Slashdot Mirror
Cannes' Palme d'Or goes to Michael Moore
An anonymous reader writes "The Palme d'Or of the Festival de Cannes was presented this year by Charlize Theron to Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore. I don't know if it's the first time this prize is awarded to a documentary, but I guess it's rare enough to be mentioned, especially given the problems this film encounters."
Which was nearly 50 years ago.
Do you mean a documentary or a "documentary"?
A genuine question for Moore fans: doesn't it bother you even slightly that Moore expects you not to independently verify what he presents as fact? You're supposed to be geeks, people who're capable of thinking "out of the box". And doesn't it bother you that Michael Moore is personally getting very, very rich out of September 11th?
This is beautiful, really beautiful.
The French were a bit apprehensive because it looked like the US seemed to be taking over the prestigeous festival with their blockbusters and the like, leaving the "other" movies (or what you Americans would call "Foreign Film" movies) largely unnoticed.
Well the Americans did, even awarding an anti-Bush movie top merits. It looks like they were finally able to say the things that they've wanted to for a long time now, but were afraid to back home (look at Moore's reception at the Oscars) and used the Cannes Film Festival for that purpose.
This is history in the making. I'm really curious to see what the American public is going to make of this movie and what they will do next.
Yuioup
It's probably not even the message on it's own that won it for him. Rather, Disney's unwillingness to distribute the film with that message.
What never ceases to amaze me is how, in America, we pay so much to hear and endorse other people's opinions. We give virtually no creedance to those who verify and contradict the supposed facts on which the opinions of politicians, movie makers, and anyone who controls the information flow are based.
Who mediates your information?
I don't remember where I saw it exactly, but there is a website out there that says that if Michael Moore is as anti-corporate as he likes us to think that he should forget the whole Film distro flim-flam and release this film to the web before he releases it anywhere else.
I agree this. I want to believe that Moore wants to crusade for the little guy, but he seems to benifit quite a bit from the corrupt system that he says he hates. He also conviently forgets about the places he's exploited, like Flynt Michigan.
As much as like some of the stuff in his past, he seems to be in bed with the corps and this stinks heavily of hypocracy. Come on Michael... show us where your heart REALLY is!
Why don't you embrace your slashbotness instead of living in a dreamworld?
It has nothing to do with it being "comfortable".
It has to do with the accuracy of what he is saying. Given his track record, I have no reason to belive what he says in this movie as compared to his previous ones.
Moore currently doesn't have a US distributor because of the Disney/Miramax situation, but Moore feels so strongly about the the content of Farenheit 911 and that American voters especially need to see the movie before the November election.
I'm personally not a fan of Michael Moore at all, but I will give Moore a lot of credit if he does what seems to be the best option right now: release the movie online, for free. If he does that, he shows that he isn't being a hypocritical war profiteer - he cares more about people hearing the message than the paycheck.
The petition to release the movie is here.
http://www.talknerdy.org
This has happened before with Disney & Miramax, most recently with the Kevin Smith film "Dogma."
It probably would not be in theaters already even if Disney had not blocked it. Moore wants to add new content to the film prior to release to incorporate more recent events.
this sig deleted by another sig
At least, now that it has this award, US distributors won't be so reluctant to distribute it. This is the reason behind this award I believe.
:)
And the beautiful line M. Moore told aftewards, about him waiting for his invitation to the White House, since it's a kind of tradition for the USA presidents to invite his award winners citizens for a chat : I'm just waiting for Bush reaction
I don't live in the US, so i can verify his claims. From what i read and hear, however, it does seem that criticism against Bush is generally regarded as not a wise move, and is to be avoided.
So, saying that Moore's works are not documentaries is not really a revelation that 'uncovers his true face', since he himself admits that there are flaws in his works.
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
Possibly. Much wildlife photography presented as being "real" is faked. Some of the most egregious examples are from the old Disney nature shows.
If fallacies were presented why was there no legal action taken against him?
The linked article was a little slim on details, but I found the AP article that says that Tarantino was the president of the jury for Palme d'Or, and actress Kathleen Tuner (of Baby Geniuses fame) sits on the panel as well. Plus in other cool news, the AP article says that an edited-together 4-hour complete version of Kill Bill was shown. Can't wait for the special edition DVD on that one.
Really? Try having a civilized debate on affirmative action or slavery reparations on a college campus here in the U.S.
And Howard Stern a liberal? He's the guy who sunk true liberal Mario Cuomo by attacking Cuomo's lack of support for the death penalty.
FOX News is a favorite target of liberals.
Even though I feel CNN is slanted to the left, I normally read CNN.com. However, with all the jokes pouring in about FOX News, I decided to start reading their news articles. I have yet to find a news article or see a news cast from them that appears biased. Can you please locate a biased news article and point it out to me?
They have biased commentary shows on FOX, no question. The no-spin-zone my ass. But all the NEWS I have seen and read from them has been spot on.
Now let's talk about bias. When the story broke about the bomb going off that was hooked up to a sarin gas shell (Sarin is a nerve agent, a weapon of mass destruction), for that day and the next, you could find no news story on CNN.com about it. Not one. It was covered on FOX News and MSNBC's websites. Nothing on cnn.com. On the third day, I did manage to find an article that was discussing something else about the war, and at the bottom it mentioned the sarin bomb found.
I wonder why that is.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Do yourself a favor and read up on what was thought to be "the militia" at the time the second amendment was written. (Hint: all able-bodied men within a certain age range.) Then perhaps you actually will understand the second amendment.
They may not be perfect, but they are more likely to tell viewers what they need to hear, rather than American media that tells us what we want to hear. Just like Hollywood. Give the people what they wan't with no challenges.
The one area that is clearly better than American media is a sense of being in the world. American media is always about America. It's not a death unless it's an American death. It's not suffering unless it's an American suffering. BBC and C-TV have news reports from other parts of the world. I had no idea their were people and entire countries in South America or Africa until I listened to a BBC broadcast. Americans only talk about those parts of the world when an American gets killed there or American investments are effected there.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
OK, let's dismiss Michael Moore entirely because he has some baggage. - sarcasm Sounds like Mr. Edelstein couldn't take being fired like a man. Firing someone is no easy task, and having to do it to a camera is asking a little much. I'm sure if Edelstein walked into Moore's office, and asked for a straight up reason for his firing, sans camera, he'd get it. Edelstein is obviously vengeful. Moore uses his camera when he doesn't get an answer. Edelstein has his: he's obsessive, and he scares his boss, and apparently his public antics aren't helping. Do that to your boss and try staying employed.
Traces of sarin were found but it was in such small amounts that it is likely that the bombers themselves didn't even know sarin was present.
Actually, the bomb was filled with almost ONE GALLON of Sarin chemicals. The only reason it didn't kill people was because it was not exploded properly, as you said, the bombers likely did not know they had a shell of Sarin.
To me that makes it MORE of a story, not less of one. Think about it -- these guys are grabbing shells laying around somewhere to use as improvised explosive devices (IEDs). One of the shells is filled with a gallon of Sarin chemicals.
Do you think that is the only Sarin shell in Iraq?
And CNN did not feel this story was newsworthy? They also found mustard gas in Iraq 10 days earlier. Also not mentioned on CNN.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
The link one of the sibling posts is looking for is this, a response to the hardylaw article.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." --George Orwell
InstaPundit.com has been posting links to other prison abuse stories. For some reason, these aren't getting as much attention in the mainstream media ("all Abu Ghraib, all the time").
Maybe the French, Germans, Arabs, public employees unions, California Attorney General, and their apologists should take note.
May 22, 2004
PRISON MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS AND A DYSFUNCTIONAL CULTURE OF ABUSE in the California prison guards' union.
posted at 03:53 PM by Glenn Reynolds
May 21, 2004
SOMEONE TELL 60 MINUTES about this secret underground prison:
'It starts off by being stripped naked in front of 10 police officers including two women, gratutious humiliation is used to break you down.' '... worst jail that you can possibly imagine.' 'Not even a hole to go to the bathroom. You have to piss against a wall and you sleep in piss on the concrete floor.' The torture victim demands 'the immediate shutdown of this secret underground prison'. It's not at Abu Ghraib, it's in Marseille, France.
No doubt Ted Kennedy will be condemning it soon.
posted at 07:41 PM by Glenn Reynolds
May 21, 2004
MORE STORIES OF ARAB PRISONERS BEING ABUSED:
ARAB prisoners beaten and tortured, innocent bystanders killed by gunfire - another damning human rights report.
But the difference this time is that the violence is being perpetrated not by coalition forces in Iraq, but by the Palestinian Authority, and the victims are its own people.
The report, partly funded by the Finnish government, claims Palestinian cities are in a state of near anarchy, with people on the payroll of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA) blamed for 90 per cent of gangland violence.
It highlights numerous incidents of torture of prisoners and refers to the killing of civilians in gunbattles between Palestinian factions.
It is another blow for Mr Arafat's organisation, which was recently accused of misusing 134 million of European Union funds. Mr Arafat was accused of signing cheques to people linked with terrorist activity.
I'm sure Ted Kennedy will have comments.
posted at 09:55 AM by Glenn Reynolds
May 18, 2004
IRAQI EMIGRES ON ABU GHRAIB: This is interesting:
Hadi Kazwini is an Iraqi engineer who moved to Australia in 1997 and lives in Sydney with his wife and three children. He is amazed at the gullibility of those Australians who have taken the Arab response to the photos at face value.
This sort of brutality goes on all the time, it is happening now in jails right through the Middle East, he says. But of course there are no photos. This is selective outrage.
Kazwini believes that the behaviour revealed by the photos is awful and the US soldiers involved should be punished. But he says some of the Iraqi prisoners shown were Saddam's killers and torturers. They have been responsible for far worse violations of human rights than the Americans.
Where is the outrage about this, he asks. I haven't seen
The World's Smallest Political Quiz
The site is biased towards libertarianism, and the "quiz" is overly simplified, but the concept is quite sound IMO.
> Now that sounds like WMD and Iraq.
Good point. And as a non-US citizen I'd like to honestly ask USians here one question: what are currently the reasons for your presence in Iraq?
For example, in Bowling for Columbine, Moore wasn't including the scenes about the bank that awards shotguns to its depositers as an indication of how easy it is to get a gun. He was making a point about the absurd prevalence of gun ownership in the USA. Yet at the bowlingfortruth website, their point is that he misrepresented the amount of paperwork and legal checks necessary to obtain the actual firearm.
Sorry, but that just WASN'T the point. And NRA fanatics are probably not able to grasp the point of the film because their judgement is clouded by their unwillingness for any restrictions on gun ownership. I'm not saying NRA members, mind you; I'm referring to the fanatical portion of their membership, a minority I'm sure.
So don't be afraid that your opinion of Moore will drop after visiting these sites. If you liked Moore before, you will still like him; if you hated him as a commie liberal, you'll just have some cookie cutter arguments neatly packaged for you next time someone mentions him at work.
By Stuart Chase.
It's a rather old book. But it covers this situation extremely well.
He defines "blab words" which have no set definitions and are used to trigger emotional responses instead of intellectual ones.
Of course "left/right|liberal/conservative" are part of those. They are words that mean different things to different people. Just like "patriotism" and "good" and "evil".
The trick is to identify all the "blab words" in a political speech or whatever and then then re-read the speech with those words replaced by "blab". Most of the time you'll find that the speech is 100% content free.
The majority (90%+?) of "political discussion" in the US is "blab words". There is no "discussion". There are only emotionally charged diatribes.
The best evidence I have found of Fox News' bias is right here.
In the polls, which network/organisation consistently shows Bush with the lowest disapproval rating? FOX. Lowest disapproval on job rating? FOX. It is true that their scores on the positive side of things, while a little high, aren't too skewed from anything else. However, their polls show an obvious aversion to negative numbers for Bush.
So I can only think of two reasons, off the top of my head, why this might happen.
1) They're purposely manipulating the numbers (unlikely)
2) They consistently have a skewed population from which to draw polls (likely)
If number two is likely - why is this happening? Do they only cater to the right? Are they only polling people who tend to watch FOX? Is this on purpose or incidental? I don't know, but it's pretty glaringly obvious that FOX has some polling numbers that are a bit off, and I'd be real interested in finding out why.
Anyway, the extend of this colorful editing job by Moore is covered very well in the link I provided above, and you can verify everything for yourself.
What I don't get is how I am expected not to have realised by myself that the movie was cleverly edited. AND at the same time I'm apparently expected to think he doesn't deserve a film-making award because his film was well edited. It baffles me.
Like the part where that wacko you linked to points out triumphantly that Heston is not wearing the same clothes (gosh!). I actually wondered when I saw the movie why he didn't crop it so that wouldn't show. Now I know, its was deliberate honesty. And yet there are some who latch on to that as proof of the contrary.
Of course Michael Moore doesn't show "both"side of the story. He shows his point of view. He's not a news outlet, he's a film maker. You are allowed to disagree and to not give him your money.
But attacking him for speaking his mind...that's just wrong.
Also, some people attack the classification of "documentary". What is it if not a film that uses documents? Is it a drama? A comedy? A musical perhaps? It uses clips (documents), it is a documentary. That's the very definition.
You can't take the sky from me...
It would be helpful if you'd point to some f a c t s to support your position. Others have tried... and failed miserably.
I mean, the guy's got an angle, but he's no liar. By the way, I highly recommend his chapter on "B-1" Bob Dornan in "Downsize This". He nearly succeeds in having (then-Representative) Dornan committed based on his House Floor ravings as quoted in the Congressional Record. It's hilarious reading.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
This is funny to me because, while Moore's documentary may have generated those warm, goose-bumpy feelings this weekend in enough of the judges to win Fahrenheit 911 the Palme D'Or, I'm betting than 20 (or even 10 or 5) years from now, Moore's film will be to political documentaries what Hackers now is to hacking movies, or what Doc Brown's pronunciation of "1.21 gigawatts!" sounds like today.
Sure, it looked and sounded good at the time, but now it's so dated and so wrong on so many levels that one can't help but treat it as a comedy! But there's still a lot for time to tell on Moore's latest film, so we'll see.
So Moore was essentially right then.
The guy who wrote the hardylaw.net page (David T. Hardy) re-edits it regularly so that he always looks right.
David T. Hardy doesnt admit to it though, instead he cryptically calls the hiding of his mistakes "Some criticisms not given on this page."
And you are angry with Moores editing? I suspect you are angry with his politics more than mere "editing".
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
Perhaps they can create a "Politics" topic, so you and others with your tastes can just not see it?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Shoot....you mix a lot of things together and you get lots of things. There are no WMDs. W was duped by an operative of the Iranian government. He was duped into taking out Iraq 'cause Iran wanted us to. And ...we paid billion of dollars to do it.
Why choose Riefenstahl of all people? There are loads of people who make polemic films about political issues. Why choose an apologist for one of the worst regimes of the 20th century? It shows a complete lack of understanding to compare Moore with Riefenstahl. It was just a cheap jibe.
Perhaps a bit like calling George Bush a Nazi?
Do you get so worked up when someone draws the comparison between Bush and Hitler, or do you turn a blind eye because it is in accordance with your political view?
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
Fox news (and Rush, Hanity, the WSJ, and more) is a perfect example of the Free Market hard at work. Roger Ailes and Murdoch saw that a signifigant portion of the American populace were not happy with the big 3 networks, NPR, MSNBC, or CNN, so they risked a ton of their money on starting a cable news network that is distinctly different than any other cable news outlet, and they were right, they have made a ton of money and have mobilized conservative/republican voters. I find it hard to believe that Ted Turner, with his and other lefties money, couldn't take a crack at a "real" left-wing network, as opposed to the supposedly centrist current outlets. The real question is if there is actually a market for that network, Franken's radio attempt is not exactly showing that is the case, but I welcome their attempts.
Fox provides the american public with a different viewpoint on the day's news, you aren't actually suggesting that we "censor" Fox just because it doesn't toe the big government, high taxes line.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Here is a list of political quizzes, to help you determine where you really stand. Most of these are sponsored by libertarian groups.
This quote (from The Political Compass FAQ) is instructive.
"Some of the questions are slanted
Most of them are slanted ! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and these aren't questions. They're propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.
Some of the propositions are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
No one in the thread has mentioned it so far, but there is a rumor that Disney pulled out of distribution of Moore's film because they feared losing tax breaks for its theme parks (Disney World) and hotels in Florida, where GWB's brother, Jeb Bush, is governor. Have a look here, for example.
According to Michael Moore, Michael Eisner expressed precisely this concern to his agent, Ari Emmanuel. The Disney corporation has denied it.
If this is true, it would be the worst kind of corporate and government malfeasance. If Disney made its decision for that reason, it would be a corporate cave-ins on par with CBS when it pulled the 60 Minutes report on Brown & Williamson (remember that movie with Pacino and Russell Crowe?). If someone in the Florida government made a threat of that kind, however subtly, it would be a severe case of corruption. If brother Jeb knew about it, it would warrant his impeachment, and if George W. Himself knew it, it would warrant his impeachment as well. In a democracy we cannot tolerate the abuse of government power, especially its power to tax, in order to stifle critical statements about political leaders.
A lot of ifs, I know, and maybe none of them will turn out to be true, but this accusation is so grave that it certainly calls for independent investigation. God knows, the Republicans clamored for special prosecutors during the Clinton era for a lot less than this. This question has to be fully cleared up, and let's not wait until after the election to do it.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
At the risk of incurring the wrath of Godwin, would it have been wrong for German citizens in the 1930's and 1940's to root for their government's defeat? (Note: government != country)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
and you'll be treated with as much respect as an Arab in your own USA.
I remember within a month of 9/11 our school had a panel come speak about different viewpoints. The afghani on the panel said that the community was more supportive after the attack. The army rep had to field the questions of why he was attacking innocents. Compare that kind of support with having to worry about bombings overseas at clubs? Kidnappings? You're an idiot if you believe for a second that arabs are treated poorly in the US, especially compared to treatment of americans abroad. Ever heard of someone learning to inspect their car for bombs to visit the US?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Thanks for that link.
I'm still going to watch his movies. It really isn't that big of a deal:
* Moore is showing us things that we didn't know before, or that our media hasn't shown us before.
* Moore is also *telling* us things he wants us to know, with his editing and presentation. People who watch his movies can tell the difference between facts he shows us and the messages he's communicating with those facts.
* Moore is profiting from tragedy. He's saying controversial things and then making money. I don't care about that. I don't care about Michael Moore as much as I care about the things he shows us and tells us.
I hold Michael Moore to higher standards than I hold our media, because I have to pay to see his movies. He still passes any reasonable bar I have set for him.
I'm going to watch for bias and slant. The one-sided body of facts I will see in his movie has already been balanced against the one-sided body of facts I have already seen in the media. When he shows me things on video, I will believe those are true. When he shows me an image and describes it, I will take that description with a grain of salt. When he shows me video made of multiple segments cut together, I won't assume he meant those happened right after each other.
I'll just enjoy his movie, and learn some things I haven't seen in the US media yet.
--Michael Spencer
Iraq was an awful mistake on so many levels... it was a war that was groundless, it was an attempt to "convert" the area, it is getting us into a vietname like quagmire (and those who say its "different" are lying or stupid, you decide).
The fact is, that if this went "well", who knows where else bush would decide to invade.
I voted for the guy back in 2000, but I regret it each day that he diminishes our worldwide reputation, he curtails civil rights, he quells free speech (think of the chilllllldren!). He balloons the deficit.
The capper is during the last press interview when he could form a single, solitary sentence. Just a bunch of "err, emmms" for 30 embarassing seconds.
I didn't like Clinton, but the guy had brains. This guy is stupid and worse, doesn't realize the depth of his stupidity.
He is truely scary.
Oh my goodness, he is really awful.
Tee hee!
What do you mean, you were serious?! How could you? What?
Ever heard of a man named Andrew Gilligan? The Hutton Report? The whole thing was a cut-and-dried case of the BBC asserting its right to distort stories and transmit outright lies. And it's far from the only example.
Having said that, the Beeb is pretty good when compared to ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, much less the print media - NYT and Jayson Blair, for example, or the hopelessly biased French and German press, or Reuters, or...
FOX is the least of the problem. Yeah, they're biased, but they don't pretend otherwise.
Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that freedom of speech implies that private organizations are obligated to provide a soapbox.
The fact that what Disney is doing is legal is totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is right.
Therefore, despite what Moore claims, their decision is not censorship.
Censorship does not have to be governmental in nature. One could make a compelling case that at this point moneyed entities pose greater threats to free speech at this point than the U.S. government.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I've blogged a couple of entries about Michael Moore. Needless to say, I despise the guy. And I am a democrat who has financially contributed to John Kerry's campaign since day 1 and will continue to do so until I reach my $2000 limit.
My problem with Michael Moore is that he epitomizes the campaign that was being run by Howard Dean: ride the wave of American frustration and self-loathing to blame absolutely all of the world's woes on one person: George Bush. Because it is far more appealing to address complex issues with very simple rants. In my eyes, such rhetoric belongs in stand-up comedy acts, Dennis Miller Live, and Bill Maher. NOT IN A DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL PLATFORM.
Details about what I mean at my blog URL ... that is if someone actually gives a shit what i think.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
The cost of containment, of course, was the presense of US troops in Saudi Arabia. Al Quaeda and Osama Bin Ladens primary beef with the US was the presense of its armed forces in one of Islams holiest lands. The notion that nothing needed to be done because Iraq was "well contained" ignores the horrific consequences of containment.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
I know one thing that went on was this: a government lying to its citizens to justify invading foreign countries, and then using the "we are at war, and those who aren't with us are against us" argument to justify atrocities abroad, and the destruction of civil rights at home.
Again, you have managed to avoid answering the question. Why are you attacking me personally instead of answering it? I will post it again, and give you one more chance to answer yes, no, or maybe: "Is it wrong to root for your government's defeat, if you sincerely feel its policies are so misguided that their success would lead to much greater harm in the long run than would their failure in the short run?"
If all you can do is tell me how ignorant I am, I'll have to conclude that you have no answer, and are merely incapable of intelligent debate once your buttons have been pushed.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
And, lest we forget, quite a few groups in Western Europe and the U.S. were quite willing to see Saddam stay in power, practicing genocide on a massive scale and conquering his neighbors. Being a coward or an apologist for great evil differs little for being an advocate of that great evil.
Incidently, I have a new blog that will document how closely linked the liberal to socialist left of a century ago was to the same Darwinian/Eugenic ideas that Hitler adopted. In the U.S. and Western Europe well into the 1930s, eugenics was an enlightened, progressive idea opposed only by religious conservatives (particularly Catholic) and "reactionaries" such as G. K. Chesterton, author of Eugenics and Other Evils. The NY Times even praised eugenics, meaning controlled breeding, as a "wonderful new science." Nazi Germany adopted eugenic sterilization after the U.S. (legalized by the Supreme Court in 1927). But it beat the U.S. (though not Sweden) to eugenic abortion (1935) and the infanticide of 'defective' children (1939). At present, only a few countries like the Netherlands have followed the Nazis to that final step--killing the 'unfit' after birth.
Unfortunately, at present only the first two topics are posted online at:
Inkling University
The rest should be there in a few weeks. These are original source documents drawn from liberal magazines such as the New Republic and Nation, as well as articles by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. You get the whole article, not Moore-like lying by quoting out of context.
And these liberal eugenic beliefs never really died out. The chief driving force behind abortion legalization, for instance, was liberal fears as the birth control pill (circa 1960) lowered white birthrates while leaving that of poor blacks high. That's why Roe v. Wade begins with a cryptic remark about "racial overtones" in the abortion debate. That's why liberals are so eager to make sure a poor black mother can abort her child but so hostile to giving that same mother the right to choose a better school for her child than the typical shoddy inner-city school. They want her child's future to be so shoddy she aborts.
So, yes, Moore-like groups are quite a bit like Nazism with one exception. Evil as it was, invading Poland and the USSR took a twisted sort of courage. Killing babies or consigning the Iraqi people to the horror of Saddam does not.
Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle
Mod parent to zero: nothing to support the assertion, nothing to suggest any truth to it. Possibly a fabrication (i.e. lie); certainly not a shred of actual evidence to support the tale.
Just curious, buy were you equally outraged when Rush Limbaugh equated the torture of prisoners in Iraq with fraternity hazing, or do you only notice bias when its "liberal" bias.
n y- uschal0522,0,340595.storyo m/fact/content/?040524fa_fa ct
Its sad fact the whole world, and the U.S. in particular, has been so polarized by George "I'm a uniter and not a divider" Bush, that just about everyone is tilting off the deep end in one direction or another. Passions are so high its not surprising to see people saying things like those this reporter is saying. I hate to say it but I want to see Bush fail in Iraq too. Its the only way to get rid of him and he is probably the most dangerous leader the world has seen since World War II. If they had succeeded in Iraq they would have immediately attacked Syria and Iran and who knows who else after that. Its better they fail early and are made to stop.
After a string of revelations that suggest Bush and his "team" are incompetent like these:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/
http://www.newyorker.c
you can't blame sane people for being desperate them to fail and be thrown out. When governments are making bad decisions its kind of normal for the opposition to root for their failures. The right was rooting for Clinton to fail at every turn. So what if liberals are doing the same thing now.
The next election is especially complicated by the fact that the Dems have thrown up Kerry against Bush so Bush has to fail really badly before enough people will bite the bullet and vote for Kerry. Kerry will be bad too but we all pray not as bad as Bush.
How many tell all books have to come out from Bush Administration insiders pointing out the fact that Bush is both dumb and dangerous before you see the light too? General Zinni turned on Bush on 60 minutes tonight and has a tell all book coauthored by Tom Clancy. Actually he was mostly turning on Rumsfeld and the neocons that got us in to the mess in Iraq while Bush was asleep at the wheel.
At least 3 > senators have turned on Bush in speeches or interviews this week which is a major tell that everyone is figuring out he has to go.
@de_machina
"Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that freedom of speech implies that private organizations are obligated to provide a soapbox."
"their decision is not censorship"
What happens when 'private organizations' effectively own government?
Is 1984 any less 1984 if it turned out that Big Brother was a CEO instead of the president?
Disney's behaviour was directly motivated by political considerations. Censorship seems like an apt term.
1600 Slahsdot posts, countless othe discussions and commentry, all on democracy, freedom, news coverage and the war in Iraq.
Love the film or hate it, it has generated more free speech, comment and thought than any thing else in the media in a long time.
For that alone what a great movie.