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."
Is it a "documentary" like Bowling for Columbine?
His movies would be more credible if he didn't try to present them as documentaries. They're not documentaries. They're commentaries.
Nothing wrong with that at all, but let's just be clear about it. Up front.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Last time Charlize Theron presented me with something it was a restraining order.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
I haven't seen the thing and I am sure it is politically biased, but certainly I would like to make that determination myself rather then seeing Buena Vista kiss presidential ass and decide that it is not gonna distribute it for fear of losing tax breaks in Florida...
--- "I didn't think anyone would understand it" -Prof. Bob Muller
Finally we know step #2 of the formula:
1. Steal underpants.
2. Paint anti-bush slogan on underpants, sell to Hollywood/Indie industry.
3. Profit!
What gives you the impression that he expects you to not independently verify his content? I haven't seen bowling for columbine yet, but I have roger & me on laserdisc and I don't remember being told not to go double check on the guy. Was there an extra note after the FBI warning on BfC that warns you that any attempts to verify moore's veracity will result in your wife leaving you, your truck breaking down, and your dog being hit by a train?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm sorry, but that second link completely turned me off to reading further.
Any website which needs to mock the physical appearance of someone to make a point shouldn't really be trusted.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
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.
four of the nine jurors were American: Mr. Tarantino, Kathleen Turner, the director Jerry Schatzberg, and the Haitian-born novelist Edwidge Danticat. one juror, the actress Emanuelle Béart, is a French citizen, British actress Tilda Swinton, Benoit Poelvoode, a Belgian actor; Peter von Bagh, a Finnish critic; and the Hong Kong director Tsui Hark made up the rest of the jury. taken from here
Fuck that. Until the rest of the 150 million or so people who haven't been utterly brainwashed by this administration find the gonads to say something more than, "But, he has no exit plan..", Moore is the mouthpiece of the home of the brave, as far as I'm concerned.
Tarentino told Moore exactly the opposite: "It's not only for the message: it's a good movie".
Michael Moore
In particular,
Just curious, have you seen the film?
I don't have to do a damn thing to verify his movie - I just sit back and see who sues him. I mean, the gun lobby alone is very, very large, and determined... if there was a single thing in Bowling that could even be remotely picked apart by a lawyer, it would happen. But it hasn't.
By the way, I'd like to make another point to the Slashdot crowd at large - Documentaries are NOT supposed to be "objective". News reporting is supposed to be objective. You have never, ever seen an 'objective' documentary that wasn't trying to inform you of some plight, or problem, or point of view. Ever.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
To be exact, it was in 1956, when "Le Monde du silence" by Jacques-Yves Cousteau and Louis Malle won the Palme d'Or.
List of winners 1946-2004
My next comment will be ready soon, but moderators can beat the rush and mod it up early.
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
Well, he's kind of like SCO. He makes a claim, has no real evidence to back it up, and then twists facts to make it seem like he was right all along
Now that sounds like WMD and Iraq.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
As a non-US citizen I even have to wonder what people in the states gets so worked up over in the first place, he's just a reporter who wants to illuminate problems in the society and he happens to have a real knack for storytelling and presentation.
But maby it's just that truth hurts...
/greger
Yeah, I know what you mean...
Guns are good. The more, and the bigger, the better.
Corporate dominance of the working class is good, more is better. Besides, one day, I'll be rich too, so screw 'em!
Invasion of other nations (the biggest guns under corporate dominance) is the ultimate expression of what America is all about.
How dare anyone attempt to question any of this, let alone try to allow access to another's opinion?
Moore must be lying anyway, because he's kind of fat and sloppy.
Me? I'm embracing my inner reptile.
I believe everything the neocon media feeds me without question. It's so much easier that way.
Go team Bush! Go USA!
First, as much as I like Stern, he only is qualified to discuss the proper techniques for tossing bologna at a stripper's butt. His political views are based on whatever pads his pocketbook.
Second, there is not an active "campaign" to censor or quiet Michael Moore -- or at least I didn't get the e-mail or fax. He could only wish that the US Government would try to censor him. It would be even more $$$ in his pocket. Moore and his slavish followers claim that disagreeing with him is the same as trying to silence him.As a part of my civil liberties, I have the freedom to not pay to watch his "documentaries", buy his books, view his TV shows or wear his t-shirts. Or do I have to spend my money supporting the companies that support him. That's not an effort to quiet him, its an effort to make sure my money doesn't make it into his pocket. He is already a rich, union busting fat cat.
The liberals in this country want open and free discussion.
As long as you ignore all the campaigns against Fox News and talk radio hosts plus speech codes on college campuses, I would agree.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Even if Moore wanted to release the film for free online it's by no means certain that he could, given that it's owned by Miramax, not Moore himself.
While it's made by Moore's company, Dog Eat Dog Productions, the actual copyright resides with Miramax who are effectively paying Moore to produce a film for them.
actually michael moore has requested that people question everything - including what he says. i saw him speak in dublin and while i didn't agree with many things he said, he was very upfront that people should research and learn.
in fact in one interview his main complaint was that a lot of the stuff in f.9/11 which people say is "new" is not new at all - he just asked around to find it. essentially he said, "i'm just a schmuck who only graduated from high school with no training in journalism - how is it that i found this stuff and "real" journalists didn't?"
as a person who has followed tech "journalism" for years, i can actually answer his question. but like him, i don't much like the answer.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
and, by God, America needs more of them.
A lot of people claimed that movie was very anti-gun, but it was hard for me to conclude that. I'm basically kind of neutral on guns, and I didn't feel like the movie really said anything one way or the other on that part of it. I think it did try to make the point that Americans were too violent, even fond of violence, and that guns allow for more serious consequences, but I think we all know that. He clearly didn't like the NRA's political activism, but he didn't really go after the Second Amendment. At least I didn't notice it, and I certainly should have. (I think the Second Amendment was exactly what the Civil War was about--and it lost. Thanks and a tip of the hat to that great Republican Abraham Lincoln.)
It's going to be interesting to see how BushCo tries to spin their way out of this one. It sounds like he's just collected the facts and shown them in an ugly light--but very artistically. Dubya was probably not amused. Maybe it contributed to his little accident over the weekend? If so, BushCo better watch out for the klutz label. It certainly didn't help Ford in his campaign. (Interestingly enough, I never bought it at the time, and still don't. I don't know how a couple of clumsy stumbles got taken so far out of proportion.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
A few years ago, Moore had an ex-employee arrested, when said employee tried to get an interview with him.
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/regio nal/061700ny-col-tierney.html
Disney made a decision as a private company and business that they will not produce and distribute a film.
The film is obviously already produced and they are ordering a company they bought to not distribute it. Their decision is motivated by political pressure, and they are willing to abandon profit in order to appease their Bush overlords (Jeb and Dubya).
a private company should not be able to pick and chose what it stands behind
Miramax picked it, Buena Vista, who bought Miramax some time ago, told 'em no.
I wonder what the shareholders will think of this. They invested in a company who decides to refuse profits, that isn't kosher. Of course, Eisner might be doing the only profitable thing: Protecting the theme park tax credits, in which case this is an instance of political censorship.
Either way, it is censorship, because no matter what your deficient education led you to believe, censorship is not something that only governments can do, nor is it only evil when governments do it.
You can't take the sky from me...
Well, Riefenstahl made films that glorified Nazism. Among other things, Nazism was responsible for mass murder on an industrial scale and attacking most of Western Europe. I'd be interested to hear which group that Moore glorifies has done anything on that scale?
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
The real issue here is that companies get special tax breaks if the government likes them!? and you all think thats perfectly normal?!? WTF IS EVERYONE SMOKING??
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Staged in what way? Michael Moore writes on his site that the bank was indeed a licensed arms dealer, and had all the necessaries on-site to do background-checks and issue firearms.
Moore also claims that the only prior arrangement with the bank was phoning to ask permission to film. Do you have anything to suggest it wasn't so? From what I understand, you're saying that the bank was somehow used as a film-set, where they convinced the people in the bank to do something highly irregular (if they normally give a voucher, why would they hand over a weapon on-site) just because Moore asks them to?
Now, most of the documentation about that film is fairly clear and easy to read, and I didn't notice anything suspicious about it. So it will take more than a claim of "but it was staged" if your ideas are to carry more weight than the film-maker involved. Perhaps some evidence would be a good start?
What a coincidence. Louis Malle was definitely no less radical and left-leaning than Michael Moore. His movies were full of political or social satire, given in a lighthearted and pleasant manner, yet they were also insightful and generally true to the historical fact. How unlike Michael Moore, who is unable to do anything but cashing his alleged ideals. Sorry, I consider myself a leftwinger, I am all against Bush and the whole Iraq invasion, but I think I'm too old school for Michael Moore. When Karl Marx wanted to launch a revolutionary movement, he went to a library to study the facts. FACTS. Ef - ah - cee - tee - es. Something you won't find in a flashy mockumentary by Michael Moore.
Yeah, I know. Here goes my karma bonus. Well, I won't post it as an AC.
I tried to stop myself but I just have to say something in the face of your blatant stupidity:
1) You're so stupid you think beeing forced to walk around in female underware is the problem here? They've been routinely tortured and abused, and several of them have been murdered by american prison guards while in prison. This is not the same thing as being killed with a weapon in hand, or while attacking someone. If you think this is acceptable treatment of prisoners, why don't you move to china or something? You clearly dont belong in 'the land of the free', and neither does you current administration.
2)The people in prison where suspected terrorists/criminals. Most of them might be guilty, but I promise you, some where/are not (even your own army commanders admit this).
Next time you're unfairly put in prison, knowing it'll probably take a year before you're aquitted, remember when the guards are beating you to death that "it's ok, I am after all a suspected terrorist"
Asshole...
He selectively chooses material to illustrate his extreme leftist views
You mean just like you selectively choose comments to illustrate YOUR extreme anti-moore views? How about this line from the Washington Post?
What's remarkable here isn't Moore's political animosity or ticklish wit. It's the well-argued, heartfelt power of his persuasion. Even though there are many things here that we have already learned, Moore puts it all together.
Its real easy to point fingers, isn't it?
Care to point to point two of such "wild claims" that Noam Chomsky might have made?
;-)
The last time I saw someone accuse Chomsky of not having a solid ground for his evidence (during a talk at the JFK school of government, video is online, and highly recommended) Chomsky came back with the exact quoation.
Very embarassing for the accuser
When he does talks, you will notice that he has a small piece of paper with his references to back up his assertions.
That being said, I would agree that Moore's books are easier to crunch through than Noam's.
My personal favorite Noam book (because its easier to digest, its a set of interviews) is called `Understanding Power', is a book that you can pick at any point.
Miguel.
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
If you try saying that Alan Colmes isn't liberal (besides brilliant), then you either have your head up your ass, have never heard of Alan Colmes, or simply have blind hatred of Fox News
Alan Colmes is the Sean Hannity's equivalent of the Washington Generals. He's a punching bag who's put up there to make it look like a contest. Al Franken skewered Colmes in his book Lie and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. I suggest that you read that before trotting out Colmes as evidence that Fox is not biased.
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.
Here is the Kuro5him link referred to.
This is enormous. This is politics going inside the Cannes palmares. A political move to ensure americans will talk about the movie and release it. Not saying that this is not a great movie, I'm very much looking forward to seing it ; but they were fantastic movies featured in Cannes.
This is really an important move from Cannes, the cinema culture, or the society in general.
Even Moore said "Jesus, what have you done ?" to the Jury when he came to receive his prize.
Cannes, the most pedantic cinema club, gave the Palme to a movie that is mostly a work made to make sure Bush won't be president anymore.
This is one of the most important socio-political event this year !
theefer
I'll assume you're being serious, although it seems more likely you're trolling.
...) to people who had comitted a felony, but were felony-free themselves. That's illegal, and it made the difference in deciding who became president. And guess what, They (Jeb Bush's cabinet) are doing it again for the 2004 elections.
First things first: paragraphs. Learn what they are, use them, more people will read what you type and actually take you seriously.
Secondly, go read mediamatters.org and see how biased towards the neocon view all of the mainstream tv is. The reality is that neocons are not just plain wrong on many issues (their economic theories, like trickle-down economics, have long since been disproven, and their military policies are outright failures, e.g. the war in iraq). Yet somehow they manage to get their voice not just mentioned on mainstream news, but presented as having equal value to the truth. It's not biased when you don't report lies. Take a skeptical look at the actual facts that people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Anne Coulter say (go look up the actual quotes and the actual statistics they cite), and you'll see they lie and distort to serve their own wrongheaded worldview.
Additionally, the reality is that the "liberal" voices you hear on mainstream tv are people cherry-picked to make a poor argument, like Alan Colmes. The left has much better arguments, but the good arguments don't end up on the tv screen. It's a well known strategy to discredit your political opponent, and the right has practiced it with much success.
Now, as for specific responses to what you typed:
Their idea of "balance" is to have a commetator, 3 panelist (all of which spout liberal garbage), and one somewhat moderate conservative. That is their idea of balance. Air America, the so far disappointing attempt by the left to "get their message out" will fail. Why? simple. They are not entertaining. I listened to it a few times on XM, and all it was was whinning, name calling about what is wrong with the conservatives. Did they offer any constructive ideas? No.
You should read your own post. First you accuse the mainstream media of left-wing bias, then you say air america is the left's attempt to get their message out. Why would the left need air america if the mainstream media was biased towards the liberal view? Additionally, I have listened to air america, and I've heard a lot of constructive ideas. My guess is you haven't listened for more than a few hours at best. Try listening for a week.
Why do you think they are working to allow convicted felons, and prisoners the "right" to vote?
Are you talking about the scrubbing of the voter rolls in the 2000 florida elections? You should read up on that. They didn't just remove people who had comitted a felony, they removed people with similarities (names, locations,
It's a valid point to say that people convicted of a felony shouldn't be allowed to vote. But you should look into how racist the US judicial system is. Black people get convicted of a lot more crimes, and sent away for much longer terms. That by the very definition is racism, and the only way you can say it is fair is by taking the position that black people are subhuman (naturally commit more and worse crimes than white people). As a result, the system is rigged to ensure people who would vote democratic (the disenfranchised and the poor) don't get to vote because they get locked away more than middle-class white people.
I also invite you to follow the money. Look at how the entire media industry has been making record profits from bush being in the whitehouse (and the matching media deregulation), and how they donate primarily to the right. If they really had a liberal bias, why would they be republican donors, and why would they be biting the hand that feeds them?
Mind you, I'm not opposed to the classical conservative worldview, of small government, sane fiscal policies, and maintaining t
Mockmentaries refers to those scripted comedy films that take documentary style (handheld, talking-head interviews, bad lighting/framing). Many of Christopher Guest's films are good examples:
Spinal Tap
Waiting for Guffman
" A Mighty Wind"
See the difference. These are all staged and scripted(act/performance). Moore's films are anything but mockumentaries. They are neither staged nor scripted!!! (except for narrations, which is necessary)
The parent post is rated completely wrong and/or overrated. I can't belive that people are swallowing this horse sh*t without a doubt...
What a pile of crap!
l at imes.php
The arguments on the site you point to help Moore's case. For instance, if he was really trying to be sneaky about the Denver footage, he would have just spliced the audio in rather than showing Heston in two different ties, signifying that he was in different places.
Who has time to answer all these petty attacks? Let's just talk about Denver.
---"Now, now, Mike. As pointed out on the main webpage, the NRA "show" was canceled. "
Um, not "Heston's show". Heston still spoke. That was the point Moore was making, your guy is trying to change the subject. The show in question was Heston's speech, the symbolism of which Moore thought was inappropriate. Heston came to defend the NRA. Moore was appalled and included the bits that bothered him.
Then your guy complains that Moore doesn't quote the whole speech. Well, documentaries that are 4 hours long don't get their point across very well.
Your guy also complains that Heston never said the words "from my cold, dead hands" with a rifle hoisted above his head until a year after Columbine.
Well, you've got a point there. Moore may have been wrong about how long that rifle-hoisting has been going on. Your guy forgets to mention that Moore points out that he got it from a Denver TV station who got it directly from the NRA, and that helps to explain why he would have thought it relevant (not exactly taking the contextual high ground). But the exact timing of Heston's statement doesn't disprove Moore's larger point, that Heston still said it even after Columbine happened, and thought it was a good way to promote the NRA. It's a well known Heston soundbite, and is typical of the type of thing you'll hear at one of Heston's shows, and Moore was horrified that the NRA would come anywhere near Columbine so soon after the tragedy.
More on the pervasiveness of the "cold dead hands" meme, even if not in Heston's words, but from the same month as the Columbine shootings:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/
All these attacks on Moore follow this pattern where they say "Moore implied this with his editorial choices, but it's not true!", when in reality they are reading more into the editorial choices than is there.
I'm not a flaming liberal that thinks Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky necessarily have their finger on the dynamics of our society by any means. But if anything, the unbridaled vitriol he elicits from factions of the populace should warrant careful consideration of his work.
I have seen all his movies and some parts I think are incredibly illuminating and others are obviously embellished or distorted, but one thing is for sure: Debate on these issues is productive and there aren't enough outlets for the types of messages he's promoting in our media today, and even if you don't like what he stands for, it's probably incredibly important, even if you disagree with him, that you support his right to express himself. That you recognize that he is passionate about what he believes in and shouldn't be cut down by pedantic, ignorant, sweeping judgements. Otherwise, you will inevitably find at some point, you'll be in his situation as well.
The fact of the matter is that Moore documents his work exponentially better than his ideological rivals in most cases. His underdog status necessitates this, and that's good for everybody. It's also worth noting that the majority of Moore's critics prefer to criticize Moore, the fallible, sometimes-inconsistent MAN (as if any of us are standards by which others should be judged), and completely disregard his work and the issues he raises.
To dismiss him is to bury your head in the sand whether you agree with his agenda or not.
I think this just prove how truly corrupt Hollywood has become that a person like that could win an award for simply being a fat, hypocritical, low life, scum bag, with a camera. I'm guessing he has about 5 years left on that cholesterol train before his heart explodes like refried beans left in a microwave to long. I can't wait for Mr. Moore to be making those headlines.
CLASSIC ignorant, mean-spirited response.
Don't address the issues he raises. He's FAT, therefore his work has abstolutely no integrity or relevance.
If anything, Moore is a litmus test to identify the free thinkers from the brain dead. Thank you for so efficiently demonstrating this.
Moore's prominent presence in the news brings to light some serious questions, such as 'Can't he at least try to look presentable?
-Colin
Having seen this film it was obvious that Moore was implying that public policy sending the single mother to work and public policy making firearms readily available were the cause of or significant contributing factors to the shooting. People who disagree with Moore point to other contributing environmental factors, like running an illegal-drugs business and poor parenting. It is likely that a more thorough analysis could show several troubling factors in this kid's life that all contributed to him shooting another child. I don't see any evidence that a single change in welfare laws, gun laws, drug laws, or parenting laws could have guaranteed that this shooting never would have occurred. Many of us seem to suffer from the fallacy that we can prevent every tragedy with a new law or government program. Whether these laws or programs are conservative or liberal in nature, it doesn't seem to matter. Not every social problem can be solved with law. Some have to be solved by society.
Stuart Eichert
They don't hate our freedom, they don't hate our religion, they wouldn't care at all about us if we weren't a.) Screwing them over continually, and b.) bragging about what Champions of Justice we are.
Look at our record, in the Middle East, Africa, Central and South America. How many freely elected governments have we toppled in the last 30 years? Dozens. How many corrupt dictators have we installed? Dozens. How many evil bastards have we ignored because they were our 'friends?' Dozens again. If anyone is really misinformed enough to debate the facts on this, I'll find some links, it's not hard to do.
Fear will never solve the problem. Aggression leads to aggresion, always. That is the primary reason we still have war and the primary reason most religions teach tolerance and forgivness.
You can't bully humanity into not producing bullies.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton