Slashdot Mirror
Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion
xerid writes "I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night, and the theatre was packed & sold out for each showing. Today, I read on Michael Moore.com about the movie breaking records. However, what I haven't seen was coverage on Slashdot, about the movie's opening day." I saw the film on friday and was really impressed. But while it speaks much truth, and has many funny parts as well as truly heartbreaking ones, I don't know how many votes it will sway. But since there is very little other news so far today, why not talk amongst yourselves!
Seriously, although I saw this movie and liked it, this is not the place to discuss it. This site is supposed to be about technology I thought. The only really interesting technical tidbit of this film was that it was, IIRC, entirely created on a mac using Final Cut pro....
Let's get back to discussing robots and porn tech!
I do believe that Slashdot's slogan is "News for Nerds, stuff that matters."
/.ers will as well...I'd wager this thread will get about 1200 posts...any takers?)
Now, if you consider every single news flash regarding, oh say, SCO, more important than a movie that I believe will make a fundamental impact on the future of how politics are played out in America, the fine, avoid this thread. But personally, I think nerds should be just as educated about how their country is run politically as well as technologically.
And besides, one of the greatest lessons to be learned from this movie (though I would have thought it would have been learned much earlier than this) is as follows: Never try and forcefully hide information from the public. The more you try and supress it, the more intreaguing it becomes and the more demand there is for it. If you really do want to hide something, try to be as discrete about it as possible.
But as soon as Disney tried to put the movie away because of benefits they've received from the Bush family, the press pounced, and Moore had a documentary that was "scandalous", and just like Clinton has proved himself, people love a scandal (and I'm sure
Exactly. Don't believe what anyone tells you without going out and doing some research yourself. If what you find confirms what you are told, then and only then can you consider it as fact. I see too many people on both sides pick up quick buzz-phrases and run with them only to be made a complete fool by someone who is more informed. Do your homework.
/wow. this took 4 'Previews'... HTML is rusty
Regardless of his politics, the man is basically dishonest, so you are left with the task of trying to sort the bullshit from the truth. Good luck!
What's funny is I'm not sure whether you were replying to a post about gwb or it was a post on moore. That statement could pretty accurately apply to 90% of people in politics.
If you have specific issues with the facts in this film them lets hear them.
Of course it presents a specific point of view. It is made by a person taking into account his audience.
He uses a specific set of fact patterns. Other people use other sets of fact patterns. Be an intelligent person and try to get a wide variety of fact patterns before you decide what you will consider the most likely truth. If anyone believe that any single source is going to use an objective set of fact patterns, then that person is naive beyond any help.
And please, don't confuse the office of the President with the person holding the office. Confusing the two, and inducing confusion of the two, is the first step to a dictatorship. The former is an institution. The later is a person who was elected to guard that institution. The former is something that must be protected. The later is someone who should be willing to give his reputation and life to protect and serve. This means that criticizing the person is not treason. Sometimes that person needs to be criticized. Sometimes that person is a liar. Sometimes that person is sex addict. Sometimes, for example, that person is drug addict, and we know the TV has told us that drug addicts support terrorists.
So, no hitting below the belt. No calling people traitors for exercising constitutionally protected free speech. As we used to say, if you don't like it, go to Russia. Or, in other words, if you can't take the heat, get you wussy ass out of the kitchen. So no invoking war scenarios for a war that congress never declared. And remember, all sides are torturing humans, and everyone loves their kids equally.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Whoa, EXTREME Leftist???
On a political scale within the United States, although it may not appear that way to American Citizens, all parties are on the far right as compared with other nations.
We Canadians have a Liberal Government, literally named, far beyond the left Americans consider acceptable in their political campgains, etc... yet, we have an extreme leftist party called the NDP -- it's a matter of perspective.
I think that Michael Moore takes his own reality, and the facts to back it up to make his point... it's not to say that he fabricates anything, but it's all about how the information is presented, and in his case... 'left-wing' for Americans. Like any editorial, documentary, etc, it's all about how the viewer perceives the information.
Extreme left-wing? Wouldn't that be revolutionary communism? Moore is more accurately characterized as a social democrat.
"this is not the place to discuss it"
The film is classified as a documentary. Who sees documentaries, kids? No. Nerds do.
3dinfo@maficstudios.com
Like it or not though, many people are just not intellectually up to the challenge of dealing with Cato Institute, or any of the other instruments of social introspection that may allow commoners to understand the issues with the American coup d'etat currently under way.
Michael Moore is a pop-culture 'documentarist'/'entertainer'. If you want to wake up the masses, don't give them countless reams of reports and articles to attempt to wade through. Save that for the courts.
Remember, America is not the most literate nation on Earth.
Many peoples literary skills stop at the ability to change the channel whenever they see something on TV they don't understand.
While it may be 'popular' to counter the Michael Moore marketing machine with elite intellectual discourse on the condition of the American Empire, most MTV-riddled minds are not up to the task. They just aren't. 50 years of Television programming have brainwashed the American public beyond caring about it if they can't understand it.
Michael Moores' delivery methods serve a very key, very important, very significant demographic.
A very, very important demographic: those who are unable, or unwilling, to peer behind the curtain and try and work out what is going on with their society, while those who are intellectually, corporately, and politically able, engage in nefarious deeds.
Michael Moore, for all his failings (and yes, he does have quite a few), will get to the common man
If you truly believe that an understanding of the nature of the conspiracy against American society is important, you won't discount the actual value of Moore's level of work.
It is just as vital to reach the proles as it is the intellectuals...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Lies? Like what? Name one lie in Fahrenheit 9/11. Just one, that's all I ask. You can blame the movie for being biased. You can blame it for being a poor source to form an opinion from since it only gives one side. You can blame it for sensationalism and a number of other things. But I don't think you can claim it contains lies.
While your comments are probably true, please note that they pertain to Bowling for Columbine. Do you have any such remarks related to the subject of our discussion, which is Fahrenheit 9/11? If so, I guess we'd all be glad to hear them.
Anyway, it's obvious that F9/11 is not a balanced documentary, in fact it doesn't even claim to be. It is a film with a very specific agenda, that is to make Bush loose the elections. In that regard it is more of an op-ed piece than a documentary. However, Moore claims that all the facts presented in the movie were double checked and he's ready to stand by them even in court if necessary.
If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
Just because your details are largely factually correct does not make the whole true.
Just leave out relevant facts,take things out of context and contiuosly draw an opinion not supporeted by the facts you have presented.
Why do people think that a documentary must be a completely objective, facts only movie? Some of the greatest documentaries in film and print have been made from a social or political motive. Silent Spring and The Jungle spring to mind. Even something as seemingly innocuous as the Cousteau documentaries on sea life had an agenda.
The problem is that in dealing with social events, presenting events with no spin at all makes the report virtually worthless. Take these hoary old examples:
1) 10 men killed 100 men.
2) 10 patriots successfully defeated a horde of barbarous invaders, killing 100 of them.
3) We regret to report that 100 freedom fighters were killed by government thugs today. 10 members of the government's death squad brutally murdered 100 loyalists.
All three of those statements are true and they all describe the same event. But the most purely objective tells us nothing about what really happened.
"For instance, Michael Moore has consistently insisted that at least a significant portion of his film is satire and not meant to be taken seriously, but he won't tell us which parts or what makes them untrue. "
Which means that you have to think for yourself and search where is the truth in what you've been told ! What a disgussing concept !
#include "coucou.h"
The fact that you think there is any such thing as a non-biased analysis suggests naivity. Everything is biased, the only question is whether you are biased in the same way.
I saw a 10:30PM show friday; particularly because the 7:40PM (and all previous) shows were sold out. And you know what I noticed?
Nearly everyone in the theater was aged 18-30, from all walks of life. The exact demographic that the issues in f9/11 affected.
I was impressed.
does the same things everyday on his show. Conservatives seem absolutely apoplectic about this movie, but I don't understand why. You CAN'T be upset with the things that are said. You MUST be upset with the approach to "news"; the approach is to carefully select issues and facts that may border on truth and then construct them into an argument while leaving out all mention of the other side. If you want to complain about Michael Moore... fine, but complain equally loudly about Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly (O'Reilly doesn't even belong in this group because he came from Hard Copy and he has been busted by many sources for out right lies). Complain about the approach, complain about the system, but DO NOT complain about the tactics just because someone does not agree with you.
/. discussion.... A few months ago I read a lot of political book from both sides of the fence. Many of the authors claimed their opposite was simply lying and then "proved" it. I began to do some checking into what kind of information/technology was available for me to examine the any available facts and derive an opinion independent of the talking heads. Most of the online research services and transcript companies that can provide original documents (facts) cost thousands of dollars per month. My conclusion... It is IMPOSSIBLE for a common individual to be properly informed about issues that they must vote on. This is a very sad conclusion because our system of government is founded on the principal that the voting public is educated about the issues.
To add a note of technology to this
So what can open source do to correct the strangle hold that talking heads have on primary information sources?
Fighting For Our Freedom?
One of the things that keeps coming up since our troops have gone into harm's way is that they are fighting for our freedom. If a war supporter is asked about the protesters, invariably, the response is that our soldiers are fighting so that the protesters have the freedom to protest.
Could this be true? Is it possible that Saddam's six or seven Scud missiles -- which we can't even agree on as to if they were the "permitted" Scuds or the "illegal" Scuds -- could have affected our freedom here in America? To hear it from anyone in the military, every war we have ever fought was for our freedom here in the US.
Well, was Desert Storm to preserve our freedom? If Saddam had continued to occupy Kuwait after we gave him the green light to take it, would anyone here in America have lost any freedom whatsoever? Well, we might have ended up paying higher prices for gas or -- oh the horror -- been forced to employ Americans to work here in America to pump up American oil.
Does anyone remember the economy in Texas when oil was a booming industry here? I do, and it was nice. Having jobs to put food on the table and keep a roof over your head...with enough left over to save up for the future or send your kids off to college, that sounds like freedom; and instead of keeping that here in America, we closed down entire towns and exported the jobs to the OPEC nations...the very nations that openly despise us.
So if Desert Storm wasn't for our freedom, what was it for? When Saddam originally invaded Kuwait, President Bush, Sr., turned to the United Nations, not the U.S. Constitution to which he'd sworn a solemn oath, for authorization for his military moves. He then began to state his goals -- over and over again:
So here it is painfully obvious that just because we went to war, it wasn't to preserve our freedom here in America, but to empower the United Nations. In fact, not only did Desert Storm not have anything to do with our freedom but in all actuality was more so to enslave us than to free us (those employing the term "New World Order" have sought socialism (economic control) and world government (political control) over mankind. This was also the goal of Bush Sr. for our nation and for the world).
So it is possible for our troops to be in harm's way and it not be for our freedom. And if it is not for our freedom in general but specifically for the "right to protest," legislation is being proposed in Oregon that could make protesting an act of terroris
Ron Paul
"There will always violence and suffering in the world, and Michael Moore will always be there to make a buck off of it."
Right along with Halliburton, the Carlyle group and their Saudi investors!
Remember kids, it's not the corporation's fault, it's the whistleblowers who are to blame.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
What is sad about Micaels's Moore movie is that it tries to complement the heavily missing work of the "new's media" in US.
A guy has to make a movie in order for the americans to be informed what the rest of the world already knows... about America!
Another point that doesn't settle right is that somehow if Bush and Co. doesn't get reelected everything will be just fine!
Excuse me but it was Bill Clinton that ordered a similar bombing campaign against Yugoslavia some years ago. The same international laws were broken then as well. Only many more nations had interests at stake then, so the joyfully backed up that endeavor.
The truth can be only one and most of the times it is very painful. I am amazed how people focus on the details (whether Moore makes money or not, if he is biased, if he twists the truth) when it comes to an action out of the norm (making a documentary about a current political situation), when they completely surrender to the corporate bias for example of Fox News or The NY Times.
Never understood that, I guess never will. I watched the movie and kept a close ear to the reaction of the fellow people around me. This is the first time after the Vietnam War that the American public gets an exposure of its true self, the aggrandazing bubble of benevolence was almost shattered when that Iraqi woman was wailing on camera!
Powerful pictures, powerful reactions. It is so sad and unfortunate that only the loss of a dear one (your serving son) can be a potent wake-up call to the reality around you...
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
Two countries? Are you seriously implying that Afghanistan, run by the Taliban (you know - the people currently killing people for registering to vote), had "nothing to do with terrorism"? If this is the case you're making, you're in very little company as few doubt the intense involvement of the Taliban with terrorism.
The real tragedy of the invasion of Iraq is that Bush took a legitimate, powerful precendent against terrorism (that any nation that aided terrorists would pay the price) and completely diluted it by sneaking his own personal mission in under the auspices of it. While a lot of eyes are being opened belatedly now, but there were a lot of cynical people asking WTF Iraq had to do with 9/11 or Afghanistan long ago, but amazingly the American public came to believe that it was all one and same. This completely destroyed the anti-terrorism campaign in the world's eyes. Now that we've seen that some absolutely insane individuals in the administration think they can get away with an end run around the Geneva convention (as Ronald Reagan's own son calls it dismissively of the Bush administration), global support has absolutely disappeared, and even if another major terrorist attack occurred few around the globe would trust or believe US intelligence (which seems to just say whatever serves their agenda), or would support US operations. Bush entirely holds the blame for this.
Most people here in Europe think that Americans only worry about themselves and are unaware of what happens outside their country. I'm not telling that is true or false, but that is the image people have from them.
There has been a _lot_ of censorship on the American media in this second Iraq war. This has been criticized very much around here, but I don't know if Americans are aware of that, and if they access uncensored information by reading international press or simply blogs.
Unfortunately, anti-americanism is growing up all over the world, not only in muslim countries, and this is very worrying. I think you (and us, of course) should try to see things from the different points of view that people have outside the US.
The list of the "coalition of the willing" mentioned only tiny, irrelvant countries, and skipped over really important ones: England, Spain, Poland, the Netherlands. Yes, we did 90% of the work ourselves, but the film implied that we had absolutely no international support, which is simply not true.
You missed the Netherlands. Remember the guy lighting up the bong? That was his reference to the Netherlands (yes, the name of the Netherlands was displayed, too). The Netherlands have 1,300 troops in Iraq, making them one of the larger contingents.
Moore didn't bother to mention England, Poland, or Spain because the administration has mentioned them dozens of times. His point was that the grand coalition numbers of countries included a number of countries who actually had nothing to contribute but lip service.
My own criticism is that he ridiculed some of the people in these countries with his choice of images. The Amsterdam pot-head was probably the LEAST insulting of the images he chose.
The story of the man who mentioned to guys in a gym that he considered Bush a terrorist and found himself speaking to the FBI the following day rang false. Many, many people accuse Bush of being as bad as terrorists. If a call is placed to the FBI telling them that, they ignore it. Did the man's gym companions accuse him of something worse? It seems clear that there is more to the story here. Moore implies that the FBI is cracking down on people who dislike the President, and I don't think he justified that.
I don't think you quite understood this. The point was not that the FBI was as a whole cracking down on dissent; it was that the USA Patriot act gives the FBI and other law enforcement agencies the ability to crack down on dissent if they so chose. I think the idea was that this particular FBI office was playing Stasi because they could - not that the entire FBI was out to stop dissent.
A man's name was blacked out on one of Bush's army papers. The implication was that this was covering up something evil. But it doesn't appear that the relationship between this man and Bush was a secret, and the paper doesn't imply that they did anything sinister except skip out on their service. I suspect the man's name was blacked out simply because it wasn't relevant: the release concerned Bush's record, not this guy's. The other nasty bits of the relationship between this guy and Bush, like the cozy foreign investments, are irrelevant to this document.
Not at all. Let's keep in mind - the man's name was not blacked out when Moore got the documents in 2000. They were when he got the documents in 2003. Why? The fellow was a foreign investment advisor for the Bin Laden family, who is listed in the documents as having skipped out on a medical exam at the same time Bush did (the two paragraphs, one on Bush's failure to be examined, one on this guy's failure to be examined, were in sequence). The fellow also invested some money HIMSELF in Bush's own oil drilling company. The implication is that the Administration deliberately censored the document after 9/11 because the fellow was someone investing Bin Laden money who invested his own money in Bush, suggesting the possibility that perhaps Bin Laden money was behind Bush's first oil drilling company. This was of a piece with the point that Bandar has a Secret Service protection squad (which is not normal for Ambassadors), and that one of the Bin Ladens was at a meeting of the Carlyle board with GHW Bush on September 10, 2001, and that the arrangement to spirit the Bin Ladens out of the country when all other passenger flights were grounded did not allow the Bin Ladens to be questioned by the FBI regarding possible financial ties with Osama Bin Laden.
There were others, but I'd need to go through the movie again, point by point. It's not that I disagree with Moore's overall thesis; in fact, I do believe it. But these things, which I consider dishonest, make me wonder about some of the other points he was maki
'Immediately' is a matter of time scale.
If GM had closed the plant within a year of this speech, it would have necessarily been because of President Carter's economic policies, as those things take time to implement and take effect. So, on a political time scale, almost as soon as Reagan's economic policies were fully in force, replacing Carter's, Flint experienced massive layoffs.
The Washington D.C. state machine is rather slower than anything you could implement on a PC.
For a person who believed Reagan's promises and bought a house, six years is barely halfway through the mortgage, and you would feel somewhat rushed as you went into bankruptcy, losing your job, sitting in an unsellable house that's half unpaid. In that perspective, it's like sitting on packed bags, as foresight would have demanded staying in rented housing without laying down roots in the community, ready to rip your kids out of school and relocate down south or west in search of work.
Ya know. I'm sick and tired of the "leaving information out" argument against Michael Moore. When is the last time *you* made an argument and you brought mentioned every last possible fact that could harm your argument? When a person makes anargument, it *is not their responsibility to make the counter argument*. It is the responsibility of the opposing party in the argument. Arguments have always been constructed with the set of facts that support your hypothesis - you have aproblem with moore, you are always free to produce facts that undermine his argument - something you can't do with outright liars.
Beyond that, look at the right. Ann Coulier clearly and repeatedly lies outright in her books. In many casses her attributions are ourtight fabrications. Yet no one says a damn thing about her. Look at Rush. The man also lies on a repeated and regular basis. The chorus of silence criticizing him is deafening. The same goes for almost all of the crackpot commentators on the right like Michael Savage and even Bill O'Reilly. These people have a political agenda, and have no concern for the truth whatsoever.
Compare this to Michael Moore who at least has facts to back up his claims. Does he make the counterargument against himself? No. Is that his job? No.
I'm just sick of the hipocracy in this country that hold the left to a *much much* higher standard then the right. Progressives can't make tiny mistakes without being torn apart by the wolves, yet the right gets free reign to do and say anythign they want and essentially recieve no accountability for their actions.
All you have to look at to see this is a man who has suggested life imprisonment for drug offenders, and I believe at least once executions who turned out to be a drug abuser himself - and *nothing* happened to him. Rush Limbaugh.
SO if you are going to throw your stones at the left, you might want to watch out for your conservative glass house first.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
One of my worst nightmares is that I wake up one day to find that Michael Moore has become the Limbaugh of the left. I don't think he's quite sunk to that level, yet. Personally, I think if our media was more respectable, Michael Moore would never have managed the success he has experienced.
The problem is that the current media seems to appeal to the lowest common demoninator. Either it allows itself to be bullied into printing the type of illogical causality that you mention or it allows it's pursuit of advertising revenue to interfere with it's responsibility to the public. Of course there are also a large number of those in both politics and the media who promote this dishonest causality.
I think that the severe decline of primary education and accessibility to secondary education is contributing to public's willingness to accept such low academic standards for subjects that are so important. If you'll remember, before the advent of Limbaugh, there was a general malaise in the news markets. The rise of talk radio, with it's drudge-like standards for intellectual honesty, managed to appeal to an uninformed populace who easily confuses their culture and religion with the government of the US. In a search for revenue, the increasingly corporate owned media has allowed this yellow-journalism to creep into it's mainstream.
The free market is not friendly to the marketplace of idea's. The free market encourages actors to raise the barriers to entry for competition, which if unchecked, stagnates innovation. The marketplace of idea's is what drives innovation and progress. The goal is to find a balance, which requires an informed and rational populace.
I believe that Moore has been able to rise to fame, by having true talent to communicate, much like Limbaugh. He's a pretty humorous guy, but he sacrifices intellectual honesty in order to cover a lot of ground, to make a point about a larger picture. I also believe that this method emphasizes points that are easily defeated in debate and involve too much speculation. In 9/11, Moore spent way too much time questioning the President's behavior on 9/11 and the links between the Bush and Saud families. 9/11 was a unique situation, it is difficult to effectively question the actions of anyone in that situation, because too many people will be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. The links between the Bush family and the House of Saud goes to motive, which is irrelevent to realpolitik. Motive is only a factor in a criminal court, it helps you to understand a person's goals, but the measure of politics is the outcome. Moore's general point, that the Bush administration is a disaster and the US should keep these people from power as much as possible, could be argued based on the facts. From any measure, this administration appears to be incompetent. They have managed to repeat every mistake of the past 40 years.
The unfortunate thing, is that if Moore had simply presented the case this way, he probably would have lost the majority of the audience. He might have made it to PBS or Sundance's docDay, but that's about it. I can't say that I'm opposed to the extremes on the right and left getting more people interested in politics. It's much easier to rationally argue political points, to someone who has them based on unfounded assumptions, than it is to interest the apathetic.
In my mind, Moore isn't as bad as Limbaugh or O'Reilly, and he has been able to logically defend his criticisms much more effectively. Let's put it this way, the populist right wing media is like Area 51 alien/black UN helicopter documentary films, the left wing populist media (Air America Radio, Moore) is more like Carl Sagan. Sagan was never accepted by academics because he was such a populist and would speculate too much on information that hadn't been truly vetted. For myself, I got interested in science at a very early age due to Sagan on Cosmos. That interest has made it so I can at least discern the difference between actual science and things that pa
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
While there's a plurality of Americans on the jury, the fact that they're on the jury of the French film festival gives pretty good odds they're Francophiles, and are far from the Americans who are off eating "freedom toast" for breakfast and switching to Californian wine.
Right... they're at Cannes because they're Francophiles and not because it's the most prominent film festival in the world.
-a
how evil my country's leaders are
They are.
how worthy of the world's hate my country is
It's not.
how stupid we are as Americans
Some are, although I'd say some are ignorant of the damage being inflicted to the US by Bush.
You are confusing the fact that the US is a country founded on the Constitution guaranteeing freedom and justice for all with select people. The US population is certainly as diverse as anything in the world. That also means there are many opinions out there, ranging from extreme left to extreme right. That makes your country as a whole unworthy of hate. In fact, there is much to be admired of the US. However, your leader is certainly a lying hateful corrupt person and a puppet to the neo-cons. Take it personally if you want, but I don't see the fluke of an election is the result of the "stupidity" of the Americans and worthy of being offended by it. What would be stupid is to re-elect the guy who supports the destruction of the environment (for $$), puts the country in deeper debt than any presidents in the US history (for $$), jeopardizes the education for children (for $$), supports the export of jobs outside the US for ($$) etc. etc.. Hey, that is your country... if you hate it so much, by all means, re-elect Bush.
Can we discuss one fact from the movie for a second?
Is it true that for 7 minutes after Bush was told that the second plane hit the WTC, he continued to read to elementary schoolkids?
This came one month after he had received a briefing entitled "Bin Ladin determined to attack in US" which described how Al Qaeda operatives were in the US planning to hijack planes, and 8 years after an earlier attack on the WTC.
It would seem that the President, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military, would not want to waste 7 minutes before taking steps to organize defenses (such as issuing orders to defend against other airliner attacks, which were the sole responsibility of the president under rules in place at the time).
Has GW ever gone on the record explaining what he was doing for those 7 minutes? Did the 9/11 commission ask him about it?
I had never heard about that fact before this film. My first impression was that it made GW look like a clueless moron who had no idea what to do. It's as if he can't think on his feet, he needs someone to tell him what to do.
It used to be that people of differing opinions could agree to disagree. People could talk about the issues of day with civility and with respect for those with whom they were arguing. Now, the rules seemed to have changed. No longer is there room for intelligent and informed discussion, but only left-wing venom and right-wing drivel. The political landscape of the US is now extemely polarized and the sides keep getting more and more polarized as they fend off the parries of the other.
It seems that this polarization has been steadily increasing since Reagan left office. And now it has reached a point where the country is nearly evenly divided between conservative and liberal. The liberals who I know have become very much more liberal and the conseravtives much more conservative and each side believes that the other is idiotoic, distorts the facts, lies, and spews venom and vile for political gain. With these views being held by both sides, it's now impossible to even simply debate the issues. It's sad that we have reached such a point where "we" are right and "they" are wrong. I fear where our politcs are heading when there is unwillingness to listen to and a hatred of those with different views.
Michael Moore ungraciously steals from other artists
What?!
Look bunky, the title is homage (since in Moore's view the political atmosphere in the United States is approaching that depicted in the book). No matter what Mr. Bradbury says, you can't copyright titles. (I can't believe that man is upset, by the way -- someone must have got to him.) If you could, the available namespace for new creative works would be impossibly cluttered by now. To call naming your movie similarly to another work in order to make a point about similarity ungraciously stealing from another artist is unconscionable.
But I wouldn't be angry at you, except you made that damnable "limousine liberal" crack. If you think it's possible to get rich off of producing documentaries than you are a schmuck, pardon my Yiddish.
Moore's comes from a working class background, a fact that's obvious to anyone whose seen Roger & Me and don't give me that crap about it being full of lies. His father and grandfather worked for General Motors. He had to sell his home to get Roger & Me made. Take a look for yourself. It's impossible he got into this business expecting to make boatloads of cash; that he's succeeded at it means he should be lauded, not condemned for the crime of success. If you're a documentary filmmaker who somehow makes money you must have a spark of genius in you, just like Rush Limbaugh must have for proving talk radio to be profitable. (Whether I agree with him is something else -- but Rush did made it work.)
Conservatives should be lauding his success, but instead they try to prevent people from seeing his movie, all because Moore doesn't agree with them.
And that my friend is exactly why the US won't stay a super power for long.
It happened to the Greeks, the Romans, to some extend the French, the Spaniards, (heck the Germans too).
I actually read an article a long time ago in "Scientific America" (I think), putting forth the theory that every super power will eventually vanish, due to complacency and self rightousness and exploitation by a few rich people.
Just look around you, you can already see it. Kids are already overweight at age of six, sitting in front of the TV all day. People watch their "games", cheering their heroic soldiers while drinking beer. Education is declining. People watch nothing but so called "reality" shows. Typically both spouses have to work now in order to keep a lifestyle that could be supported by only one income just a decade ago. Politics are reduced cheap TV shows (infotainment). All political discussion has been reduced to "Democratic or Republican". Etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.
(All this is of course not limited to the US, but seen in many western countries)
The US maybe be currently the strongest military power on this planet financed by a $480.000.000.000/Year military budget, at the expense of US citizens (and that is excluding current Afghanistan and Iraq war costs).
Ironically that does not even seem to be enough to control a little arabic country that has been bled out by over 10 years of economic sanctions.
And as violence tends to create more violence, it is not even used to keep the american people safe.
It's all so rediculous, if it wasn't so serious it would be actually funny.
How long are the american people willing to pay for that (at the expense of education, health care, social security, high long term interest rates, etc, etc)? Right now there's some kind of almost blind patriotism that keeps people on the line, but it can't hide the truth forever.
Just look at this number again: $480.000.000.000/Year plus currently $200.000.000.000 for Iraq. Does anybody realize how much money that is? Doesn't anybody else think this money could be better spent then using it to essentially piss of the rest of the population of this planet, and especially Muslims?
In terms of economic output the US is already second in line behind the EU. And BTW George W. was great for the EU, leading to a common mindset to accept less somewhat national independence in order to be able to jointly withstand US interests (at least this is how it is perceived by many).