Michael Moore Seeks TV Airing of Fahrenheit 9/11 2464
telstar writes "According to Michael Moore's website, he plans to forgoe the nomination for Best Documentary in an effort to get his highly controversial movie Farenheit 9/11 on television. Despite having no assurances from the home video distributor, Moore hopes to air the film prior to the November elections ... suggesting the eve of the elections as a potential air date. Considering how many questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda, one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."
questions have been raised (Score:4, Informative)
Faren-hype 9/11 (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wait, slightly confused... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:questions have been raised (Score:2, Informative)
If you had RTFL you'd have seen every paragraph has the source cited, with links to webpages where available.
Re:Wait, slightly confused... (Score:5, Informative)
No television or internet transmission shall occur at any time prior to, or within the nine months following, the first day of the qualifying exhibition, and not before completing the minimum four-city two-day theatrical runs. Any documentary which is transmitted anywhere in the world in any version as a television or internet program within this period will automatically be disqualified from award eligibility.
http://www.oscars.org/77academyawards/rules/rule1
Re:questions have been raised (Score:1, Informative)
Let's just say that your standard college journalism class would flunk Michael Moore for his misleading tactics. He hurts the left more than he does the right.
Re:McCain-Feingold (Score:3, Informative)
I agree with that view somewhat, and so does Moore from what I understand... but the movie (in DVD/DVD-R) form has already hit the Internet's piracy sites (NFO file [nforce.nl]) and plenty of people are already got it. Moore has stated that he doesn't care about the money when it comes to this movie so 'piracy' is welcome in his eyes
I've got my copy but handing it out would be like preaching to the choir...
Thing is... who would air the film? I'm sure that advertising revenue will make it attractive but I don't think stations will risk the tax break suicide if Bush does get re-elected.
Presidents don't make jobs? (Score:4, Informative)
The president also thought he could save jobs by using steel tariffs and lumber tariffs (this from a "free trade" president). Didn't work. Bush flip-flopped and dropped the steel tariffs [washingtonpost.com] after nearly setting off a trade war.
Re:Moore (Score:3, Informative)
He knowingly makes false statements and claims them to be fact. He also distorts what others say by making up invalid contexts for actual statements people make.
Where?
This allegation is made all the freaking time, and usually by people who haven't seen the movie and get their marching orders from the government propaganda channels on the AM band. So tell me -- in your own words, please -- where in F9/11 did Moore do what you accuse? Example: Moore claims that Bush sent only 11,000 troops to Afghanistan, less than the number of cops in Manhattan. Is this true or false? Or perhaps you're disputing the claim that Bush gave $43 million to the Taliban [cato.org] to get them to perform 9/11. *Cough* I mean to stop growing opium.
Re:FCC should allow it (Score:5, Informative)
But... do they cover Kerry? Fox's man covering Bush in 2000 had family (his wife) in the Bush campaign. How could he be objective?
In 2000 a CNN anchor started to work for Gore and they removed him from all Gore stories because of the appearance of impropriety.
Read the script of Outfoxed [tinyurl.com], see page 73 I believe.
Re:Mccain-feingold (Score:3, Informative)
That's the name of the game (Score:2, Informative)
Just like telling voters that voting for Kerry [cnn.com] will be the prelude to another serious terror attack. Almost sounds like a threat to me.
Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 (Score:1, Informative)
an interesting look at the movie: http://www.fahrenhype911.com/ [fahrenhype911.com]
Looks at what Moore says and how he misleads the viewer by omitting facts or spinning them a certain way. Follow the link for a trailer of the movie re-editted with facts inserted.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Happened In Sweden (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hurting the process? (Score:1, Informative)
Maybe you were unaware that the intelligense reports from the CIA is exactly what Bush acted on. Perhaps you didnt read the comission report placing the blame on the CIA? Or maybe you were unaware that Clinton was also told the same intelligense and acted on it as well.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:3, Informative)
----
Although offering no apology, the letter from Chatillon, who represents Westside Productions, which produced "Fahrenheit 9/11," did admit the date of The Pantagraph page flashed in the movie "was unfortunately off by a couple weeks." But the mistake "did not make a difference to the editorial point
----
Besides, what was stated was completely true - Gore won the recount in the vast majority of counting methods (in fact, pretty much every one that Gore himself didn't request, including the one that was going to go through statewide had the US Supreme Court respected states rights and not stepped in).
Re:questions have been raised (Score:3, Informative)
I've wondered why nobody has pursued Bush's illegitimate and aborted [google.com] child the same way they have the TANG stuff. What I've read of it was he had a former girlfriend pregnant and the child was quietly aborted and suddenly nobody has any information on it and the former girlfriend refused to discuss it. I understand issues of privacy, but politics in the past have done little to ensure protection of individuals when the stakes are high.
"Cheney Speaks to the Reptile Brain" (Score:3, Informative)
A good article on this same subject is Cheney Speaks to the Reptile Brain [commondreams.org] by Thom Hartmann.
It of course applies to all candidates but is very harmful when even mentioning 9/11. Remember when Mike Tyson took a chunk out of Holyfield's ear? Well, later Tyson said that the head-butting and bad calls made him remember another time that it had happened and he snapped. It's called an "Amygdala Hijacking", a phrase I believe coined by Daniel Goleman [eiconsortium.org].
You develop emotional responses by experience. Now that we've all gone through 9/11 every time it's mentioned we become overwhelmed with the same emotions that we experienced at that time. That is why it was mentioned during the Republican National Convention [tinyurl.com] so much (*).
Good articles on the subject:
How the neuroscience revolution can change your practice. [psychother...worker.org]
and...
Emotional Intelligence - Stop Amygdala Hijackings [umass.edu]
(*) Notice "Osama" was not mentioned once.
Re:FCC should allow it (Score:1, Informative)
This doesn' t compare to Fox, where the "reporter" assigned to cover Bush was married to a Bush campaigner. Moore is a twit, but that doesn't make Fox anything resembling fair and balanced. Fox is the RNC spin machine, which is fine as long as you know what you're getting. Just don't insult everyone's intelligence by complaining that the Fox right-wing bias is comparable to the other network's left-wing bias. It isn't.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Informative)
And you imply that this 877 number existed when the movie was made. A quick search for the number you gave found this link [house.gov]. A check [archive.org] on archive.org found that page was first archived on July 6, 2004, almost two weeks after Fahrenheit 9/11 was released in theaters.
Re:Good! (Score:3, Informative)
Au contrair. Democracy is the best form of government. The problem is that any sizeable form of government either becomes ineffective (a'la the Articles of Confederation) or too tyrannical (a'la King George.)
The Founding Fathers created a Federalist System in which the basic democracy of the people was minimally compromised but the larger government--the "alliance of democracies"--was both effective against threats to liberty and segregated enough to not be itself such a threat.
The "bad idea" isn't a move to Democracy, it's a move AWAY from democracy caused largely by the breakdown of the basic community-unit.
As to your last point--the Constitution, while it contained limits on power, was not by design necessarily limited. It was known that power would creep regardless of the form of government, and as such the necessary process was to divide the power as much as possible.
Considering that the SCOTUS just checked the President's treatment of foreign prisoners, and the POTUS has had to get Congressional approval at regular intervals in the War on Terror, we're hardly ignoring the Constitution.
Re:Good! (Score:2, Informative)
Seriously, are you aware of how many conservative think tanks there are out there constantly sending reps to the news? Dems *really* need to catch up with this, it has allowed Republicans to keep TV anchors repeating their talking points.
People:
http://www.mediatransparency.com/all_people_publi
Recipients:
http://www.mediatransparency.com/recipients.php [mediatransparency.com]
Funders:
http://www.mediatransparency.com/funders.php [mediatransparency.com]
Re:Moore (Score:2, Informative)
F/911 is in large part about CNN and Fox news. He argues that the people were intentionally lied to by the Bush administration reguarding Iraq and 911. The neoconservatives' used the "news" channels (CNN is now "news" though not as bad as Fox) to fool the nation (or part of it
More than 50% of Americans believe Iraq was involved in 911 (and WMD) due to a televised misinformation campaign by the Bush administration. The Bush administration's official ass-saving line is that there was no link. Now Bush can cover his own ass (to people dumb enough to believe him) by saying that he never said that Iraq did 911. He didn't have to use those words himself, but simply get the "news" channels to do it for him. I think the "news" channels deserve their prominant place in F/911
Personally, I thought Moore's movie was good though at times emotionally over the top. I just got Outfoxed: Rupert Murdock's War on Journalism off netflix. It is a documentary mostly composed of clips from Fox News Channel with additional commentary by former FNC employees detailing how the Republican talking points got a 24 hour "news" channel. Outfoxed is a more traditional documentary than F/911 and I think more effective at proving its point.
Re:questions have been answered (Score:3, Informative)
The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which I am the chairman of, regularly conducts oversight, and it has proven to be effective and reliable. To that end I have frequently described the Intelligence Committee when I make public speeches, which I do frequently, as the metaphorical 1-800 number for anybody who has concerns about abuses under the PATRIOT Act or any intelligence-related activities. The number to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has been and continues to be publicly listed and available to anybody who wants to call from around the world. If you have experienced a specific problem with the PATRIOT Act, you can now call us at our toll-free number. It only costs the taxpayers. The number is 1-877-858-9040.
Note that he said that 1-800 was a metaphor he was using to describe the committee. Note that he says that a number *has been and continues to be* published to contact them, but doesn't specifically say which one it was. Note that he says that taxpayers can *now* call the 877 number.
This isn't about Goss saying 1-800 when he meant 1-877. When Goss made the 1-800 comment, and at the time Fahrenheit 911 was released, there was not a free number to call Goss' committee about the PATRIOT Act.
I dare you to find a reference to, or any published material indicating that 877 number was in place before June 25th, the day Fahrenheit 911 hit theaters. Moore would be lying if he said it today, but when the movie was released, it was factual both in semantics and in spirit.
If you don't want to see it on the front page.. (Score:1, Informative)
It's up to the editors what appears on the front page. Taking your comment farther: Why even bother having a front page? Just make links to the various sections and have everyone go look at the sections they want.
What? You want control over what appears on the front page? Then get a job at OSDN where you can control it.
Otherwise, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND QUIT WHINING!
Re:questions have been raised (Score:2, Informative)
Re:questions have been raised (Score:2, Informative)
The Bush MO is to attack his opponant for his weakness (attacking both Kerry and McCain over Vietnam...)
Calling Kerry a Flip Flopper is another example of this.
read this [americanpr...action.org] site, it has 30 eaxamples of MAJOR flip flops from bush and his administration.
If you think that changing ones position is a bad thing, I suggest you rethink (yes I am assuming you support him) supporting GWB.
The site also fails to list my personal favorite:
"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'" - George W. Bush
That's because the first attacker wins (Score:5, Informative)
The success of negative campaigning isn't just the public's fault, either; it's partly because both candidates this time really do suck. I know that for a lot of voters the answers to "Do you want George W. Bush as your president?" and "Do you want John Kerry as your president?" are the same: no! IMHO the Bush campaign is doing a good job keeping the latter question in people's minds, and it's going to win him the election.
Re:That's a laugh (Score:3, Informative)
And Pat Buchannan, who worked at CNN, casts Judy Woodruff as a liberal [worldnetdaily.com].
Re:bite me asshat. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the 9/11 commission did conclude that there were links to al-Qaeda (just not to the 9/11 attacks). And they did find that sarin gas bomb that had about a gallon of sarin gas.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:4, Informative)
Additional info: I found this article [capitolhillblue.com], which mentions specifically that the number was created afterwards:
Re:Hurting the process? (Score:4, Informative)
Here I am with the 'haves' [dramatic pause] and the 'have mores'. Some call you the elite [dramatic pause] I call you 'My Base'
This is a perfect example of the benefit of doing a little simple research and thinking, instead of absorbing information served to you. Based on watching the film, you were probably under the impression that Bush delivered this line at some sort of secret fund raising dinner, rallying the his vast right-wing army. In fact, this occured at the Al Smith dinner, which is a charity dinner that traditionally hosts presidental candidates, and of course the candidates are encouraged to make self depricating remarks. You would probably be surprised to know that the other guest of honor that evening was Al Gore, who I believe re-stated his claim that he invented the internet (as well as virtually every invention of the 20th century) as well as some other gems about keeping various types of produce safe in his fridge.
You can find a brief blurb here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/18/polit
Feel free to draw your own conclusions about who is telling the "truth". And remember all facts are always true
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Informative)
iirc, they sued him for $1, since that's the minimal amount they could ask. the suit was only a means to seek a formal apology, which i believe they got.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Informative)
Besides, what was stated was completely true - Gore won the recount in the vast majority of counting methods
Actually, this is not true. The fact is that Gore did not win the state in any of the recounts. And when the media did their own recount, Bush won using every recount standard except for the one that his lawyers were arguing should be used if a recount was to take place.
US Supreme Court respected states rights and not stepped in
I love it when people try to talk about "states' rights" without understanding what it means. The idea of "states' rights" means that the federal government should not interfere with the rights that the states hold under the Constitution. It also means that states should not exceed their rights and try to interfere with the government's rights. States do not have the right to violate the US Constitution and infringe upon the powers explicitly granted to the federal government.
Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution states (emphasis added)
And Congress did pass a law several years ago requiring that any disputes over the election of delegates to the Electorial College must be resolved under the laws that were in place on the day of the election. These means that the attempts of the Florida courts to change and create new law (by changing deadlines and creating a statewide recount) to help Gore were a violation of that federal law.
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizens equal protection under the law, yet the Florida Supreme Court's final ruling created a situation where a voter's ballot could be counted differently depending on what county he voted in. This would hardly be equal treatment. When that ruling was issued, even the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court said that the ruling would not survive a test of its Constitutionality and by a 7-2 ruling, the US Supreme Court said that it was unconstitutional (yes it was a 7-2 vote, the 5-4 ruling was only about what remedy should be ordered)
Any claim by Moore that Gore won Florida is best described by Shakesphere's words -
Re:You have to WONDER? (Score:3, Informative)
As with Al Franken's Lying Liars book, F9/11 does not question the moral validity of attacking Afghanistan following 9/11. In fact, just like Franken, Moore criticizes Bush Jr. for not doing enough on Afghanistan. Leaving aside the merits of this military intervention, what Moore (and Franken) essentially do is limit the debate so that the Afghan invasion is taken for granted as being justified.
Also, Moore and Franken are not inherently against the invasion of Iraq; they criticize Bush Jr. for doing it unilaterally and with a false pretext. However, neither really debate whether an invasion could ever be justified, even if the invasion had U.N. backing or if biological/chemical weapons had been found.
Noam Chomsky has said that political debate in the U.S. is confined to polarized expressions contained within a narrow spectrum of ideas. For example, on the bellweather issue of same-sex marriage, it's kind of funny that both the Bush and Kerry tickets are against it; Kerry-Edward's position that they would support civil unions is basically the same position taken by the Conservatives here in Canada, a position that the electorate found too right-wing.
I actually found Franken's book to be surprisingly right-wing, even though it was funny and entertaining. Similarly, Moore's film, while entertaining, misguidedly blamed the Iraq fiasco entirely on Bush Jr's incompetence, even while it was reinforcing U.S. notions of patriotism and duty to the military. Missing from Moore's film was any context on how Bush Jr's invasion was a continuation of questionable U.S. foreign policy in Iraq during the 1990's under both Bush Sr. and Clinton. And missing from this entire debate is whether Kerry will do anything differently, or merely continue American imperialism albeit under a kinder, gentler guise (note that even Chomsky is saying vote Kerry, just to get Bush Jr. out).
Don't vote for somebody that supports the war (Score:2, Informative)
If you oppose the Iraq war, don't vote for someone who supported and continues to support it.
We know Bush supports it.
We also know that Kerry supports it. In the Washington Post article, In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War [washingtonpost.com], Kerry makes it abundantly clear that he is not an anti-war candidate.
Michael Badnarik [badnarik.org] is the only national anti-war candidate. Don't waste your vote on one of those two other guys.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...keeping it real...
Re:questions have been raised (Score:3, Informative)
Some of Moore's implications are technically fair, but deceptive nonetheless (similar to when Bush would mince 9/11 and Saddam Hussein in a speech, so careless listeners would associate the two)
I'll be quick. The details are on Kopel's page.
* Implying that Fox somehow had the ability to change all the other Networks stance on who won Florida, when this was not the case at all.
*Implying that a member of the Bush admin hired a company to turn away African American voters at the polls.
*Implying that Gore won the election no matter what. If the recount method Gore request had been allowed to finish, Bush would've won.
*Implying that Bush vacationed 42 percent of the time in his first six months, with the implication that Bush can't do work away from the whitehouse (slashdotters should know the ease with which offlocation work can be done)
*Implying that Bush didn't read the briefing mentioning the potential terrorist threat.
*Implying that there were no flights allowed in the air when the saudis left the country.
*Implying that the Bin Ladens weren't at all questioned before leaving the air.
Anyway, that's just the tip of the iceberg
Re:questions have been raised (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it is true. Summing up the myths:
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news
"Question: Who actually received the most votes in Florida's 2000 presidential election?
Answer: Al Gore. State election officials ultimately declared George W. Bush the winner by a margin of 537 votes, but during and after the election dispute, questions remained about the uncounted ballots of 175,010 voters, ballots that had been rejected by error-prone tabulating machines employed in many Florida counties. Confusion and conflict, much of it generated by partisan intrigue, prevented these ballots from being counted during the election controversy. However, in 2001 every uncounted ballot was carefully examined in a scientific study by the University of Chicago, which concluded that when all the votes were counted, more votes had been cast for Gore than for Bush.
Q: Why did some earlier post-election studies say just the opposite, that is, that Bush had actually won after all?
A: They did not really say this. They reported, instead, that Bush might have kept his lead if the manual recounts of machine-rejected ballots had been completed along the lines either requested by Gore or initially mandated by the Florida Supreme Court. In these recount scenarios, not all of the machine-rejected ballots would have been included. However, just before the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, the judge overseeing the final statewide recount was preparing to announce that the recount would cover all of the previously uncounted ballots."
Furthermore:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/112101a.html
(the referenced Newsweek article is already in the archives, but I can probably dig it up for you if you want). The judge presiding over statewide recounts ordered overvotes to be counted - one of the several situations in which Gore would have won. Bush only would have won in the recounts that Gore requested.
> States do not have the right to violate the US Constitution and infringe upon the powers explicitly granted to the federal government.
You just quoted the constitution which completely backs up what Florida was doing - *THE STATE* makes the laws about how the elections are conducted, and the ultimate arbiter of *FLORIDA LAW* is the Florida Supreme court (the US supreme court can only decide if a florida law violates the US constitution). Apparently you're unfamiliar with the logic that the US supreme court used in their 5-4 decision - they actually claimed that because there was no way to guarantee "equal protection", you can't have a recount. Furthermore, they made this a non-precidental ruling, because it would trash states rights if they didn't.
And the decision *Was* 5-4. You're confusing your decisions. The 7-2 was a per curiam - or "unsigned" - statement that there were "constitutional problems". It was a rather mild statement, however, and focused mainly on the fact that it would have been hard, if not impossible, to complete them by the date required. The 5-4 was the actual vote on the case.
Obviousman to the rescue! (Score:5, Informative)
Now, let's put that quote back in context... Originally, a bill was proposed seeking $87 billion in funding to support the war in Iraq, to be paid for by repealing the Bush tax cut. Kerry voted for it. Bush refused to sign that bill, and instead had a Republican senator propose an identical $87 billion dollar bill for funding to be paid for by increasing the deficit. John Kerry, among others, believe that you don't just run up your credit cards willy-nilly without figuring some way to pay them, and voted against that bill.
Does this mean Kerry doesn't support the troops? Nope - in fact, Bush was the one who sent them off to war improperly funded and supplied (remember all the APCs and Humvees that didn't have armor?). Kerry does support the troops. He also supports not running up trillion dollar deficits while keeping a tax cut that gives middle-class and below families less than $300 each, while upper-class people get hundreds of times that.
-T
Parent is correct (Score:2, Informative)
Illinois new coverage [editorandpublisher.com]
Patriots for Bush.com blurb [patriotsforbush.com]
However, Michael Moore did not wish to publicly apologize [msn.com] for the date mistake at the time. His production company later did admit the mistake in a letter to the newspaper.
The Pantagraph own coverage [pantagraph.com].
I was not able to find out what became of the suit, though.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Informative)
If one news station calls an election, the others follow that call. Call them lemmings, but no news station wants to be the last to call an election. I was watching CNN at the time, and was watching the florida count numbers coming in, was aware that it was incredibly obvious that Gore could still carry the state (and not even that difficult), and then had my jaw drop when I heard them say something to the effect of... "wait, we're getting the news that Florida has been called for Bush..."
2) Implying that a member of the Bush admin hired a company to turn away African American voters at the polls.
Please, then - offer your explanation of why the "Felon Purge List" had over 20,000 African Americans, but less than 50 hispanics (I assume you're talking about Database Technologies and the purge list).
3) Implying that Gore won the election no matter what.
In the method that the State supreme court had ordered, Gore indeed would have won, based on a University of Chicago study. The only case Bush would have won was the one Gore requested, or no recount - but that was not what the State supreme court ordered.
4a) Implying that Bush vacationed 42 percent of the time in his first six months
That is completely true.
4b) With the implication that Bush can't do work away from the White House.
Of course he *can* do work. And I'm sure he's so much more effective without all those "relevant people" around him. Crawford, Texas, is so much more accessable for meetings than DC. I'm sure all of the brush-cutting photos, horseback riding, and talk about having fun was just a media ploy. (/sarcasm)
One thing that sickened me, later, and unrelated to Moore, was watching Bush talk about killing in Iraq (shortly before the war began), while smiling and playing golf - actually answering a reporter's question in the middle of a swing. How sick...
5) Implying that Bush didn't read the briefing
A) Tenet couldn't have given oral testimony about the PDB, as was implied, because A) Tenet was not in Texas that day, and B) Tenet testified that he did not speak to Bush during all of August: http://slate.msn.com/id/2098861/
B) Neither did Condi: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11
C) And, based on a white house press briefing, it appears that Bush didn't read it himself:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04
Watch the administration official dance around the question as to whether Bush ever read it, it's quite amusing.
6) Implying that there were no flights allowed in the air when the saudis left the country
Here's a couple examples:
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/09/Tampabay/TIA_
http://www.iht.com/articles
7) Implying that the Bin Ladens weren't at all questioned before leaving the air.
Please, back up that they were.
Re:Don't vote for somebody that supports the war (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Michael Moore (Score:5, Informative)
This is one of those myths that has been busted time and time again, but thick-headed conservatives nonetheless spew the lies and thus perpetuate them.
To make the myth more concrete, conservatives believe MoveOn.org, a 527 group clearly connected in some way with the Democratic party (yes, this is itself wrong, but talk to your Congressman about Campaign Finance Reform if you want something to be done about it) ran an ad comparing Bush to Hitler. Here's what really happened--here's the background the soundbite-obsessed Fox News anchors can't dig into because they aren't real journalists.
MoveOn.org ran a content called Bush in 30 Seconds. It was a content that allows ANYONE to submit an ad to MoveOn.org, and the ads would be showcased on the website while voting took place. The ad with the most votes would be aired by MoveOn.org.
Two of the OVER 1,500 ads compared Bush to Hitler. You can see these two ads here [thememoryhole.org] and here [thememoryhole.org].
Now, in case we are forgetting, let me remind you of the correct interpretation of the first amendment--in order for there to be freedom of speech, there has to be freedom of speech even for ideas you don't like [c2.com]. Sure, most people absolutely hate even the mention of Hitler, but by censoring those people who use his image or make comparisons to him, we violate the first amendment right in all cases. There are some legal exceptions (the famous "fighting words" case among others [illinoisfi...center.com]).
That said, I am just reminding you that even these two amateur filmmakers did nothing wrong within the law, which sometimes isn't clear to people who don't truly respect constitutional rights.
The bottom line, however, is that MoveOn.org never aired these ads because people never voted them to the top. So, although you can fault these two amateur filmmakers for this film, you can't fault the democratic party, "democrats" at large, or even MoveOn.org. It would be like faulting Salon.com (or "the liberal media") if on one of their Forums I posted a message that said Bush reminds me of Hitler. [salon.com]
Plus, I find this somewhat ridiculous because one could easily turn this around. Conservative "figureheads" have made the same kinds of comparisons in the past. Look no further than Rush Limbaugh who, at least once, used the term "feminazis" to describe feminists, and called abortion "the modern-day holocaust." This is from his published book in 1992 [issues2000.org]. I am positive that most moral theorists and philosophers would find serious problems with that equivalence claim, regardless of their standpoint on abortion. Contrast this to the two ads posted on MoveOn.org, and you find one very important distinction. The ads on MoveOn.org focus on Hitler's power in using propaganda, his military force abroad and his rhetoric saying that he is driven by God. These particular aspects of Hitler's character could be argued to be found in George W. Bush. However, the comparison is unfair because it seeks emotional manipulation and deception, in that whenever someone thinks of Hitler, one thinks immediately of the holocaust and pure evil (thus, the mental connection, whatever the intention, becomes "Bush is this evil murderous leader"). But you have to admit that Limbaugh's comparison is much worse, because he effectively says that feminists are evil, murderous people, conducting their own holocaust. A clear distinction.
But, I won't fault him for that. After all, he is just one person, one viewpoint. It's his right of speech. And that means I can't say, "because Rush Limbaugh said it, it is mainstream conservati
Re:Well... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Voters don't think (Score:3, Informative)
"One hundred days until Bush is reelected" from a news anchor doesn't strike me as "reporting" so much as rah-rah cheerleading. And "shut up!" very rarely qualifies as a rebuttal.
Other Documentaries on this and other subjects. (Score:1, Informative)
The Corporation
http://www.thecorporation.tv/
The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, the film is a timely, critical inquiry that invites CEOs, whistle-blowers, brokers, gurus, spies, players, pawns and pundits on a graphic and engaging quest to reveal the 4corporation's inner workings, curious history, controversial impacts and possible futures. Featuring illuminating interviews with Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Howard Zinn and many others, THE CORPORATION charts the spectacular rise of an institution aimed at achieving specific economic goals as it also recounts victories against this apparently invincible force.
OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
http://www.outfoxed.org/
Outfoxed examines how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, have been running a "race to the bottom" in television news. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know.
UnCovered : The War on Iraq
http://www.truthuncovered.com/
Chronicles the Bush Administration's determined quest to invade Iraq following the events of September 11, 2001.
UnPrcedented : The 2000 Presidential Election
http://www.unprecedented.org/
All about Florida and the truth behind the voting results and how everything happened.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL: The war on our Civil Liberties
http://www.publicinterestpictures.org/
(all trailers for the Un series and for Outfoxed can be seen at this above link for those interested)
Re:Get Real... (Score:3, Informative)
I use this example all the time, if history truly repeats itself, well were next. Look at the Chinese, they are desperately trying to become a world power. They certainly have the manpower to do it.
However I believe that it isn't nations that is going to be the world powers rather that perceived power will be shifted to corporations, and this is something that really has been in progress for quite a while.
Re:bite me asshat. (Score:3, Informative)
My personal opinion, what I would have reported to my CO if I was still an Intelligence Analyst(which I was for several years in the Marines), would have been that said shell was most likely battlefield debris left over from the Iran-Iraq war or the Gulf War I. There probably are quite a few chemical and biological weapons that Iraq simply lost during the Iran-Iraq war that are still waiting for someone to randomly run across. Interesting to note, the reports shortly after it said that it was set up to optimize explosive damage, and even if it was a brand new munition, the gas would have done very little damage because of how it was set up. That shows whoever set it up thought it was an HE round.
Re:bite me asshat. (Score:4, Informative)
For the historically challenged, some first-hand testimony of veterans. BTW, I've been to some grass roots Kerry events, and they are filled with Vietnam vets who say, all around, "I've been waiting 30 years to vote for this man," because he spoke to their experiences, which no one else was willing to do.
Re:Propaganda (Score:3, Informative)
Shit, none taken - I forget sometimes that I have an account that is cookie'd.
I won't paste the whole interview out of respect for their work but I will quote liberally the section of greatest interest.. and it is pretty specific. This is from Senator Graham's interview:
Your investigation in Congress focused on a Saudi national named Omar al-Bayoumi, who had provided extensive assistance to two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, when they lived in San Diego. You say al-Bayoumi was apparently a covert agent of the Saudi government, and from that you conclude there was official Saudi support for the plot. Yet the independent 9/11 commission came to a different conclusion. Its executive director, Philip Zelikow, has said his investigation had more access to information than yours -- including the opportunity to interview al-Bayoumi. And the commission concluded he had nothing to do with the attacks, that his contacts with the hijackers were coincidental.
Let me say that what we know about this comes primarily from FBI and CIA reports that were in the file in San Diego. And in those files, FBI agents referred to Bayoumi as being a Saudi Arabian agent or Saudi Arabian spy. In the summer of 2002, a CIA agent filed a report that said it was "incontrovertible" that terrorists were receiving assistance, financial and otherwise, from Saudis in San Diego. No. 2: Bayoumi was supposed to be working for a firm that was a subcontractor for the Saudi civil aviation authority. Yet he never showed up for work. His boss tried to fire him, and he received a letter from the Saudi civil aviation authority demanding that he be retained on their payroll despite the fact he wasn't performing any services. And the subcontracting company that employed Bayoumi was owned by a Saudi national who, according to documents seized in Bosnia, was an early financial backer of al-Qaida. Now, that's rather suspicious.
Also suspicious is the number of telephone conversations between Bayoumi and Saudi government representatives. It was a very substantial number that remains classified. Then, the event that really raised our suspicions was that shortly after Alhazmi and Almihdhar flew from Bangkok [Thailand] to Los Angeles [after attending an al-Qaida conference in Malaysia that resulted in their being added to a CIA watch list], Bayoumi tells various persons that he was going to Los Angeles to "pick up some visitors." He drives from San Diego to Los Angeles with a friend. His first stop in Los Angeles was at the consulate of the Saudi government, where he stays for an hour and meets with a diplomat named Fahad al-Thumairy, who subsequently was deported for terrorist-related activities.
After that one-hour meeting, he and that companion go to a Middle Eastern restaurant in Los Angeles to have lunch. They overhear Arabic being spoken at a nearby table. They invite the two young men who are at that table to come and join them. It turns out those two young men are Alhazmi and Almihdhar, two of the 9/11 terrorists. When I asked the staff director of the 9/11 commission about this, he thought it was just a coincidence that they met at this restaurant. I did some independent research. There are at least 134 Middle Eastern restaurants in Los Angeles. So the statistical odds of these two groups meeting at the same Middle Eastern restaurant at the same time are staggering.
You don't believe the meeting was a coincidence?
I'm almost certain this was a prearranged meeting. Later, Bayoumi takes the two terrorists to San Diego, where he introduces them to people who arrange for them to obtain [phony] Social Security cards and flying lessons.
Did the White House specifically request classification of the section on the Saudis?
Technically, it was done by the CIA, but it was at the direction of the White House. I cannot tell
Re:questions have been raised (Score:1, Informative)
Re:questions have been raised (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Get Real... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:questions have been raised (Score:1, Informative)
While I don't support Bush, that's an example of Moore misleading. The reference was to terrorists in Israel, not Iraq.
Creative quoting? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the other one (for the noun, from the very same page):
"A work, such as a film or television program, 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" (fits Fahrenheit 9/11 like a glove, more so than any of Moore's previous documentaries, in fact).
But let's see what specialised sites have to say about it:
[1] [beafestival.org] "an interpretation of theoretical, factual, political, social or historical events or issues presented either objectively or with a specific point of view"
[2] [epa.gov] "a nonfiction motion picture film having a theme or viewpoint but drawing its material from actual events and using editing and sound to enhance the theme"
[3] [fanshawec.ca] "a non-fiction film which usually, although not always, has a particular point of view regarding its subject matter"
[4] [oscars.org] "an eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects"
[5] [uct.ac.za] "factual footage arranged in such a way that it informs and expresses a point of view"
I've been working on (and watching) documentaries for a couple of decades, and these are the definitions employed and accepted by the authors, the industry, the critics, the festivals and the viewers. If you think a documentary is something else, you can either a) correct yourself or b) try to convice every filmmaker, film institute, film festival, cinema historian, etc., that they are wrong.
Either way, good luck, it's not going to be easy.
RMN
~~~
Re:questions have been raised (Score:2, Informative)
My only point is this. People often diminish the importance of these other states. Especially those from New York and California. I often get the impression more that Californians (especially) think less about people from rural areas.
that map shows 20 states voted for gore and 30 voted for Bush. But people sometiems forget a great chunk of our population lives in NewYork and California.
If you do some research into how the electoral college works, it is precisely to protect these smaller populated rural states. A strictly popular vote could potentially be hazardous to the longevity and more specifically the wealth of these states.
Anyways, even disregarding that, people seem to act like this is the only incident where this has happened. Which is completely not true [infoplease.com]
FOUR PRESIDENTS won the presidency but lost the popular vote: Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the election to John Quincy Adams (1824); Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election to Rutherford G. Hayes (1876); Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election to Benjamin Harrison (1888); Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George W. Bush (2000).
Re:Not "no" threat, just not much of a threat. (Score:2, Informative)
There is no such thing as a "Bhuddist emperor". It seems you might have just mispelled "Buddhist", but that's not right either. Japan has 2 religions: Shinto and Buddhism. The Emperor's authority (as well as the nation's aggressive pride) comes from Shinto.
Re:Voters don't think (Score:3, Informative)
If you're going to lie, you might at least attempt a slightly convincing lie. The NBER web site [nber.org] has a nice summary of the official government figures showing when the recession began. It began in March 2001. If you don't believe that page, download the original data [nber.org] and graph it yourself with GNUplot (yes, I have done so) and you'll see that the first dip began in December 2000 just after the elections, with the downswing as W took power in January, and the official recession starting in March.
Re:um... (Score:1, Informative)
Bad system in my opinion, but then again, this is
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Informative)
Correction: 1000 U.S. citizens have died. The number of Iraqi civillians is over 11,000 [iraqbodycount.net] by LOW estimates. If you add in Iraqi soldiers, and you've got a total body count around 17,000, again, by low estimates.