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)
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody wants to talk about the real issues anyway. Both the parties are busy butchering each other on stupid stuff.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:4, Insightful)
The answer is extremely simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Documentaries are not statistics and are not reporting. A documentary is simply a movie based on real people and real events, period. Documentarists have always presented their point of view - in fact, most people agree that that's preciely the point of documentaries (Moore actually got the highest american award for best documentary, remember?).
Unfortunately, some people (like you) think that the only people allowed to express their point of view are the ones they agree with. Maybe you should apply for a job with the KGB (or, the way things are going, with the Bush administration).
If you think anything in Fahrenheit 9/11 is a lie, sue Moore and get rich. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people willing to finance your legal expenses (as long as they don't have to go public). For some reason no-one has...
And if you think that "the other side of the story" stands up, go make a documentary showing it (it's not as if you need a huge budget or a big crew). Again, for some reason no-one has...
RMN
~~~
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see that. There must be a lot of things you don't get. I am not a Bush supporter, but the stuff Moore picks out and focuses on are just bizarre.
Reading a children's book is a good example. What the fsck did you want the president to do? Throw the book up in the air and scream like a madman? Instantly launch a bunch of counterstrikes at a then unknown target? Hold a press conference within five minutes to present a weepy announcement? Moore's portrayal of that event is weird. Is he implying that Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen and the children were an "alibi"? Is he implying that Bush should have instantly restored order instead of reading to children? Is he implying that simply reading to children is an unpresidential activity?
Moore has taken a bunch of BFD-class molehills and tried to construct a mountain out of them. Bu that mountain is very crumbly and doesn't give you much of a view when you get to the top.
Yes, he's fat and vain, but being fat and vain doesn't make you wrong when you're right.
No one, and I mean no one, is claiming that Moore is wrong using "fat and vain" as evidence. That's beyond stupid.
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:5, Interesting)
I thought it was funny when a newspaper sued Moore
because they say he represented a letter to the editor as a front page headline story, and changed the date of the letter. I wonder what happened to that suit.
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, Insightful)
When we were shown the videotape of the police beating rodney king, that was also skewed. It hardly showed the LAPD at their best, nor was it representative of the vast majority of LAPD officers, however... it was the truth. A single "mishap" of that magnitude is enough for a criminal case, and the fact that it might not happen all the time is irrelevant.
The vast majority of serial killers spend the vast majority of their time not killing, does that make it OK? Could you walk into a court of law and say "well, you do have my client on film killing someone, but he doesn't do that all the time, certainly less than one hour a month, how about we just let it slide".
The facts are the facts. Biased or not, what was shown in that movie should be enough to get bush nailed to the cross, even if it is a selection of his worst deeds.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, for instance, if you call thousands of voters in South Carolina, and ask them how they'd feel if they were to find out that John McCain had an illegitimate black child, that implies that he does. Not false, but deceptive. But, gee, wonder what the intent was. That would be to deceive the voting public.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because they're all on the same alien spacecraft with Art Bell, wearing tin-foil hats and talking with Elvis. What gives with people buying into this stuff anyway? Why do otherwise intelligent people suspend all critical thinking and go Unabomber wacko when they hear or see a conservative?
A friend of mine had an interesting theory (which he based on my behavior, amusingly). I used to be significantly overweight, and have since lost it all and am in good shape. When I see overweight people, especially fat geeky introverted guys, I tend to really get disgusted with them. I'd want to go over to them and tell them to put the 60 ounce sugar fountain drink down and get a grip on their life.
My friend (a wanna be shrink, I think) observed that I'd react most severely to people that were like the part of me I was irresponsible with. Some sort of self hatred I projected into these beefy nerds. Look at the ABB (Anybody But Bush) crowd. Their hatred is equally emotional and irrational. A bunch I know scream about him being a former alcoholic and alleged coke user. "He's no better than anyone else." Curiously, those that scream the most are the ones who refuse to get control of their own substance abuse issues. And isn't it curious that the party that has made abortion rights a perpetual issue is accusing Bush of having one? Yes, they claim hypocracy, but don't they have a mirror in their house?
My recommendation to all you loathing, under-successful people of intelligence and potential: Get off of the loser trip today. Set down these two rules for yourself:
1. Do not let yourself condemn or criticize anyone else. You've got enough to work on with yourself. Deep down, you know you're projecting self-hatred onto others. You know hating Bush or Kerry not only doesn't fix your own problems, but is a lie to yourself that allows you to pretend you're doing something when you're not.
2. Establish your principles and DO NOT SACRIFICE THEM FOR ANYTHING. Be consistent - this is your gold standard and the definition of your self value. This is what you'll be remembered for - not for all the attacks you made on other people, or how you were a "master of nuance" (history looks very negatively upon such intellectual frauds). If you believe it is wrong for people to be attacking your candidate on his Viet Nam service, then apply it to both candidates. If you think it would be wrong for George Bush to come out with the espose the night before the election on Kerry's affairs or nasty details on his divorce/affairs, then stand up and oppose Michael Moore doing the same to Bush. The more you stand up for the other side or other guy, the more you'll find your objectivity strenghtening.
I didn't become un-fat before I started dealing with my lies, delusions and hatred of myself as expressed in others. Give it a shot and live won't suck so much!
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Insightful)
- Unjustified war in Iraq. No WMDs found, no tangible link between Saddam and Al Queda. Was Saddam a tyrant that deserved to be overthrown? Yes. But the United States had no legitimate excuse to do so. We *ARE NOT* the world's police. We have better things to do in our own country with the hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives this war has cost us. War should always, always, *always* be the last option, and only when it is absolutely necessary. I think a certain religious figure the administration claims to believe in would agree.
- Extremely shady corporate connections. "Kenny Boy" Lay and Enron. Halliburton, run by Cheney at the time, found guilty of illegal accounting practices. No-bid contracts.
- Voting machines. Do I really need to say any more? You read slashdot, right? I just can't in good faith believe that these things would have been pushed as hard if the guys who run the companies didn't favor the incumbent.
- Environmental policy. I'm not going to get started on this really, it would take too long. Go ahead and google for "Bush administration environment" if you need convincing that they are *really* frickin' bad on this issue.
- Inequal rights. I don't care where you stand on the issue, but do you really agree that a constitutional amendment is the best way to "preserve the sanctity of marriage?" Why is this a federal government issue in the first place? Isn't marriage a (mainly) religious practice that the government only cares about in terms of taxing? I personally think any two people who are actually going to stay with each other in the long run should be legally allowed to make that commitment, but I can see why some would disagree. But a constitutional amendment is very much the wrong answer to this social disagreement. Why not just have churches that don't like gay marriage not recognize such unions? The catholic church doesn't recognize my marriage (as I wasn't married by a priest), and they're welcome not to - but it is not the government's place to make moral judgements.
- Dismantling of "inalienable" rights. Why does the government need to be able to review my library records? Is there anything in public libraries I'm not supposed to be reading? Have any terrorists really been caught by spying on the entire populace, ever? Why the hell are people being held in prisons without due process? Are they so dangerous that due process would harm the country?
Ok, so what are the administration's strengths? Really? I can't think of any. Defense? Granted, they're probably more militaristic than a democratic administration would be, but I have yet to be convinced this has helped make us safer. If anything, the Iraq war has lead to a greater percentage of the world hating the US, which just can't be a good thing in the long run.
Fahrenheit 9/11 might not be 100% factually accurate. It might be misleading in some parts. But have you seen it? The movie is a stunning indictment of the general wrong-headedness of the current administration, and even if 50% of it was bunk, it would still piss me off that our leaders are getting away with as much as they are.
In short, I don't like John Kerry, but he's the best bet to get this completely unpalatable administration out. And that's why I'm going to vote for him, and encourage to the best of my ability everyone I know to do likewise.
To tie this all back to the parent post - I'm not projecting self-hatred onto others when I say I hate the Bush administration. I like myself, and honestly believe I'm a good person. I have my faults, but I recognize them and try to either make up for them or work to make them go away. But I hate this administration, and wish nothing but bad things to happen to those involved it it (mmm... life-long prison sentences...). I'm not going to stand up for the administration for the sake of giving myself objectivity - I'm going to stand by my principles and do what I can to get them out of office.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Interesting)
You see, we can't stand bush or his administration not because we hate outselves. Its because we (I promise) strongly disagree with his policies. So much so that he just starts to piss us off.
I can speak for "the liberals" as a group, because we aren't all the same. Personally, I really believe that things like universal socialized health care and marriage rights for homosexuals are a good idea. Not because I am a self-loathing loser (but thanks for saying that, really raised the level of the discourse) but because I rationally read about this issues and I believe that these are good solutions. I don't support (and never did support) the war in iraq because I believe that it is an unecessary waste of human life and money. I believe that based on as many objective (and varied) sources I can get.
Some people say crazy stupid things. People of all political stripes. That doesn't mean you can paint millions of people with the same brush. The fact that going to Iraq was a foolish mistake, sold to the people with very deceptive rhetoric is something most people came to understand pretty reasonably. Not because people went "Unabomber wacko".
You seem to have trouble with this, so I'll repeat it: I disagree with Bush on basically everything. Because I rationaly looked at the evidence and came to a different conclusion. When various conservatives start basically making things up to argue their point--then I get real mad. When Mr. Bush talks about war, when he for whatever reason didn't want to go himself...that pisses me off. When people attack Kerry's war record I would love to sit down and say, that's wrong. But when it keeps coming and their candidate pulled favors to avoid serving in the same war. Well I start getting snippy. If another conservative post anonymously on the internet that I need to stop condeming and critizing other people and in the same post implies that people who agree with me are losers, then I get REAL pissed off.
Oh, and what's this crap about substance abuse? How many substance abusing liberals do you know? I know a lot of long sober people who really did overcome substance abuse problems that feel like I do about bush. I can't stand the guy and I hardly drink and I have never used illegal drugs. So step off, AC, ok?
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, anyone spouting this line shows they have no concept of how legislative process (and politics in the US in general)works.
Let's take a hypothetical example:
I write a bill. It is good. It goes through committees and ends up with a hundred unrelated riders.
Now, my friend, he doesn't mind those 100 riders, so he votes on the initial bill. The bill doesn't get enough votes, gets sent back to committee.
In that committee, it gets reworked, a few more riders. Gets sent back to congress. It gets voted for debate (my friend votes for the debate to happen), and then in the process a few more motions get approved that tack a few more provisions on that bill.
Now, one of those provisions says that some state can take more water from the Colorado river than it already does. The Colorado river is already under huge pressure from water users, and my friend is a representative from CO. Therefore, when the bill comes up, he votes against it because he can't approve a legislative measure that would deprive his already drought-conditioned constituents of even more water.
Problem is, that bill would have provided affordable housing for 250,000 families across the country.
So, when my friend is up for election, his staff pulls the voting records, and presto! My friend is "against affordable housing for working class families". Even better, he flip-flopped on the issue, because "he voted for it before he voted against it."
And then idiots like you repeat it. This is why our political climate is like it is, because you and your ilk can't think for yourselves and just regurgitate what some website or candidate talking point says. Do us all a favor, and if you don't have anything to say that isn't just PR for one side or the other, just shut up.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Interesting)
So, when my friend is up for election, his staff pulls the voting records, and presto! My friend is "against affordable housing for working class families". Even better, he flip-flopped on the issue, because "he voted for it before he voted against it."
And then idiots like you repeat it. This is why our political climate is like it is
I'd say it's a good reason why governors have an easier time getting elected than legislators. Being in the executive branch at the state level lets you take clear stands, while someone at the state or national assembly has to become really good at compromise.
I don't think that people that call legislators "flip-floppers" are idiots. I just think it is a sad reflection on the political knowledge of the average citizen.
Of course, most who state that opinion on a public forum are idiots, or campaign workers...
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: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:bite me asshat. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think it was wrong of Kerry to come home from Vietnam and tell Congress we should end the war? Ask the American people if anyone knows why we're in the war to begin with? Tell Congress of the atrocities and war crimes he witnessed. Don't play "Oh it never happened, We'd never do that" game with you. We all know god damned well that it did happen. Kerry didn't turn his back on his fellow soldiers. He turned his back on the administration that got them in that Fucked up Ware to begin with. He tried to get his fellow soldiers out of that hell hole before more lives were lost in vain. That one hell of a noble thing to do in my book. And you can bet that he did it knowing full well that piss ants like yourself would never let him forget it.
Re:bite me asshat. (Score:5, Insightful)
Did criminal actions take place during the war? Yes. Were those criminal actions performed by US Servicemen? Yes. Therefore, yes, they were war criminals. But Kerry wasn't coming back to say "Bob Jones - he's a criminal. Fred Murphy - he's a criminal too. Lock my fellow veterans up". He came back to say "this war and the policies behind it are wrong, it was started on a false premise, and criminal policies are being handed down as 'orders'." Kinda like the one in Iraq now - false premises (WMDs), and criminal policies (Abu Gharib).
He did throw his medals, or ribbons, or whatever at the whitehouse in protest, yet still manages to conjure them up today.
If you don't know what he threw - medals, ribbons, or whatever - how can you complain when he shows something? Maybe he's wearing the medals now, and he threw his ribbons (don't see him wearing his ribbons, do you?). Or maybe, as you say, he threw his 'whatever', and it's still lying on the Whitehouse lawn.
-T
Re:bite me asshat. (Score:5, Interesting)
John kerry came back, and joined a group of veterans called the "Winter Soldiers" and testifies to congress as a representative of that group. To wit, his openning statement was:
---
I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.... [richmond.edu]
---
He came back from Vietnam, and spoke Truth to Power. He spoke against an unpopular war. He pulled back the curtain on the atrocities that were occuring every day in 'Nam.
He did the right thing.
How you pervert this brave, heroic, selfless act into some treasonous account is beyond me.
We are asked this year to decide between a decorated war hero; who came back and spoke against the war he fought in, and a coward whose father got him a cushy spot in a champagne squadron, who couldnt even bother to show up between lines of coke.
i know exactly who i would want in the foxhole next to me, and it sure as hell isnt a coked up fratboy.
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: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:bite me asshat. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the 9/11 commission did conclude that there were links to al-Qaeda (just not to the 9/11 attacks).
Quite correct. In short, the links amounted to:
- al-Qaeda asks Saddam: "Can we set up a radio station inside Iraq to broadcast propoganda into Saudi Arabia?" Saddam says yes - it makes sense to him to help destabilize Saudi Arabia.
- al-Qaeda asks Saddam: "Can we set up a terrorist training camp inside Iraq?" Saddam says: "Sod off!" He's not stupid.
And they did find that sarin gas bomb that had about a gallon of sarin gas.
Quite correct. There are, however, two points that you missed.
The "bomb" - it was an IED - consisted of a unmarked 155mm mortar round. There's no proof that the round itself came from, or was manufactured in, Iraq. It was found near the Bahgdad airport, so it may have some from Syria ... but let's say that it was made in Iraq.
The bomb did explode, or partially release - yet it didn't kill anyone. Why not?
One of the unspoken details of the whole "WMD" fiasco is that chemicals decay. Nerve, chemical and biological agents have a limited "shelf life". Sarin gas - even in binary format, as the round apparently was - is effective for only a limited period of time.
Based on the available evidence (rather than hearsay) it most likely that the round was over a decade old. In other words, it was produced before Gulf War I. In other words, based on available evidence, the various bans and inspections in Iraq were working prior to the invasion. No new weapons were being produced, and Saddam only had a small, poorly developed, ineffective and rapidly decaying stockpile of decade-old weapons.
Re:bite me asshat. (Score:4, Interesting)
the anthrax killer never found
Wasn't it determined that the anthrax originated in our own (US) military biolabs? Isn't it a strange coincidence how the first person killed in the anthrax attacks was a nosy reporter who had just published an embarassing photo of Bush's daughter?
In other news, OJ continues his search for, "the real killers"..
Re:bite me asshat. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:bite me asshat. (Score:4, Insightful)
Either that, or the complete absence of terrorist strikes in the US since 9/11 indicates -- not that we are fighting "terror" and winning -- but that there is no terrorist threat to the United States of America.
The "war on terror" is a con being used to justify military spending and to restrict our rights. It is precisely the sort of thing Orwell wrote about fifty years ago.
America is not at war. There is nobody to fight.
Not "no" threat, just not much of a threat. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Either that, or the complete absence of terrorist strikes in the US since 9/11 indicates -- not that we are fighting "terror" and winning -- but that there is no terrorist threat to the United States of America."
Statistically - you are far Far FAR more likely to be killed on the highway then by a terrorist.
Statistically - you are more likely to be killed by someone in your own family than by a terrorist.
(neither of those statistics include people killed in foreign countries)
So, there IS a terrorist threat to the citizens of the USofA. Just not much of one. But that RARITY in itself leads the media to cover it completely out of proportion to the likelyhood of it happening again.
Now, is there a terrorist threat to the USofA? No.
Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA. Under no circumstances will we overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy.
On the other hand, we can slip into a fundamentalist theocracy (see Bush and Co.) or a corporate-based fascist state. But that won't be because Osama did anything. That will be because WE voted for it and allowed it.
Get Real... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's this kind of thinking that really pisses me off - remnants of Manifest Destiny. Why the hell do we, as residents of the United States of America, think that we are invincible? This is what happens when you don't pay attention in your history classes, boys and girls! Let's take a look at the Persians, the Greeks, the Holy Roman Empire, the British Empire, and, hell, even the USSR. These were mighty, mighty nations with incredible power, control, and influence and they all fell out of power. The fact of the matter is that, eventually, the United States WILL fall and we may very well refer to the means of that as 'terrorism'.
Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Yeah, wouldn't you consider the American Revolution against the British an act of Terrorism? What is defined as terrorism is actually capable of bringing about positive change.
As residents of humanity, we need to recognize that all Nations created (in past or in the future) are corrupt and either have failed or are doomed to fail. Now, perhaps I'm just a doomsayer, but my feelings are that the unrest of many combined with the apathy and ignorance of many more are telling evidence of a major paradigm shift in American culture. I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to some change. Especially if it means taking the two-party system to the scrap pile.
Now I'm not saying that we're going to overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy in its place, but it is totally and intrinsically inaccurate to say that "Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA". Even the terrorist act on 9/11 is stirring the pot and, if you can't see that, well..I don't know..I guess I wouldn't be surprised. Seems like most people don't anyhow..
Anyhow, my two cents..
Re:bite me asshat. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well gee, I thought we'd have INFINITE ATTACKS PER MINUTE after 9/11, so YEAH, we're doing GREAT!!!!!
Or maybe I thought that since the last terrorist large scale action on our soil (oklahoma city 1995) occurred six years earlier, that we could expect another attack within six years! We're over halfway now, so far so good huh!
Or maybe I thought that sine the last FOREIGN large scale attack on our soil (pearl harbor, 1941) that we'd see another one within SIXTY years.
What are you, an idiot? We're doing pretty well because there hasn't been another attack here? Tell you what; when we get Iraq calmed down, let me know, and I'll agree we've done anything to calm down terrorism. Until then, all we know is that we haven't been attacked again yet. We are in no way secure from such an attack, nor will we ever be. Pretending we are is just wishful thinking.
Re:bite me asshat. (Score:5, Insightful)
"There's not a single bear in sight--the 'Bear Patrol' is working like a charm".
"That's specious reasoning,"
"Thanks, honey,"
"According to your logic, this rock keeps tigers away"
"Hmmm. How does it work?"
"It doesn't."
"How so?"
"It's just a rock. But I don't see a tiger, anywhere."
"Lisa, I want to buy your rock."
-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]
Re:bite me asshat. (Score:5, Insightful)
How many terrorist related deaths in the US come from Iraq before we invaded them? Again... 0.
How many Assam Bin Ladens (SP) have been captured since 9/11? That would be 0.
Yep... War on Terror is a big success... Just like the war on drugs... the war on poverty... the war on
Re:bite me asshat. (Score:5, Insightful)
Chechnian rebels are also Islamic fundamentalists
Understanding the world in terms of Christianity/Islam isn't going to get you anywhere. The Chechnian rebels are now Islamic, but they used to be secular - non-religious. They are Islamic now, but they are obviously different from Al-Qaeda. They have territorial claims, Al-Qaeda has not.
Actually, the way the Russians have treated the Chechnian people makes quite good soil for fundamentalism. Just like the US and Iraq, I suppose.
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: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.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Insightful)
Discussions about Michael Moore are a distraction. (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing discussions like this have taught me is that there are a LOT of people who have very little idea what their government is doing. There is enough material about U.S. government corruption to make a hundred movies like Fahrenheit 9/11.
I've found that most U.S. citizens don't know that the U.S. government has killed more than 3,000,000 people in war since the end of World War II. None of those people directly threatened the United States.
I've found that most U.S. citizens don't know that the U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars [hevanet.com] since the end of World War II.
Want to educate yourself about U.S. goverment corruption? See the two other movies and read the 35 books reviewed in this article: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org].
This is how it has been going:
Michael Moore: Parts of the U.S. government are very, very corrupt.
TV shows and newspaper articles: Michael Moore is a liar!
Other TV shows and newspaper articles: Michael Moore is not a liar!
Discussions about Michael Moore are a distraction. We should be discussing U.S. government corruption. For example, we should be discussing the U.S. government's relationship with Saudi Arabia that is unhealthy for both countries. There were only hints of that in Fahrenheit 9/11. The movie showed network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia. Why was he doing that, aside from the fact that men sometimes hold hands in Saudi Arabia? Why are they so warm with each other that they hold hands in public? One clue: I think we can rule out any idea that Prince Bandar actually likes George W. Bush; that would be very much against Saudi culture.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the war room skirts around the issues. Read more closesly at Kopel's page, he includes counters of Michael's "War room" counter arguments. There is so much goddamn spin and sleight of hand in F911 that it's difficult for me to take seriously at all. It's not that he isn't mostly accurate factually, its that he implies so much bullshit that you begin to drown in it half way though.
Carefully read through kopels page [davekopel.com], and then read Moore's counter arguments, before you come to a decision on just how good of fact check Moore's war room does.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:4, Insightful)
A modest proposal (Score:5, Insightful)
Watching Winslet & DeCaprio cavorting around is entertaining and all (and the fact that both characters die by the end of the film is an extra bonus), and attention to historical detail makes a film seem more immediate and "puts you in the story," but if you want to know why Titanic sank, you should look elsewhere. Even if every detail is scrupulously correct, that doesn't make it useful. Why treat contemporary politics differently?
Re:questions have been raised (Score:4, Interesting)
The best way to figure out whether or not Moore's truthful depictions "imply" stuff unfairly is to see it for yourself and decide whether or not those implications are warranted.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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.
My question: (Score:4, Funny)
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Insightful)
You are under the naive delusion (common of geeks and kids) that there is a crisp and objective "correct answer" to everything, and that knowing the correct answer will solve anything.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Faren-hype 9/11 (Score:4, Funny)
sure, you're right. The Bush family doesn't have ties with the House of Saud nor are billions of dollars being poured into the pockets of the VP's former company.
also, Bush is really from texas...
Because Right wing people don't lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Or any other similar book?
How about the Swift Boat veterans, at least one of whom recived his bronze star for the same combat action that never happened that Kerry was awarded for. Or the one who stood next to Kerry eight years ago and praised his valor under fire during that same combat action that never happened?
How about those republicans who claim that the Clintons "may have" had up to seventy people murdered?
How about the 70 million dollar investigation of a sub-million dollar land deal where everyone lost money, and blow jobs? Compared to the indescretions of the company Cheney headed with many millions in mistated earnings, the subsequent defrauding of the government in no-bid contracts, and energy industry meetings the American people aren't allowed to know the substance of for no reason beyond "I would prefer not to."
Is Moore a paragon of unassailable objective truth? Hell no. But he's a lot better than those of opposing idiology. He's simply misleading. On the other side of the aisle, they're out and out making shit up with no basis in fact. That's the fucking crime in all this. And the republicans brought it on themselves. Just wait, since it looks like Bush is going to win. Why on Earth would the Democrats NOT adopt the exact same tactics as the republicans next time around?
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
Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy is an unstable form of government. That is why the US Constitution specified a republic, and why the move to and adulation of DEMOCRACY has been a bad idea.
The manipulation of the mob is always easy, and modern media and concentrated media ownership has mad it even easier. Now, even a boob like Bush can succeed.
The US Constitution also tried to limit government power to prevent a boob like Bush from doing great damage. Too bad we ignore those parts of the Constitution, also.
Lew
Voters don't think (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Voters don't think (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather see politicians telling us what there plan is rather than spending their air time making suggestions about who inhaled while they were in college.
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:Voters don't think (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Voters don't think (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all about the advertising. We are not voters. We are consumers. It's like Coke vs Pepsi, but all other cola is kept in the back.
Re:Voters don't think (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Voters don't think (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you should clarify "we". From a moderate viewpoint, the "bleeding-heart, Bush-is-a-terrorist, Michael Moore crowd" is just as ludicrous and uninformed as the "bible-thumping, big-business, tax-breaks-for-the-rich" side of the GOP. I am not a supporter of W. But I don't need to put out a propaganda film that would make Joseph Goebbles blush to prove my point. MM does *nothing* for informing the American public by putting out his drivel. He's only playing to his own crowd of "loonie-lefties". As a moderate who does not want four more years W, I find F9/11 to be insulting and counter-productive. Anyone with half a critical mind will dismiss it (like Fox news) for what it is: distorted partisan crap.
You want factual ammo against W? How about this:
"Am I better off now than four years ago?" Hell no!!! I feel like I've been given the job in this administration that Monica Lewinsky had in the last one. It's amazing: we'll impeach a president over lying about a blowjob, but let the lies, deceit and broken promises of this current adminstration go unpunished. Those of us who are against W don't need a shitslinger like MM, we need someone who is capable of tearing him down with facts not propaganda.
Re:Voters don't think (Score:4, Insightful)
I also think G.W. Bush is about the worst thing to happen to this country since Jefferson Davis.
At the same time, I recognize Moore's film as what it is. It's not propaganda, but it's not exactly objective.
First and foremost, it's important to realize that propaganda isn't just one film, one tv program, or one leaflet. Propaganda refers to a blanket of misinformation that is produced and distributed in such a way as to obscure truth and to impose a particular viewpoint as the only viewpoint.
If you want to get technical, Fox News is the closest to Propaganda this country has come in the last 50 years. Fox is as close to a ubiquitous news source as we have in this country and it's view point is very clear. Nonetheless, Fox pitches itself as being "fair and balanced," something it is patently not. Deceptions like this are what constitute propaganda.
In contrast, Moore's film (even ignoring the fact that you can't create media saturation with two hours of footage) is very clear on its objectives and viewpoints. Moore himself is even more vocal, and has made no bones about the liberal bias in his film.
Nonetheless, factual inaccuracies are something he, as a professional documentary maker, has avoided at all costs.
It is worth noting, however, that Moore leads his audience to some conclusions which are not accurate. He never states anything untrue or inaccurate, but he does not prevent his audience from making assumptions.
Example: We hear a great deal about how the Bin Laden family was evacuated in the days following September 11. We know they weren't interviewed by the FBI (this is true). We know planes around the country were grounded (this is also true). We know the Bin Laden family was in the air and on its way out of the country while a lot of other planes were on the ground (also true). We are lead to assume (but never actually told) that the Bin Laden family was flying as a special exception to the faa's ban on air travel. This is not the case, and while Moore never states it, he leads you to the conclusion.
Documentaries are not always without an agenda. Personally, if the GOP wants to push to have Moore's film counted against the advertising budget of the DNC and Kerry I'm all for it. I'd expect the Kerry campaign to have a similar lawsuit pinning the entire operating budget of Fox News (and indeed the Rupert Murdoch media empire) on the RNC in short order though.
Bottom line: quit your bitching. F911 isn't propaganda. Before it can be labeled as such we need to figure out where Rush, Sean Hannity, and O'Riley fit into the definition.
Re:Voters don't think (Score:4, Insightful)
We are lead to assume (but never actually told) that the Bin Laden family was flying as a special exception to the faa's ban on air travel. This is not the case, and while Moore never states it, he leads you to the conclusion.
Why do you think there was no special exception? The flights out of the country to Saudi Arabia happened during the time that all other flights were grounded. Many -- but not all -- were members of the bin Laden family. Take this in conjunction with recent revelaations that actively sought to suppress an investigation: [miami.com]
All evidence points to Bush giving Saudis special treatment at a time when they should have received no such treatment.
Re:Voters don't think (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm also an independent, and I support most of the same things that you do. However, your analysis of Fox News is missing most of the details.
I'd really like to know why you believe that channel has a Republican agenda.
The news editor of Fox news is a hardcore republican, who sends all of his newscasters a daily list of issues they are required to talk about, and sends them what viewpoint they should present about these issues. His news reporters then either present his viewpoint or stop becoming his news reporters.
How does a fair and balanced news organization support a controversial war 100%? Shouldn't a news organization instead cover a war, debate its reasoning and necessity, and interview the politicians who support and disagree with the war?
Bill O'Reilly
Watched it for over a year, it's one of the worst shows on news. You must be thinking of a different Bill O'Reilly than the one on Fox News. He shouts down his guests, refuses to let them speak (in particular when they disagree with them), turns off their mics when he disagrees with them, and thinks with one of the most emotionally based irrational minds possible.
When was the last time you saw Larry King yell at a guest, turn off a guest's microphone, or kick a guest off the show?
Hannity & Colmes - Hannity is openly a Republican, Colmes is openly a Democrat
Hannity is a talented and skilled speaker. Colmes is the most sniveling tiny-tiny human they could get to possibly host a news show. It would be wonderful if the two were matched and they had equal ability to present their viewpoints. Hannity is given the vast majority of microphone time, Colmes occasionally gets to express a minority opinion in a poor fashion.
And two shows that actually specifically cover political issues. One is Bill O, and the other is H & C.
Yes, precisely. Greta Van Susteren is probably one of the better reporters on Fox News, but she is usually never given political assignments.
Dumb The Vote (Score:5, Insightful)
And considering the fact that the winner will get to pick 3 supreme court justices (hence setting the tone for laws in our country for the next 20 years), it's no wonder this has degraded into a schoolyard brawl.
religion and voting (Score:5, Interesting)
This holds true for pretty much all politicians, really, but I find bush's efforts in this regard to be quite appalling. I certainly don't want to vote for Kerry (who has always been a loser) but I'm voting against bush, more than anything.
That being said, I know way too many people voting for bush just because he says he's an "evangelical christian". I usually suggest that the actions of jesus sound like scary liberal hippie communism, which draws blank stares.
Moore (Score:5, Interesting)
FCC should allow it (Score:4, Insightful)
After all, the Swifties/Bush/Cheney have a 24 x 7 ad running. It's called Fox News.
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.
Fair and Balanced (Score:5, Insightful)
As opposed to all of the partisan commercials, and of course, the Fair and Balanced(TM)(C)(Patent Pending) "news".
Nice Sentence ending (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when have the American electorate ever shown thoughtful contemplation? We sell our presidents like soda. The electorate consistently rewards mud slinging (or fails to vote against it) and runs on emotion rather than reason. That's why we get the government we deserve. McCain-Feingold will never change this fact. Until people stop voting for the 2-party duopoly and stop rewarding the lies, this mess will continue.
helps or hurts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mccain-feingold (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention it may very well be prohibited under the mccain-feingold act, a trashy unconstitutional piece of legislation if there ever was one.
Funny how the supreme court finds it more important to protect simulated child pornography (unimportant) and is okay with silencing political speech (the most important type!).
If someone ever finds the supreme court's balls, please return them to washington. They're desperately needed.
I eventually came to a decision (Score:4, Insightful)
It was nor quick nor easy, but I'm really confident about my vote now.
GO NIXON!!!
Moore's video has really influenced me (Score:5, Funny)
Propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
People are still questioning it?
Moore hopes to air the film prior to the November elections
There's your answer right there.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie, but there was a clear opinion expressed. F911 is material disseminated by an opponent to a poltical agenda, thus "propaganda" by definition.
It is entirely possible for something to be both truthful and propaganda. In fact, I'd venture to guess that most politically-biased material is truthfull. At least, efficient propganda is.
The only thing I took issue with was claims about the family ties between Bush and bin Laden. They are actually very weak ties and arguments. Specifically the one with the Carlyle Group. For more information on this, I would suggest checking out the following K5 Diary entry: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/8/2/121046/020
"Liberal" media is a lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Liberal" media is a lie (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this even true? Looking from Europe, I see that all the media are pro-democrat, except FOX. All the shows have Bush, Cheney and the rest constantly on the floor: Conan O'Bryen, Jay Leno, MSNBC.
FOX seems to attract a lot of indignation, but I question whether it's because it's so biased, or because it's the only one biased in a different direction. In other words: is it possible that hard-core democrats can't stand one single voice of opposition? It looked so, seeing some of the protests during the republican convention.
I am aware that my view is very unusual for a European, but I am a European who came from an ex-communics country, so I developed a refined smell for bullshit.
On the subject of propaganda... (Score:5, Insightful)
Flash back to World War II, for example. Consider the famous German propaganda broadcasters - they were on government-owned radio stations, broadcasting to the German people that England was about to surrender, and Hitler was marching through London. The average person had no way of knowing whether or not that was true. They couldn't go online to someone's blog showing the Allies storming the beaches at Normandy. They couldn't flip to FOX News showing German troops freezing in Russia. And they couldn't turn on AMC showing Steve McQueen jumping his motorcycle across the border. It was either accept what the government said, or die.
Nowadays, however, you can find hundreds of sites devoted to debunking Michael Moore. You can go look up the Congressional Record and see if all those people in F9/11 really did object to certifying the election results and if it was really true that no member of the Senate would sign their objections (it was). You can search newspapers and see old video clips and see if Moore really did edit Charlton Heston's speech in Bowling for Columbine (he did). You can see if the family Moore interviewed really did lose a son in Iraq (they did).
The days of newsreels in the movie theater are long gone. If you go to any movie and take what is says as fact (Be it Fahrenheit 9/11, I Robot, the Passion of the Christ, or the Pokemon movie), you're an idiot. Moore has said many times that he wants his movies to raise questions, not indoctrinate people. That's why I go to see them - to have my values and viewpoints challenged. But you can't suddenly base your entire life on them, any more than you should change your values based on someone coming up to you on the street and saying that your political party sucks.
I'm not a huge fan of Moore outside his movies - I think a lot of his speeches are grandstanding, and I thought he was kind of a jerk at the Oscars, but that doesn't mean he can't make movies that make you think. I mean, David Lynch makes good movies, but man I wouldn't want to spend 5 minutes along with him.
Re:On the subject of propaganda... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but the percentage of Americans who let thier information on current events begin and end at fox "news" is what? Far too high anyway.
You say it's not Propaganda, millions of couch potatoes to lazy to change the channel or read something say "let it be". I say "you'll get the government you deserve, you cretins". Unfortunately, I'll get it too, even though I live in England.
I *LIKE* nasty, dirty flaming campaigns (Score:5, Interesting)
If Kerry thinks the leaders of other countries are going to be any nicer than thhe WORST that Rove and the swifties can throw at him he's nuts. Welcome to the big leagues, John.
But then I'm a Libertarian and so I KNOW my party is going to lose, so let 'em rogh each other up. There really is no hope until we shitcan the two party system and Greens, Libertarians and everyone else can have an actual reason to VOTE for someone they give a crap about.
Michael Moore (Score:5, Insightful)
People generally hate obviously unfair propaganda. Michael Moore has done more damage to the left than anything the GOP could have done.
What I always find interesting about the left is how they sabatage themselves. Look at all the ridiculous things they say about Bush... comparing him to Hitler, saying that he's out to kill as many people as possible, that he wants to poison everyone, on and on. I remember exactly the same thing happening with Reagan. The things they were saying about him were insane. (Literally, saying things like, "He WANTS a nuclear war!!").
The left seems to do this far more than the right. The naive left starts believing all this weird crap and alienates the middle. Of course, the GOP has the religious right spouting weird nonsense, but not nearly to the degree that the left does.
Re:Michael Moore (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, which is why "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" were so unsuccessful.
I believe you've got it completely backwards. People hate substantive discussion of issues. People hate nuance. Nuance and intelligent discussion = nerd. And people really hate nerds. Take Al Gore, please!
Pro wrestling has more fans than "Meet The Press" and image triumphs over substance every time. Unfair propaganda works.
-Isaac
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
Hurting the process? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think not. Yes Moore is bombastic, biased etc. His *facts* seem to be pretty well done, however he's certainly chosen to lay them out to best make the point he's trying to make. This is something that the 'free press' in our nation does all the time. usually when cornered they even admit it.
It's also as likely to bolster Bush's supporters with the degree of venom that Moore brings to his subject and protrayal.
Does any of that matter a lot to me? No, Once I saw GWB in his Tux say:
Coupled with this arrogant bastard's repeated ability to ignore his military's and CIA's and other nation's intelligence reports in favor of his own fscking agenda (basically "we need to eliminate SH from Iraq to stabilize the region") The decision that this moron needs to go was firmly cemented.
And as far as even-handed, I'll take even Moore's work over the 'swift boat veterans for truth(sic)' group, many of whom had nothing bad to say about Kerry, and some of whom earned medals in the same engagement that they now accuse him of lying about.
So Moore 'hurting the process' vs a group that has gotten advice from a (now resigned) administration (US-tax-paid-for) attorney ??!
No comparison. One is clearly using presentation to make a point, the other has clearly broken the rules in recieving material support from actual administration employees and is full of people who can't make up their minds whether they liked Kerry or didn't depending on what office he was running for at the time.
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
Michael Moore is a genius (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll explain.
He comes out with Fahrenheit 9/11. It's full of things. It's a very effective piece of propoganda. And there's almost nothing in it which is false or a lie.
It's been my experience that it's by and large intelligent people who go see his films. Think about it - it's the intelligent people who will give his work the time of day. It's been my experience that the people who say "he's a damn dirty liar and I won't support that" haven't done their research and are on the whole the ones who would rather not hear anything he has to say.
Consequently it's these same intelligent people who walk out of the theater saying "wow, that was pretty bad for Bush & Co. - but I bet it's only one side of the story". And it is.
Moore tells you about the VA Hospitals Bush closed down, but not about the ones he opened up.
Moore tells about the opinon piece that says Gore won, but he doesn't tell you about the dozen stories that say he lost.
Moore tells you about the judges Bush couldn't get appointed, but not about the ones he did.
People have made it their goal to point out the one-sided arguments in the film [davekopel.com] while others have pointed out the fallacies [dailykos.com] in those arguments against the film.
56% of Americans have either seen the film or plan to see the film. There's no way in hell that 56% of Americans are informed about politics. So they learn a lot from Fahrenheit 9/11. Then they learn a lot more from the people against F911. Then they learn even more from the people who are against the people who are against F911. And they decide for themselves who they want to believe more. Or more importantly they decide for themselves which information is important to them.
And then they're informed. In ways they never would have been before. I wouldn't know most of this stuff if I hadn't seen the film and then read all the debates. And I wouldn't have read the debates if it weren't for the Internet. Hell, Michael Moore used footage he got from the Internet to make the movie.
And that's why Michael Moore is a genius. Thanks to him there's a ton more informed voters out there, if for no other reason than people need to see the movie and get their ducks in order in order to hate Moore and his arguments. In many ways he's leveled the playing field.
Screw the political process- this will hurt Dems! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll let you in on a little secret of mine. Liberal as I am, I enjoy tuning into Fox. I like reading the RNC's website. I have fun watching the masters of hypocrisy and intolerance. They say some mighty funny, outrageous things! I wouldn't want these crackpots in charge of my country, my legal system or even the corporations in which I own stock -- but that doesn't stop me from laughing at 'em. For every three logical things they say, they just have to throw in a zinger -- a racist slur, a completely inappropriate personal attack, a tremendous fallacy, a made-up statistic, or what have you. And I find that funny as all hell!
To all of the Bill O'Reillys [fair.org] of the world, for the Rush Limbaughs [rushlimbaughonline.com], the Ed Gillespies [dailykos.com] and the Zell Millers [blog.com], I would like to say: nyeah nyeah nyeah, we have our own pundits now!
(I apologize that all of those links are to biased sources; I tried to find more impartial sources for my quotes, but "unbiased" news sources tend to shy away from reporting on the more outrageous things our politicians and public figures say, because they would quickly gain a reputation for being biased for having done so.)
Yes, now we progressives have our own crackpot figures who make completely unfounded statements with fallacies you could drive a truck through. They twist words, edit footage and tinker until the truth looks juuuuuuust right. Like their regressive counterparts, they're darned good at it. I honestly enjoy them as entertainment, I do.
Aside from giving me great insight into Bush's and Cheney's motivations (money) and Bush's personality (insecure, attention-seeking jock who aims to please his parent figures), Fahrenheit 9/11 was funny, tragic, moving, a reminder of all we lost that day and all we've lost since: collective innocence, blissful ignorance of the effects of our actions abroad, good men in uniform, personal freedoms. Looking through the bull puckey about Saudi air travel privileges, tuning out the anti-war propaganda, I sat in the theater and saw a decent movie.
But this movie did not sway my political position any more than watching The O'Reilly Factor would. This is because Michael Moore, like all the rest of the pundits, makes entertainment. He tries to deliver a political message, but the message is almost always choked by his own hyperbole and willingness to sacrifice the truth in order to inspire outrage in his viewers.
If the intent of releasing Fahrenheit 9/11 ahead of time is to sway the minds of voters, I am afraid the stunt will backfire horribly. Most of the nation is already set in stone as to who they will vote for. The only votes left up for grabs are the precious, the few, the "swing votes." By definition, these people are independent, and like to think about their decisions before making them. They like to check their facts, and they are not easily swayed by appeals to sentimentality. If these people are forced to approach Fahrenheit 9/11 as a run-on political advertisement, they will rebel. They will scoff at the inaccuracies and ignore the redeeming social and political message of the movie. And that just might sway them enough to vote for the other side . .
Just a thought.
More Moore, not less (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, as much as I despise the Republican party, it is not their fault they get away with this stuff (and the Democrats are no better, they're just not as good at it). The press is to blame. They bring in a right-wing shill and a left-wing shill that hit their talking points and they say "There you go. We're fair. We give boths sides." Both sides are a howling vacuum.
Michael Moore produced a singularly one sided narrative. Good! Let the other side do the same. I miss the days when cities had multiple newspapers and they were clearly partisan. They'd fight over every scrap of data. They'd dispute every assertion. They'd catch the other side's every lie. Sure, they'd gloss over their side's lies, but that's why you had the other sides papers.
We're awash in an ocean of carefully tepid news. Ask your local thermodynamicist how much work you can accomplish when the temperature is everywhere the same. I'd like to see some white hot blood in the debate. I'd like to hear a human voice instead of a scientifically measured non-message.
FOX is on 24 hours a day. Let Michael Moore have his 2 hours. If, like me, you basically agree with him, get mad and vote, and go to your next precinct caucus. Write letters. If Moore makes your gorge rise to the top of your throat, go out and make your movie (like the michaelmoorehatesamerica.com guy). You may not be as good at it as Moore. It might take you as long as it took him to get the stage like he has, but if you are pissed enough AND funny enough, you can do what he did. "Roger and Me" got made because he was mad and ironic and smart. And bitterly opinionated.
Do likewise!
Re:Hell yeah (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hell yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Presidents don't make jobs. In the best case, they can get the hell out of the way of the companies that do make jobs. I hate it that your friends don't have jobs, but perhaps you need to look elsewhere for answers. As for me, I just sold a business because I could not get quality employees. It became too big a hassle. Then again, in my 40 years, I have never been more than two weeks without a job, and never accepted unemployment checks, choosing a lower job until I could work my way back up instead. I guess its just a matter of choice.
Who is President simply does not affect jobs the way so many state, but I guess it does make some feel better if they have someone to blame for what is likely just bad luck.
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:Hell yeah (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hell yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Fox (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Liberal media is teh suck (Score:4, Insightful)
I see the media presenting faux pas by both Kerry and Bush, though there seem to be more opportunities to needle Bush. Why's that? Is the media really leaving out Kerry's flubbs? Or is Bush really less articulate, less informed, and less balanced?
The only this that I can give Bush credit for is his leadership quality. I don't agree with his choices at all, but if he did make decisions that I agreed with, I'd be very confident that he would be able to make things happen.
Too bad he's a sexist, homophobic warmonger.
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:You have to WONDER? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is broadcasting a political message in an attempt to influence voters. This is -pure- politics, and purely a part of the free, democratic process we claim to hold so dear (yet see abused every time.)
Re:You have to WONDER? (Score:4, Insightful)
In what way is this movie's creation and/or television broadcast akin to "short-circuiting the democratic process"??!!
This movie is not propaganda:
(The beginning of history [guardian.co.uk], by John Berger, The Guardian, August 24, 2004.)Or maybe, just MAYBE, the facts stand against Bush (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I know why (Score:5, Insightful)
The show 9/11 clearly states a point of view(In this case from Moore), dont like it make your own film. And so what , you have the freedom of speech and he has the right to use it. As regards the idea of truth. Are we to assume that all other shows, that night, depict the "truth".
Maybe because I come from a country where political debate is common and the people represented by a spectrum of views, I find this kind of pro/anti arguments a little strange.
The communist party says one thing (and most people laugh) the center-left says another, the center-right another. Nobody would expect a film to depict the Truth(Tm). Only with actual news programs are facts expected to be proved(editorial and comments are not).
I always get the impression form the US that they consider themselves to be the world experts on Democracy. To be quite honest I see little to be impressed about.
Re:Guerilla Politics (Score:5, Funny)
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...just a thought...