Good to see a quick overview of the theft of the presidency in 2000. This stuff is all common knowledge in the UK and the rest of the civilised world, but in the US it got virtually zero coverage, so the story needed to be told. I thought that it could have used a bit more detail like the voting fraud, the purging of innocent people from the electoral rolls etc. but he had a lot of stuff to cover in the film, so it was understandable that a lot of this was either skimmed over or left out.
The handling of the actual terrorist attacks was very powerful. Sensibly, there was no need to show the planes slamming into the buildings or the buildings collapsing. Instead, the screen was black but we heard the sounds of the jets crashing, the exploding jet-fuel, the rubble falling, the people screaming and the emergency services rushing to the scene. When the screen brightens up, we still don't see the buildings, but we see the people looking up in horror and the expressions on their faces as they watch people leap to their deaths before their very eyes.
Bush's response to the attacks (or lack thereof) is portrayed in a rather distrubing manner. I never knew that he had already been informed of the first plane hitting the WTC when he went ahead with his photo op at the elementary school. When he was informed of the second plane hitting, I thought that he had immediately closed the book and left. But no, he just sat there almost in a trance, and with nobody there to tell him what to do next, he looked completely lost. He seemed to be waiting for someone to come along and whisk him away and put a script in front of him.
Into the nitty-gritty, there's a comprehensive list of photos of extremely cordial meetings, primary sources and official documents that pass before our eyes to back up the story that there is something very troubling about the links between the House of Bush, the House of Saud, and the Bin Laden family business ventures. The overwhelming connections with the Saudis is explored in a lot of depth, including the fact that Bush Senior, who still invokes a seldom-used right of ex-presidents to access classified CIA information, still acts almost as if he were an official ambassador to the Saudi dictatorship but in his capacity of a representative of the Carlyle group. (There's a graphic portrayal of Saudi justice by the way, a public beheading. Brrrrrr.) Even Bush senior himself was prevented from flying on 9/11, but the Bin Laden family, by special request from the Saudi royal family and on the orders of Bush jnr, were picked up and flown out of the country. Moore asks what would have happened if Clinton had flown Timothy McVeigh's family out of the country after the Oklahoma City bombing. A very good question.
Then we get into the changing of the government's tune, showing the comments from Powell and Rice denying any WMD capability in Iraq, only to be seen again several months later trying to talk UP the capability of the Iraqi regime and Powell's performance at the UN that flatly contradicts what he himself and many in the administration had said before. Once the war gets underway, we get to see graphic pictures of Iraqi civilians (what's left of them) after American 'precision' bombing raids. Don't watch this on a full stomach.
The Halliburton connection and other business interests in profiting from the war are explored in depth, and then a considerable amount of time towards the end is devoted to a mother whose son went to Iraq. I'll leave you to see that for yourself, for there's no way I could do it justice here. There is one particular incident when she goes to Washington that just makes your hair stand on end and your blood boil. A lot of time is devoted to hearing from actual troops, their friends and family, and how it affects them.
Despite the powerful subject matter, Moore sprinkles in a profusion of comic relief (usually at the ex
Re:I like how Penn of Penn and Teller put it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:... but I'll defend to the death his right... (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting story: I went to see the film Friday night, first showing at a local cineplex. We got about halfway through the movie when the fire alarm went off and we were sent out of the theater. No fire, but weren't allowed to see the rest of the flick.
I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories. It could've just been some kids pulling the alarm with nothing else to do on a Friday night. But the timing was AWFULLY convenient.
Re:Extreme views (Score:1, Interesting)
The problem... (Score:5, Interesting)
In most countries, the head of state and the executive leader are two different people. The President or Monarch is the one who gets your loyality and respect, but he's just a figurehead with relatively little influence over the day to day running of the country.
The Prime Minister, on the other hand, is the one with all the power, but who doesn't feel entitled to any loyalty or automatic respect on account of his position. In fact, the Prime Minister has to withstand a barrage of criticism on a constant basis from the opposition. This is very healthy since it keeps the government on its toes.
Can you imagine G W Bush having to go through a weekly American equivalent of Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons? That would be entertaining!
Re:Dishonest (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's another example:
10 men killed 100 men. The same 10 men drove into town.
10 men killed 100 men. The killers drove into town.
10 US soldiers killed 100 men. The killers drove into town.
Suddenly the word killer in the third example takes on a different meaning. Are "our boys" killers? Of course not! But "killers" is certainly an objective word in the second sentences. Because in the third example, assuming you're an American who supports our troops and I'm not claiming I am, by giving us more accurate information about the people who killed, suddenly a purely objective word in the second sentence takes on a negative connotation. People generally don't like the word "killer" applied to someone they support.
Think about how Fox news and CNN differ in their reporting of people who set off a bomb to specifically kill other people and purposely die in the act. CNN calls them "suicide bombers" indicating that they are people who kill others and commit suicide at the same time. Fox calls them homicide bombers, which I think is less accurate because it does not indicate that the bomber was committing suicide on purpose in the process.
But both descriptions tell us more about what happened then "an individual set off a bomb and purposefully died". Because we know that the words "suicide bomber" and "homicide bomber" have a particular political bias, and that knowledge gives us more information, not only about what happened but about the people presenting the news.
Everything else, while interesting to a human who can have a 'viewpoint' or stance, is irrelevant.
Hardly irrelevant when humans are the ones parsing the events and reacting to them. What you say may very well true in an academic discussion, but we're talking about the real world. We need to know more information to put it into context.
There are more elaborate examples than the suicide bomber/homicide bomber distinction. For example, what do you call the island approximately 120 miles southeast of China? Do you call it Taiwan or do you call it the Republic of China? The name you choose tells us about your politics. Or if you were doing an article about it would you refer to it as "That Island off the Coast of China" to avoid the various human viewpoints? http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/1671.cfm has more information about the name change.
I wouldn't rely on that slate rebuttal... (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?fea
Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (Score:1, Interesting)
How brainwashed are you that you would want 4 more years of this corrupt cronyism in this country?!?
Bush hasn't earned a second term. Period. He is one of the most secretive and mendatious and incompetent presidents this country has ever seen.
REALLY "funny"-weird showing at our location (Score:3, Interesting)
Conspiracy theorists, choose your weapons, fire at 20 paces. Either:
1. Supporters bought up all the tickets so it would get good PR and broader distribution. They'll actually see it in a couple weeks when the crowds thin.
or:
2. Republicans are so insanely terrorized of this movie that they are stemming the bleeding of opening weekend by buying up blocks of showings so the Monday morning water cooler talk isn't going to hit like a sledge hammer across the country.
I haven't decided which I believe yet -- so go for it!
Re:Won't change any minds... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dishonest (Score:3, Interesting)
My goal was not to prove that Moore was dishonest in every instance, but to answer the orignal poster's challenge to find a single instance of dishonesty in the film. I believe I found instances where Moore made stronger claims than were warranted by the facts he brought up, akin to the adminstration's willingness to let people believe that their statement "there are connections between Iraq and al Qaeda" (true) mean "Iraq participated in 9/11" (false), allowing them to claim now that they told the truth when the intent was clearly to lie.
I don't expect Moore to be objective, but I wish to hold him to a higher standard than Cheney and Limbaugh et al, because he's on my side. In the end, if the movie serves no other purpose than to infuriate the Democratic base and get them out in November, it will be a purpose well served. If truth-bending is required to counter Republican fabrications, so be it.
That makes it good political theater, and perhaps it's appropriate that in Cannes it won an award usually reserved for emotionally involving but fictional films.
Re:They won't have to try next time... (Score:5, Interesting)
he Carlyle Group, which has rather extensive ties to the Bush Family/Administration and the Bin Ladens
I guess you didn't read your own link. According to the Wikipedia article, it also has ties to many prominent Democrats, including leftist money-man George Soros and the daughter of Madeline Albright. The same Wikipedia article says the bin Ladins sold their stake in the company two years ago.
Controversy + Books + Films + Big Media = $$$! (Score:3, Interesting)
You can call Moore a liar, call Franken a liar, Coulter a liar, Limbaugh a big fat liar, and it won't make any difference. The same publishing companies will run both books from both points of view, make big bucks, and leave our country seeking conflict before compromise.
Oh, and their news divisions will cover the aftermath :).
Please provide a link to this alleged fact (Score:5, Interesting)
You SEEM to be parroting the party line of the Michael Moore crowd on this issue. I tend to think it's more of an effort by Disney not to be involved in something that was going to be highly controversial and potentially spawn new calls from conservative to boycott the company. Think about it. If he had wanted to KILL the film, he could have. Disney owned the piece. It could have been stuck in a vault for no one to see. He simply didn't want Disney involved in the distrubution, for legitimate business reasons.
Just for the record, I don't like the Bush administration, but I also don't like Michael Moore's tendency to play fast and loose with the facts, either. This seems to be a case in which his supporters are alleging something with no basis in fact, just as Moore has shown a repeated tendency to do in his films. Even if you agree with Moore's conclusions about things, his arguments are greatly weakened by his willingness to lie and mislead his audience about details.
Re:"Michael Moore Hates America" (Score:3, Interesting)
Opposing the current government of a country, does not make a person hate the country, but I'm concerned that some people seem to take these things hand-in-hand. I may disagree strongly with some actions of my government, but it doesn't mean I hate Britain at all.
Re:While waiting to see this movie in New Zealand (Score:2, Interesting)
Ruppert goes into great detail about the US Economy, the Bush oil influence, the natural gas pipeline, etc. I felt incredibly well informed after watching this, so much so that not one thing in F9/11 was new to me.
I suggest anyone skeptical of claims of media bias by either side, seek out information from multiple sources on the internet. Keep an emphasis on fact. Keep an open mind. Pay attention to events and not opinions. Many news stories are simply rehashes of original articles. Try to seek out the original source. It's usually the most objective.
I don't even watch network television news any more. At least on the internet, I know every news website isn't owned by just a handful of media conglomerates. Obviously there's cnn.com foxnews.com, but these are no better than thier television counterparts. Try news.google.com for starters. It's great because it gathers news from literally thousands of sources. For any given item you are given links to several different sources. I suggest you read at least two or three for any given story, and you'll begin to see how differently things can be reported.
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I like how Penn of Penn and Teller put it... (Score:4, Interesting)
(PS - Just curious, when did Moore cancel, and do you know why? I just haven't heard anything about it, and couldn't find anything online about it)
Re:... but I'll defend to the death his right... (Score:1, Interesting)
We wound up leaving the theatre - we're going back tonight to see the full thing. At least we got our tickets moved to another night for free and free tickets to spiderman.
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:3, Interesting)
How did they show the same print in four theaters simultaneously? I know nothing about the current state of theater technology, but this would seem to imply that there was some sort of optical beamsplitter that divides one projectors output between multiple screens. But that can't be how it's done, is it? Why would a theater even have a device like that, much less two of them? How could a single projector be bright enough to project in more than one screening room (I don't doubt a projector this bright could be made, but that's very different than one actually being deployed out in the field).
Enquiring nerd minds want to know!
Re:I am not American (Score:2, Interesting)
You're assuming that Osama Bin Laden isn't already in US Custody. I have a feeling that we already have him, and he'll conveniently be "captured" publicly in September or October (just before the US Election).
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:4, Interesting)
Give me a break... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what war *IS*. Blood and death and shattered bodies: this is the real world, not some video game or "action movie". You are, as the citizen of a democracy, *SUPPOSED* to vote on things - and I refer to Bush, Cheney, Rummy et al, as "things" - that affect the real world. If you voted for them, you voted for *this*.
Too real for you? Want to live in a fantasy, and keep your kids in a fantasy?
My kids have to live in the real world, as I do.
No 'R' rating.
mark
Re:... but I'll defend to the death his right... (Score:0, Interesting)
It isn't working. Most of us "Christians" approve of Cheney, and got a grin out of him saying what many of us (who happen to be human) have been thinking about leahy and the demoncrats... for a long time... Just like when bush and cheny agreed in public that adam clymer was an asshooole.
Furthermore it gives us permission to feel that way towards democrats in general... when it comes time to pull the lever.... "f off tommy clymer dasshole!" or something proximal.
The more they push it. The more I LIKE Cheney. The more determined I am to get somebody elected who will STAND UP TO and if need be, beat the oral crap out of the enemies of the state... democcrat/socialists, like Leahy, Daschle, Ted Kennedy the swimmer.
I wish he would make an honest film about Israel! (Score:1, Interesting)
We also desperately need to re-think our relationship with Israel. For too long we have been fed with large servings of Israeli propaganda. We need to see the other side of the story. I would hope that one-day he tackles that taboo subject. We don't need another "Exodus" [imdb.com].
Re:Please provide a link to this alleged fact (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree that this Disney fiasco is probably at least somewhat invented - or overdramatized - by Moore himself. And this is coming from someone who actually likes his movies, and agrees with (most of) his viewpoints. Let's face it: he knows how to generate publicity.
In fact the pre-release of this film has been a new and striking lesson in the old saying that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Consider:
Again: there is no such thing as bad publicity. Unless you're a politician, that is.
Two hour movie vs. 24/7 right-wing propaganda (Score:2, Interesting)
Why isn't the rest of the news media questioning the bias, innuendo and fabrications of these sources the way they are going after Michael Moore? Why is a two hour film so much more dangerous and worthy of great debate while round-the-clock right-wing propaganda goes mostly unchallenged?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Terrorist projectionist Republican (Score:1, Interesting)
We entered the theater and saw no police, but when we left, seconds after the film broke, there were six police officers waiting outside the door to the theater, almost like they were called just before the breaking of the film!
Definition of conservative (Score:3, Interesting)
Are these reports coming from Ann Coulter?
Claim that he has broken ties with your views without giving real examples and while relying on sketchy facts at best.
You know what, why don't you check out the American Conservative magazine sometime...
http://www.amconmag.com/
Go back through some of the past issues and articles that our online. The magazine is published by Pat Buchanan(former Nixon/Reagan speech writer) and Taki Theodoracopulos.
They despise President Bush.
Like this particular article from early June, comparing President Bush to an Edsel... "brilliant presentation followed by total failure" is what Taki says.
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_07/taki.html
Its hard to trust a party that advises its members to lie in order to win elections.
I've been watching politics for 20 years. I've seen Democrats lie, cheat and steal. I've seen Republicans lie, cheat and steal. But the only part which has institionalized the way by which you lie, cheat and steal in order to win elections is the Republican party.
My father told me several weeks ago. "I realized something the other day. I'm a conservative. That's why I can't vote for President Bush, because he's no conservative."
You should read what Pat and Taki have to say. Like Moore, I don't always agree with their politics, but in many cases I can see the substance of their complaints and understand their thinking.
Not in Canada (Score:3, Interesting)
For what it's worth, Fahrenheit 9/11 received a 14A rating in Canada... and we tend to be a little stricter in terms of such things. For example, an R rating in Canada means if you're under 18, you don't get in at all, even if accompanied by an adult/parent.
Return of the King had a PG-13 rating in the US, and that included a scene with several heads being chucked over a wall via catapult.
Re:it's a silly man that falls for Moore's crap (Score:1, Interesting)
THERE WERE NEVER ANY WMD's IN IRAQ, YOU WENT TO WAR FOR A LIE! ! !
THERE WAS NEVER A CONNECTION BETWEEN IRAQ AND OSAMA, YOU WENT TO WAR OVER A LIE ! ! !
Canada stood strong, said they would not join in launching the war on Iraq because the reasons put forth by Dubya were unsupported by any fact. You laughed at Canada, But history now knows who was right.
We joined in on Afghanistan because the reasons were there, the reasons were just. Then you bastards came down on us for not supporting your lies about Iraq.
Take some responsibility for your damn country. All the world can see your emperor has no clothes, why can't you?
Bush's dumbass actions have generated far more hate for americans than probably any other president. The US will be paying the cost for decades. Your sons, daughters and brothers will be dying for years for his lies.
Think the movie was just full of cheap shots against Dubya?
--- It was Dubya that made all those disrespectful and glib jokes (haves and have mores,
Re:The problem... (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be fantastic. I lived in England for some time, and I used to LOVE Prime Minister's Questions -- especially during the lead up to the war in Iraq. If Bush couldn't even testify alone or in public for the 9/11 commission, he'd just melt with President's Questions...
North Korea. (Score:1, Interesting)
The North Koreans are so totally squirrly. Their fearless leader introduced himself to Madaline Albright as a "pile of rat droppings." They do things like shorten the chairs of people their negotiating with. They are just nuts. And some of them have resorted to cannibalism. North Korea isn't dangerous to anyone who isn't living in South Korea. (And quite frankly if it wasn't bad for my Euro-Pacific fund, I'd wish them all the luck in the world raping and pillaging those ungreatful fucks. South Korea is the France of the Pacific rim.)
But look at the good news, after his bull ran through the China shop, Bush wants to pick up, and put the evil plan of the more evil Clinton back into play. But this time it's blessed by God, so it's ok.
Philosophy experiment... (Score:3, Interesting)
There's an old thought experiment by Judith Jarvis Johnson that goes like this...
"But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you-we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous..."
W
The other side of the truth (Score:3, Interesting)
http://slate.msn.com//id/2102723/
I was also watching the history channel today and they had the author of a book critical of the bushes.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0
Craig Ungers, House of Bush, House of Saud. He mentioned that the Bin Laden family are heavily invested in many US corporations, the biggest being Snapple and Disney. Seems that part of Mikes movie is brought to you by the Bin Ladens.
Re:Are they fighting for our freedom? (Score:3, Interesting)
You are so full of shit that I don't even know where to start. I was in DURING the first Gulf War, and spent six years on active duty. We all knew the score, it was about oil and maintaining interests in the area, not fighting for freedom as you say. When I initially enlisted the cold war was still in play and indeed I was young and idealistic, and the threat of Ivan coming through the Fulda Gap and tearing various friendly nations a new asshole was a very real concern.
*Blam* no more cold war. Now the higher powers need to flex some muscle and keep the sabre from dulling, so while sending mixed signals to Saddam about Kuwait we move in to issue an ass kicking (albeit with many, many other nations) when he hops the Kuwaiti border. I can't speak for others, but nobody in *my* unit wanted to go.. and we were lucky.. hell we got sent to Turkey! Many of my peers went directly to the area of combat operations, and I did not hear ONE of them after the fact bragging about fighting for our freedom. In other words, unless you've worn the uniform professionally, please keep your ignorance to yourself.
My wife is from west Texas (Odessa-Midland region), and she'd like to know what the hell you're talking about. When she left they were down to injecting super pressurized gas into the ground to get a trickle of oil out. In addition, seems like oil companies like to rape the hired hands (no bennies, shitty pay) and were overtly hostile to unionization. You know, treating your workers humanely is such a bitch.
You can move out of mommy and daddy's garage now.
Take care junior!
Re:We have a free market of ideas in this country. (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. As Moore has been bloviating every time a fawning press has stuck a microphone near his fat head. It is about "getting Bush out of office."
I hope Hollywood understands the implications of this movie. It means their end if they aren't careful. Think about it. This is the first feature film written, produced and released with the expressed purpose of influencing an election. It is so blatent that the FEC is probably going to restrict the TV ads after Jul 31 as political ads. (Which only means the DVD release will get spamvertised on the evening news and Larry King, just means Lions Gate won't have to actually spend ad money but anyway...) But this movie making a profit will only open a floodgate of copycats, and the Hollywood system being what it is almost all will be liberal. Liberal news bias was always something they could argue doesn't really exist. NOBODY is willing to take the position that Moore isn't outright political and all Deaniac/nutjob, including Moore himself. F911 is ALL about Moore's ego and grandstanding. In other words it is Hollywood.
But the backlash will be sure and swift. Theatre chains will have to become like newspapers and choose sides, of course most will be leftist and give prime screen space to the leftist pictures over profitable entertainment. This will cause an even further decline in attendence, especially out here in flyover country where you will be hard pressed to find a screen that averages $100/day over this Moore flick's run.
All you
Re:The other side of the truth (Score:3, Interesting)
BOSTON-A corporation formed by Bain Capital, the Carlyle Group and Spectrum Equity Investors reached an agreement to acquire Loews Cineplex Entertainment Corp. and Grupo Cinemex from Onex Corp. and its partner, Oaktree Capital Management LLC for approximately $1.5 billion.
PNAC (Score:5, Interesting)
This is real.
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:My Pet Goat (Score:5, Interesting)
The events of that day were shocking, unprecedented and went against all experience with terrorist hijacking attempts.
NOBODY knew what was going on.
NOBODY claimed responsibility for the attacks.
NOBODY knew if it was accidental or intentional. Granted the second plane seriously reduced the possibility of accident and the Pentagon clinched it. But Don't forget somewhere in there a plane crashed in a field as well and nobody was real sure what had happend there. As clear as it all has become now, it was confusing as hell when it happend.
Given the complete unreal nature of the whole event I do not find finishing the reading of a very short book to a class to be an unreasonable action.
It wasn't a carpet bombing of Washington or some other american target.
It was not a claimed terrorist action.
It was not a WMD attack.
What would those 10 minutes have bought? Even with 20/20 hindsight I want to know if someone can come up with something he specifically could have done that would have changed the course of events from the time he was first informed of the second plane that would have altered the events of that day.
As far as endangering the kids goes? He and consequently they were about as well protected as could be from any kind of conventional attack. Even from an airspace invasion there is generally a hot set of air cover in the air or ready to go wherever the president is. If the military complex could not have acted to prevent a kamikazi run on the president once they knew it was a possibility ( ie the second plane and pentagon strikes ) then it is severely lacking.
However for a second lets assume there was indeed a plane with his name on it and they knew he would be at that school at that time etc.... What would his leaving have done besides save his skin anyway ? Or do you really think the terrorists could really have adapted those plans in real time had his location changed? Whatever increased level of deffense from all air attacks there was could be inacted just as well at that location as at any other so the kids where in no greater danger than they had already been placed in having the POTUS visit their school in the first place. Either the plane could have been intercepted or not... and whehter or not he was there would have been a moot point because the likely hood of them altering the target had he left would have been remote at best.
Your pet peeve is that there were only two extreme reactions. My pet peeve is questioning the reaction in light of what was learned well after those 10 minutes instead of considering it from the level of utter confusion of those 10 minutes.
Not saying you didn't. All in all I think you have made one of the more reasoned responses I have seen. I just wanted to throw another interpretation out there.
Re:BEFORE the flamewar commences... (Score:2, Interesting)
Like the "No Spin Zone" (Score:4, Interesting)
Rush actually claims to be infallible, when he's a fucking liar. He is also a coward: he pioneered "unguested" confrontation. He will NEVER present a credible, well-spoken opponent on his show. It's all sycophants and patsies.
"Liberals" actually debate things. Franken has a well-spoken conservative on regularly. It's not totally level, but he doesn't turn off the mike when he's losing the argument, like O'Reilly. He is far more interested in debate than Coulter, et. al. They duck him.
Conservatives are blind. The most prominent ones are sick.
Re:Extreme views (Score:3, Interesting)
See PoliticalCompass.org [politicalcompass.org]
(-6.62, -7.38)
--
Torrent link to the movie (Score:1, Interesting)
It's OK! Mikey likes file sharing for fun (but not for profit)
Here's the torrent link to the movie:
F911 Torrent Link [66.90.75.92]
For an explanation of the link, and why it's available, see:
This blog post with Moore's views on file-sharing [67.19.19.67]
Re:Personally, I thought differently... (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I agree with you. Unfortenately, people here will vote for a candidate just because they are a party (normally republican). There is no intelligence behind it, just party loyality. At this point, even if Collin Powell, or John McCain ran on a Democrat or Indi Ticket, you would still find a number of people who profess to believe in republican ideals (Defend borders, No debt, Strong Nation (not just military), etc) would still vote for W.. Bad choice. Funny thing is that W's ads would say such things as neither served their country or that they are wishy-washy and ppl would believe it(I would love to meet both Mr Powell and Mr McCain).
I am a die-hard libertarian. I have always been voting Libertarian president (or several indi's in my youth) esp. since my state is not a swing state. But I think this year it will be close here and I will probably have to vote for Kerry. I do not really believe in him (hate his views on NASA and minimum wage, and I would guess a great deal more), but W is going to destroy us.
interesting: the coalition didn't include the UK? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Moore's Politics (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyone knows Iraq had WMDs at one time. The only relevant questions are did he have them just before the war, did he have what the bush administration said he had, and did he have enough of them to justify a war.
Re:How is this "interesting"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is someone "getting off light"? I don't know...Assuming you're remembering that statistic right, I suppose it would depend on what "control over 90% of the wealth" means. It doesn't sound like just income or taxable property to me. The owner of a factory or software company probably "controls" a heck of a lot more "wealth" than a factor worker, but the applicable taxes won't necessarily reflect that.
Re:Missing the point (Score:3, Interesting)
There are pleny of people producing films, books, etc in America that are not mainstream... fortunately or unfortunately they are credible pieces of work with very little sensationalism to push them to the Mainstream news media's attention... hence I would say that Moore's films are targeted at the same exact audience as say Jerry Springer... maybe not what we would like Mainstream to be but Mainstream nonetheless.
I don't hate Moore, I just don't acknowledge him as a useful person... he's an egotistical narcissist who reaps millions off the pain and suffering of others. There are plenty more people just like him in the world... Kevin Ley from Enron is an example, Donald Trump, the guys at Nike... Moore takes the side of accuser but profits just the same as the defendent.
Billions of dollars are being spent to create a Middle East Democracy... the war is over, if there ever was a war... more like a brief skermish with a few ragtag companies of soldiers. All the fighting since then has been with ingrates, power mongers and barbaric terrorist groups... not war, more like civil unrest. More people die in the US from Car Accidents EVERY DAY than have died as a result of the entire conflict in Iraq.
There should be no welfare to privatize in the US, we are a capitalist nation.. get a job. If you can't find a job, get an education... even in California in one of the most expensive areas to live an education only costs $13 per unit. 12 units a year and you are a full time student w/ tax breaks grant money opportunities and discounts all over the place.
Joblessness in the US is not a result of lack of jobs, it's a result of lack of 'high-paying' jobs... people would rather sit around doing nothing than get stuck working in retail, well people who are used to a high standard of living... like myself, my unemployment benefits pay more than a lot of people make working full time, it's not worth it to take a lesser paying job. Now I have to retract my former statement, the only welfare should be for people layed off or fired from a job and it need only be temporary while they a) find a new job or b) re-educate themselves.
rant complete
How true. (Score:2, Interesting)
The invasion of Iraq has been a $80 billion recruitment drive for Al queda.
Terrorists kill 3000 innocent US civilians and that gave the US the license to attack terrorist bases.
US attacks Iraq and 10000 innocent civilians die. How many people have taken those deaths as a mandate to attack the US ? Ok, so Saddam killed many of his own people...but can you use that argument against 16-30 yr olds whose mom was blown up by an unseen enemy ?
What are these young men going to do ? Join Al queda. And therefore the US will spend more money and resources for "anti-terrorism".
But with the major sponsers of terrorism, that is Al queda and Iraq have their backs broken according to Bush, shouldnt the money spent be going down ?
And shouldnt terrorist attacks be going down ?
Good job bush.
Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (Score:2, Interesting)
MY god how brainwashed are you yourslef? First you call him corrupt incompetent liar and a morron. Then state somethign about the destruction he has done in 4 short years. Well i think your missing the forrest for the trees here. Your brainwashed hatrerd or whatever it is called is wrong several times over here. First is that it hasn't been 4 years that bush has had control second some of the problems you cited are leftovers from clinton.
You act like a deficate is a bad thing, well it isn't in most societies, more to the piont almost every president in the last 50+ years has run a deficate inorder to get things acomplished that was seen as nessecary to the public benefit. The ONLY REAL REASON that a deficate is on the public radar in this day and age is because of the roth ira conversions in thelate 90's that had alot of people paying out more taxes now then the would have normaly. That combined with the capitol gains tax cut durring the clinton administration lead to one of the first non-deficate years in recent history. And each tax payer owing $30,000 a year is a crock also, do you actually believe that each tax payer pays taxes? With this robinhood mentality we have only the uper 20% of tax payers pay the majority of the taxes. In fact, Most common people i know get back more money then they pay in with earned incom credits and other tax deductions designed to help people that don't make enough money for a family as large as they have but still have one anyways.
You also ask if we have lost enough creditability on the workd stage? For one I'm not a big support of carring what the world thinks. We don't and never should have to ask them to sign a permision slip in order for us to protect what WE se as our national intrest. WE as in the US didn't do anything the rest of the world didn't agree with, the only disagreements were the ways we did it. Ever country protesting the war in iraq was only protesting the fact we went to war in order to achive the goals they agread with. Know that my bias is know, I do believe we have even more credtiability on the world stage. The US is seen as a country that means business now. We are also seen as a country that can back ourselves up in the event of an invasion. Even durring the war efforts and the protesting countries (namely france) they felt it was neccesary to maintain busines relations with the US, this proves our respect and admiration in other areas by leaders that know were the ceditability is.
You make mention of the enviroment being raped, I don't really know were this came from but bush has set forth programs (part of that big deficate your ranting about) that will acuire and expand wildlife refuges as well as wetlands and marsh enviroments.
Now i'm not a bush fanboy. i would like to see him out as well as you would, the difference is I don't have the hatred brainwashed into my head like you do. i can clearly see that as sad as it is, there isn't a real canidate running that is any better then him. You WILL BE HARMING the country by electing a lesser person to the job. Once a viable canidate is presented that can do a better job then bush, I would be happy to vote for him. As being one from the trenches, and not blined by political parties, or having my face shoved into a beer can and joint, I can see what is going on and make my own opinions about it. Bush isn't the best man for the job, but he is the best man we have to pick from in the upcomming elections. Not voting for hime will shove the country back to carter days of economics.. you really want that? Are you even old enough to remeber those days? go ask someone who is ans then tell me you really want to go back to it.
Don't let someone brainwash you, pick up a history book or something. look at what is going one past the headlines in the news. Jesus christ, just be informed when you go to the polls and fuck the
Re:How we see America from Europe (Score:3, Interesting)
How about for once we expect Europeans to actually try and understand Americans?
For example, How many Europeans understand that Kyoto was dead in the water two years before Bush came to office when it was rejected 99-0 by the senate?
How many Europeans understand that it is illegal for any United States president to give any judicial power outside of the United States authority over the Supreme Court of the United States?
How many Europeans understand just how heavily we subsidize not only them, but the middle east, and the third world?
How about the fact that Americans spend more time watching news then any other major country? We have more college graduates (not per capita mind you) then any other nation, and we pull more hours a week then any other nation?
How many Europeans would ever push for a immegration system that is as liberal as the United States?
The article you posted does not support you. (Score:2, Interesting)
Clarke asked the FBI to investigate the people on the list. After they gave the go-ahead, he gave the order his rubber seal. But to quote the article,
And more harrowingly,
In other words, Clarke followed procedure and talked to the FBI. Somebody at the FBI who didn't have authority talked to ____?____ (I don't know, apparently nobody does) and passed that information back to Clarke. Clarke and the Saudi minister of Information say the person was in the top levels of our government. Moore uses this as more evidence that something is rotten in Denmark. Sounds right on to me.
Finally, the planes WERE flying when others were not. The flights commenced on 9/13, which is when airspace was opened, but as has been mentioned frequently, nobody was actually flying on that day. Except Saudis.
See Moore's site (OK, a google cache [tinyurl.com], the original is 404'ing... )
and the St. Petersburg Times [saintpetersburgtimes.com] for reference.
Re:Real research? (Score:3, Interesting)
To avoid this, those who set up our government devised a system we call the electoral college, and guaranteed a "republican form of government." That is, the United States is a republic, NOT a "democracy." We have a democratic form of government, but it is built for a two-party system where both parties gravitate to the middle. Our democrats and republicans are both relatively moderate, so your fear of either one forcing their "ideology" on the other is mostly unfounded.
For example, I have been a registered republican, but I decided to look at the democratic ticket this election year. I went to Kerry's campaign site and looked at the issues. It was not really that much different from the republican party line, only the emphasis is spread differently or different solutions were provided. There is nothing that is so revolting where I couldn't vote for it. It's a matter of individual priorities at the moment, but I realized how much both parties are designed to appeal to _everyone_ as much as possible.
I do have ideologies that are not espoused by either party. I've thought of the libertarians and the Green party. However, ideology is a very divisive thing.
Let's face it, it will always be democrats vs. republicans because those two parties are closest to the moderate middle. By voting for another candidate, you are probably only taking your vote away from the moderate mainstream party that is closest to your views, and handing it to the opposing party.
Re:BEFORE the flamewar commences... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yep. I also don't quite understand why Americans use "liberal" as a term of abuse. Of course, as an Australian, I use "Liberal" as a term of abuse, but in Australia, our Liberal Party is anything but. They're more like Republicans (ie, right-wing, bible-bashing arseholes who want the poor people kept in their place).
Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (Score:1, Interesting)
Canadian's perspective (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyways, the audience really got into the spirit of the movie, laughing, clapping, hissing at all the appropriate moments... a lot of pent up anti-Bush energy was being released, and it was fun! As for myself, I was quite entertained, though Moore's CHIEF critisisms against Bush do not align 100% with my own (I think he missed a lot of material). Nevertheless, it's was nice to see the tables turned against Bush, since the little twerp so richly deserves it.
Finally, I find it ironic that anyone would get upset at Moore being a "propagandist"... I mean, can anything that helps discredit the institutionalized Bush propaganda count as propaganda? At the worst, it's an inevitable reaction of equal magnitude in the opposite direction.
Where's the humanity ./ers? (Score:1, Interesting)
Deconstructing the movie into the core themes there are some very important and simple ethical statements:
1. War is bad for humanity, people die. (Think of your reactions to the Iraqi woman having to go to 5 funerals, and the US Soldiers in the hospital or if you were in a similar situation)
2. Privacy is a valuable thing for us civilians. ( average Joe's such as ourselves being detained or worse due to the Patriot Act)
3. Power over other human beings should be used responsibly to ensure they maintain their rights to life and happiness.
I could show this movie to a three year old and they would understand these points.
But after four straight years of absorbing American media, it is understandable that people would want to focus on whether Michael Moore's 2 hours of alternative perspective is op-ed or documentary.
Remember that people are dying as you talk about documentaries vs. op-ed pieces.
Re:Wishful thinking (Score:4, Interesting)
My take on F 9/11 (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a great film for Americans to see simply for the fact that it packages information on the Bush Administration and it's complete incompetence in a way that the average American can digest. Hell, there are still around 50% of us who think Iraq launched the 9/11 attacks (down from a high at over 70% at one time). And, the Bush administration is STILL trying to perpetuate this BS.
The people you hear picking over the details of this film and screaming about the lies are the same ones who don't have a problem with Bush and Cheney lying about Iraq.
What is the difference? (Score:1, Interesting)
Answer: 15,000 dead people.
My biggest complaint about Farenheit 9/11 is that it did not tell the magnitude of the tragedy to Iraq. Moore alluded to it with the images of children's corpses and the tears and curses of the Iraqi woman. He also alluded to it with the comments by the US soldiers about killing civilians.
Best as I have been able to find out, there have been between 15,000 and 20,000 Iraqis killed in this war. That's before the Iraqis started killing each other. That may not include the military casualties.
I would argue that 800 dead Americans is too high a price to pay to remove Sadaam Hussein. I cannot imagine justifying 15,000 dead Iraqis to Iraq.
BTW, if someone has pointers to more accurate figures for Iraqi casualties, I would be appreciative.
- user name soon to be mardigras
Re:BEFORE the flamewar commences... (Score:3, Interesting)
You've hit a nail on the head I think, describing Kerry & Bush in relation to their Euro counterparts. It has always made me scratch my head a bit that politicians everywhere are often times described as either liberal or conservative. Blair is liberal, Chirac is conservative. Kerry is liberal (though probably more conservative than Chirac), etc.
I think the libertarian quiz page [theadvocates.org] (a bit slanted to convince you you're libertarian) has an interesting point on this, that political affiliation is not 1 dimensional.
Mandatory military service the answer? (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe thinsg would be different if the US had mandatory military service for everyone, and in case of war deployment the people in service would be sent for some piece of action... Maybe mommy and daddy would think twice about voting for war.
Re:Despising one's roots... (Score:3, Interesting)
As T.S. Eliot put it in 'The Love-Song of J. Alfred Prufrock' and where do I begin.
The above and each of the non-points it tries to make is interesting but only for its flaws. First off, the statement that Moore or anyone else who came from humble origins loses something by leaving them behind is pretty much insane, isn't it? You can't test the statement for truth because there is no objective truth in any 'should' proposition, but you can test it against reality. One equivalent to the statement is to be found in a scenario where a poor boy from a trailor-park who grew up on scut-jobs and welfare invents something and uses his money and position (say, ten million dollar's worth) to buy a trailor and move into the park next to the one he grew up in. You can't prove the insanity of the scenario syllogistically, but it seems so counterintuitive as to be laughable.
In other words, in order to be 'virtuous,' or 'genuine,' in the poster's eyes, he expects every black basketball, baseball and football star in their respective sports leagues to move out of their mansions or condominiums and take up residence in the worst corner of the nearest ghetto. This is, at best, a strange redefinition of the American Dream.
Next!!
The statement pertaining to "Limousine Liberals" used as a slur is a strangely American, and strangely dumb phenomenon that makes you think of George Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four. The statement, 'well they do it, it too,' is a classic fallacy since it has nothing to do with your own (bad) actions, but when you consider Moore or anyone else as a 'Limousine Liberal,' you are essentially stating that the recipient of your contempt is a wealthy man who uses his wealth and position to enhance the interests of those who have less in the way of wealth and position.
In the old days, this was called 'christian charity,' or 'tithing,' perhaps. Nowadays, it's used as a term of invective in a way that seems absolutely insane except to a conservative who quacks it out on some forum. Unless you can resolve the immorality and idiocy of a, 'man or woman of wealth and status who seeks to relieve the poverty and sooth the pain of the masses,' the use of the term, 'Limousine Liberal,' in any context is more slogan than sense and thus, irremediably and unctiously cretinous--worthy only of the Rush Limbaugh's and Anne Coulter's of the world.
Next!!
Speaking of 'Limousine Liberals,' if we examine their opposite numbers, the conservatives currently in power, we see at their head, a man of so little talent that, given every educational advantage that money can buy, and then given connections that reached to the capital of the world's richest country (his daddy was president at the time) and that tapped into an international network for information and funding (Middle-Eastern funds that staved off bankruptcy) who managed to fail to find and sell something that everyone uses.
In other words, no one with the sense god gave a dog would let the current President run a gas station for him.
Now, instead of being just another obscure and useless rich person, the man with little talent is the President of the United States and his choice of policy initiatives in the wake of an attack on our nation has led to our armed forces being bogged-down in a useless military adventure that, to date, has killed over eight-hundred of our citizen-soldiers without punishing the attackers whose actions ground three-thousand of my neighbors into dog-food on a fine summer's day.
If limousine liberals who are to be appeased are the opposite of this kind of government, then I will: a. Vote Kerry. b. Set up a shrine to Ted Kennedy, and c. do whatever it takes to appease the current regime out of office.
Have a nice day.
Re:Bradbury pot to Moore's kettle... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:BEFORE the flamewar commences... (Score:2, Interesting)
The difference between Michael Moore and Limbaugh is Moore actually quotes his sources. I've never heard of Moore ever having been sued for libel. IF YOU SAY HE'S A LIAR, LET'S HAVE SOME PROOF! Moore's approach is unique because he allows people's own words and public actions to hang themselves. On the other hand, he's definitely a grandstander. I don't love the guy, but it's nice to have a histrionic leftist get some coverage and distribution in the right-wing corporate media. I've noticed people get more up in arms about Michael Moore's supposed lies than about Rush Limbaugh's real ones, or Bill O'Reilly's bullying and abuse of interviewees with opposing views. Face it guys, they ALL use dirty tricks. Maybe people are so upset because the left is finally fighting back...
Joseph Goebbels, eat your heart out.
Re:Response to Hitchens (Score:4, Interesting)
I was going to let this lie, but there's just too much FUD in here.
Salis, are you a historian? I am the erstwhile editor of an electronic historical periodical on post-Roman Britain; I am preparing to relaunch it in the coming months as a peer-reviewed journal. I have presented at academic conferences. I don't just read history obsessively, I actually practice the craft. And while my knowledge of WW2 is not as great as other periods, I know what a consensus means and how it's formed. I didn't claim there was one yet on FDR's pre-knowledge of Pearl Harbor; I said one was forming. Primarily from younger historians who are working solely from primary sources, and lack the hero-worship of the G.I. Generation. I don't know if it's true or not, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest it.
I addressed Hitchens' main point. His primary thesis is a straw man argument: that Moore's actual opinion does not gel with the opinion Hitchens would like to project on Bizarro Moore from the parallel dimension where things happened differently. Hitchens projects onto more policies and answers that Moore does not give. Moore asks questions; Hitchens sticks answers in his mouth and then points to how contradictory the answers he supplies for Moore are.
I said Moore's treatment of pre-war Iraq was suspect. However, is your contention that no child in Iraq ever flew a kite? Saddam was a heinous mass murderer, but no dictator, no matter how cruel, can be oppressing everyone all the time. Saddam was very nice to the Sunnis, for example. Most of Saddam's genocide was committed in the 1980s and 1990s, and while the terror of the Fedayeen cast a pall over all Iraqi life, the sun still shined on Baghdad during the day, and there were still far more moments of peace than of strife. In every country on earth, no matter how despotic, most people are just trying to get by.
You need to do a lot more reading on Al Jazeera. They are hated in the Arab world for being pro-American. Only in America are they considered propaganda for terrorists; most of the world considers them the opposite. This says something about journalistic integrity and objectivity when both sides hate you.
Moore's three Bush-esque sentences were highly suspect. The shootings at planes patrolling the no-fly zone, however, is the strongest argument against their literal truth. Whether these constitute an "attack on America," i.e., an act of war, is debatable. I do not take either side of that debate, and I find those three sentences very misleading. But, like Bush's claims of ties between al-Qaida and Saddam, they are literally true. It's a very fine line of deception that Moore walks for three lines like a highwire.
That it's better to get Saddam before he gets WMD's is a very different (and much better) case than the argument that he had WMD's. You should definately be working for the White House, Salis; you're much smarter than they are!
I don't like Saddam, and I take his removal as the silver lining of this situation; a situation that has plunged Iraq into chaos and threatens to tear the region apart in horrific civil war, has strengthened al-Qaida more than they could have ever imagined, and begun the neoconservative campaign for the Pax Americana (a cause they have outlined publicly in detail many times). It may have doubled the size and power of al-Qaida and planted the seeds of a new Roman Empire, but it did get rid of Saddam. There is at least that. But with other tyrants far worse than him at large, I take little consolation in that.
I nowhere insult Hitchens. I did not lower myself to the logical fallacy of the ad hominem, especially as so much of my argument relied on pointing out the logical fallacies in Hitchens' argument. I challenge you to cite a single, solitary line in my rebuttal where I insulted Hitchens. I made many pointed remarks about the weakness of his argument, but I never commented on the man himself except to put to bed the contention that this was a "lib fight