Slashdot Mirror
Moore Approves Fahrenheit 9/11 Downloads
13.7BillionYears writes "The Sunday Herald reports that Michael Moore has expressed his approval of Fahrenheit 9/11 being downloaded through networks like BitTorrent and eDonkey2000. He also champions a very Lessig-esque outlook in his reasoning. Quentin Tarantino's earlier support for such practices is also mentioned. Meanwhile, Lion's Gate says it has no plans to oppose the practice."
I saw this documentary yesterday and I was both shocked and impressed. I even cried a lot.
It's the only way to do that in the US. A documentary must be very shocking for people to care about. This doesn't work like that in Europ.
This decision from Michael Moore is not surprising as he has always said that his goal is to touch as many people as possible. I think he simply doesn't care about the money.
Besides that, I think the documentary raises some points while I think Michael Moore goes too far in some others. But this movie definitely deserves its Golden Palm.
Please, go there, watch it. Give it a chance.
Oh and I'm French and I'm living in the US so I'm ready to be modded down and insulted.
Iraq: war to save the U
The whole point of the movie is get a message out, why wouldn't he want it to reach the greatest possible audience?
personally, i would like to see more artists doing this with their works, kind of beats the companies to the punch.
Cogito Eggo Sum, I think therefore I'm a waffle
The activist, author and director told the Sunday Herald that, as long as pirated copies of his film were not being sold, he had no problem with it being downloaded.
"I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labour. I would oppose that," he said.
"I do well enough already and I made this film because I want the world, to change. The more people who see it the better, so I'm happy this is happening."
Very few people download movies to make a profit off of them. We download the movies because it is convienient to do so (ala iTunes). We also download the movies because the theatres charge entirely too much money (anywhere from $8 to $11 from what I have seen) to watch it.
Let's stop making movies with tons of computer generated special effects, bad acting, and boring plots and then blaming the pirates when it doesn't do well.
Let's make a movie that is powerful, moving, and gets people into the theatres that didn't cost $200 million to make.
I belive any respectable director want their movie to be watched many people as possible. In the Farenheit case this goes even further, due the political idea behind the movie.
The problem lies in the millionaries companies that produce the movies. Distributing it for free through the network isn't really interesting (profitable) for them. How long it will take to Warner to distribute a expensive movie in this way ? A long time IMHO.
Valenti said: "Nobody can allow their rights to be stolen because, if you can't retrieve your investment, you're out of the movie business..." Last time I checked, one of the "rights" of the copyright holder is the right to give those rights to others....
Fury as Fahrenheit 9/11 director backs illegal not-for-profit downloads
So hes giving people permission to download _his_ film and this is illegal how? I havnt seen it yet its either out already or comming soon to the UK but im definately gonna grab a copy, being a student and spending my entire 1st year supporting the MPAA i have to watch the budget so im probably not going to see it in the cinema unless i really really like it, but i bought his book so there! People have argued some of his facts and im sure those gun-death figures were wrong but he still gets a +point for this.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Michael Moore doesn't own the rights to the movie, Harvey and Bob Weinstein do. Even if Michael Moore doesn't care if his movie is pirated, I'm pretty sure the distributors do. At best, this can put your conscience at rest but it definitely doesn't mean you can start hosting the illegal copy in your website and expect not to get a cease and desist.
Yeah, I know, torrents are different, and slashdot isn't responsible for what we post. You, however, seem to be thinking that it's now legal to download F911 when saying, "I am quite pleased by Moore's decision to broaden his audience by allowing free downloads of the film." He's not really allowing them, he's just saying he doesn't morally disagree with the practice.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Second, this is a movie people want to see in a theater, and a movie people probably want to have a decent copy of to show friends. Although this is a movie one might see to be in with a peer group, that is not the only reason.
And so I think, politics aside, this is the way movies should be made. The buzz should be consistant with the movie, and should create a community of viewers that will propel the product. It would also be nice if studios would make the theater more of a partnet, so that the theaters once more cared about the viewing experience, instead of how much popcorn they can sell, or how many viewing they can fit in a day.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Then why doesn't he release a decent copy of his movie on the internet to begin with. This copy that everyone is getting the torrent for is not only a really crappy cam version, from what I've read elsewhere it is not even a complete copy of the film. Its missing the whole bit about the Patriot Act from what I hear. At least put out decent stuff if you want people to view it.
F911 is 100% documentary. If you deny that, you don't know what a documentary is, and you probably haven't seen many. "Hoop Dreams", "Fog of War", and "Mr. Death" are all documentaries with a point of view, albeit a benign and non-controvbersial one.
If he were crying about his copyright being infringed, he would have been labelled as a rank hypocrite.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
From your sig web site:
"These heretics do not believe in the lethal AIDS virus called HIV. They claim that the virus is indeed harmless. Most of them think AIDS is also not sexually transmitted; it probably has toxic causes. People die because they are poisoned to death by toxic antiviral drugs."
Yes, genius, tens of millions of Africans are being poisoned by the antiviral drugs they're not taking.
If Moore's film were actually full of shit, like you say, then people would just ignore it like hundreds of other documentaries. Since it has millions of Republican's panties in a bunch, it must be doing something right. People only get this defensive when they know deep down inside that they're wrong.
-B
Does Moore own the film? Why didn't he put it in the public domain if he doesn't like copyright?
No, but it gives you a nice affirmative defense against any copyright "crime" that requires the prosecution to prove intent.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Here's one of your "Deceits":
Deceit 8:
Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read a story to a classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the September 11 attacks.
What Moore did not tell you:
Gwendolyn Tose'-Rigell, the principal of Emma E. Booker Elementary School, praised Bush's action: "I don't think anyone could have handled it better." "What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"...
She said the video doesn't convey all that was going on in the classroom, but Bush's presence had a calming effect and "helped us get through a very difficult day."
"Sarasota principal defends Bush from 'Fahrenheit 9/11' portrayal," Associated Press, June 24, 2004.
Yeah. That's a "deceit". The real deceit here is the idea that the only two choices available are to sit there retardedly reading My Pet Goat, making an entire elementary school of kids targets, or to jump up and scream "Holy bejeezers kids! We're ALL GONNA DIEE!!!!"
He could've calmly told the kids that he had to go do some of the things that Presidents do, thanked them, and left.
Bush shouldn't even have gone into that school that day. He was told the first plane hit the WTC *before* he went in. The WTC had already been hit by terrorist attack in 1996, and he'd already been briefed that al Qaeda were planning on hijacking airplanes. This is 1 + 1 kind of thinking, especially if you're the man charged with protecting the United States.
The sheer bizarreness of a loaded jetliner crashing into the WTC ought to have been enough to get him to delay his photo op and wait for more information. He didn't.
Face it, he was asleep at the wheel that day. If you supposedly value honesty so much, at least be honest with yourself.
That said, you should also keep in mind that films do not need to be documentaries to show you the truth, or at least a given version of truth. That is what art is all about.
Maybe if the Bush Administration wasn't so secretive, people would be less inclined to believe the worst of them.
FreeSpeech.org
This flick is supposed to make people think. About something they haven't been exposed to. All you have done is spent the last week coming up with HA HA donut references.
Do I need a movie to tell me that Bush is a prick, and shouldn't be running the country, much less a goddamn lemonade stand? NO.
Bush and his pals have done more to ruin this country than any terrorists. You can read about many of the results here on /. everyday. Sadly, there's plenty of people who have their head in their ass and actually think that George Bush CARES ABOUT THEM.
I feel for you that this movie didn't appeal to your heightened sense of art, like Highlander 12: Back in the Habit did.
You are a fine example of the brainwashed - rejecting out of hand anything that can't be reconciled with your little mass-media worldviews. Congrats.
1355 Americans gave it a "1". 93 gave it a "2". I'm not sure what to think of those numbers. Of course, any accusation of "voting by principle" can also be applied to the other end of the scale.
I have to say that the IMDB poll on this movie is likely useless infomation because there will be some Democrats giving the movie a "10" and some Republicans giving the movie a "1" despite neither group having ever actually seen the film.
Since it's impossible to sort out those biases from people who really saw the movie, it's impossible to correct the number.
People hear the word "documentary" and they can only think of National Geographic and the Discovery Channel. Every big newspaper has a page of opinion columns. The goal of that page is to present well thought out arguments from different viewpoints. Think of Farenheit 9/11 as an opinion column using film instead of text. It's still a documentary.
-B
Since I know the claims he made in the movie, and these claims can be fact-checked independently of seeing the movie, why is this not "thinking for myself"?
Because you *can't* know all the claims he made in the movie unless you've seen the movie, or at least read the script. If you're going by what other people are saying about it, then you're getting a second-hand version - they're not going to present all the points, only the ones they picked up on, and they're not going to present them how Moore presented them, they're going to present their own take on them.
For example, reading a critique of the movie isn't good enough, even if you go away and check all the points the critic made and make sure that he's right and the things he claims the movie got wrong are wrong - because you only have his word for it that that's what the movie said, and he'll probably have left out things the movie got right.
And reading a positive review isn't good enough, even if you go away and check all the points the reviewer made, and make sure that all the things he claims the movie got right are right - because you only have his word for it that that's what the movie said, and he'll probably have left out things the movie got wrong.
And even if you read both, you still can't be sure that you have the full story.
Primary sources, Loundry, primary sources. You can't fact-check other people's reports of something - you have to go back to the primary source if you want to know whether what it's saying is true or not.
Saying it's not a documentary does not make its content false. Not if you say it a thousand times or more.
Most of these claimed 'deceits' by Dave Kopel are really bogus. Many of them aren't deceits at all. The footage for example with Al Goore cheering that 'he won the presidency'. Yes, Michael Moore show the footage playing along with a scenario of 'what if Gore won' (I agree kind of constituting of a certain degree of a deceit, but continue to read my explanation). Michael Moore clearly says in the end of the segment it was all a dream and that Gore never won presidency. He expects the viewer to understand that Gore never won presidency, thus that the footage of Gore and his mates cheering could have never been for Gore when he won. He's not deceiving anybody; unless they've been living under a rock for the last four years and just left the theatre before that segment was about to end.
He also says on the Afghan pipeline-issue:
After Afghanistan was liberated from the Taliban, the new Afghanistan government did sign a plan to build an oil pipeline. Indeed, any Afghani government (Taliban or otherwise) would rationally seek the revenue that could be gained from a pipeline. But the new pipeline (which has not yet been built) has nothing to do with Unocal.
In that whole 'deceit' section he does NOT mention the Afghani president Hamid Karzai. Who is Hamid Karzai? Presdeint of Afghanistan! And what past does Hamid Karzai have? He used to work for Unical! Michael Moore says this in his movie, and this is a reversed situation where Kopel is being a hypocrite because he leaves this information out!
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
Have you ever been happy? Don't give examples, HOW DO YOU MEASURE IT?
If you want to see what qualifies as "ruining people's lives" rent the film Roger & Me.
Why am I bothering to debate someone who doesn't believe that AIDS exists? You're a fucking idiot.
-B
Without French naval assistance at the battle of Yorktown, General Cornwallis would have escaped, and the Americans would not have inflicted a crushing blow against the Brittish occupation of the colonies. Indeed, the Brittish themselves would probably have slaughtered American resistance long before without money, arms, and supplies from king Louis VI.
While the U.S. has oftentimes been at odds with French policy, we must remember that the U.S. exists mostly due to the efforts of France.
So as my country celebrates the Star Spangled Banner today, perhaps we should spend a few moments listening to the Marseillaise as well.
I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
Hello! I'm your friendly pseudophilosophy bullshit meter. I rate my parent post at a 9.8 out of a possible 10!
Grandparent was initiating his response with a statement of contrary belief. It's not an argument. Not only is it okay, its the correct way to begin a critique.
Again, this clause is not an argument, nor does it attempt to unjustifiably make fun of you. He is stating, by his argument, that if you do not believe Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a documentary, then you do not understand what it is to be a documentary. It's the same as saying "If you do not think the world revolving around the sun is heliocentricity, then you do not know what heliocentricity means."
Now, if you read the rest of his post, you'd find his argument. His argument is that the movies cited are widely accepted as being documentaries, and since Fahrenheit 9/11 displays more characteristics of a documentary than these movies, a fortiori, it is a documentary.
If you want to attack his argument, that's it. Throwing around incorrect uses of informal fallacies isn't going to help you much.
I think the problem is that documentary means "facts" and "objective" not 'opinion'. The thing may very well be one particular person's interpretation of the facts, but that doesn't make it a documentary. I would think the facts would have to be independently researched, verified, and agreed upon by most people in order to really call it a documentary.
Morphing Software
Well I'm not the Original Poster but I'd say using 3rd world labor for pennies on the hour to make clothes would be a good example of "ruining peoples lives". Many American and European corporations do just that.
I'd say strip mining for coal or logging without replacing trees is a good example of ruining the environment.
If you are looking for someone to define a line as to what is "too far" in either circumstance, you'll be disappointed to find that the world is not a black and white place and that each case must be looked at individually to find out.
You lefties have a strange definition of patriotism.
Patriotism: Love of and devotion to one's country.
Now, where does Moore say he doesn't like his country?
I can only see him objecting to his country's government. Maybe he go as far as to make documentaries about it because he cares so much for his country and that it's properly run?
Moore doesn't want a president that's in a school browsing a book when USA is attacked by Al-Qaida. That's what this is all about.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
How can you "be specific" and not give examples? Apparently you want to make it impossible to answer your question. I'll do it anyway but I can't see a way around breaking your rules.
Outsourcing, it's easy to measure, just count the jobs that have gone overseas that could have easily been done here. Low minimum wage, below the poverty level is unacceptable. Unsafe work conditions, exposure to harmful materials and dangerous equipment should be closely regulated. This means that if you are working with something than can kill you, you should be properly protected and notified of the possible harm.
What qualifies and quantifies "ruining the environment"? Be specific. Don't give examples. I want to know how you measure it.
That's easy. Just look at the blatant disregard for the envrionment that anyone who drives an H2 has. Those trucks should not even be legal to produce. Dumping harmful chemicals into into drinking water or the ocean. This isn't something you have to quantify. It just shouldn't be done for obvious reasons. This is not an emotional response, it is a scientific one.
Time makes more converts than reason
With the 4th of July ahead, I thought it is time to watch Fahrenheit 9/11. At first I was surprised that this documentary won the first price in Cannes this year, but now I have to admit, "i'm lovin' it".
Although I can't agree with some of his conclusions. I like the way he leads us, especially Americans themselves, to remember and think about some very important issues. Going thru numerous points of why the "war-president" is wrong. Moore, at the end, finds a wonderful quote* on what may be the true reason:
"It does not matter if the war is not real. For when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous."
"A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance, this new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or east Asia but to keep the very structure of society in tact" *...George Orwell's 1984
>> Had I been going to bed earlier every night? Have I been sleeping later? Has Tyler been in charge longer and l
I would have to agree... I've never seen as much animosity towards the French among the general Canadian population as I've seen from a lot of Americans.
The animosity towards Quebecois has nothing to do with the French. They're totally different; different culture, different language (well, dialect). The hatred of the Quebecois isn't all that strong. It's mainly joking around, just like we do with the Newfies (People from Newfoundland). And in the great nation to the north, we tend to make fun of everyone from different parts of the country.
We are a nation that can laugh at ourselves and make friendly ribbings.
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kier
And there were problems with Clinton's claims of WoMD in iraq too....
Why does everyone think it was ONLY Bush that thought he had them?
He owns the copyright.
He can give permission to copy and distribute to whomever he damn well pleases, and nobody else that he has given such license to (eg, the distributors you mention) can do a thing about it unless there had already been an exclusivity contract between Michael and these distributors, which considering Mr Moore just gave his approval for downloading the movie isn't likely, since his making this statement on the record like this would set him up for an absolutely _massive_ lawsuit (and Michael Moore is no idiot, which is why I dismiss it as improbable)
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
And it's about getting John Kerry elected. This is a pretty blatant violation of campaign finance laws hiding under the blanket of being a "documentary". I'm sure Moore is getting quite the kickback from Mrs. Heinz-Kerry and her husband to bring this movie out right now. The funny thing is that most people have already forgotten about F-9/11 and are going to see Spider-Man 2 instead. Only the most die-hard liberals and/or America-haters even bother to see this mockumentary.
Unfortunately you won't see this comment since the moderators will kill it in a few minutes, but I kind of expect that with the liberal slant here. The truth needs to get out though.
yeah, questioning your leaders is definitely treason.
In a country in which more than 40% of the voters have been so disenfranchised that they don't even bother to vote anymore, and a significant portion of the rest feel trapped into voting for the "lesser of two evils" in election after election, I would think questioning and challenging such a system that is supposed to be "Of, By and For the People" and is plainly NOT would be considered quite patriotic.
But then, I guess any level of discussion of our government in negative terms is only ok if it involves a democratic president getting a blowjob, right? Certainly we have no room to be negative when we're at war, even if we can't generate one solid reason as to why we are at war and what good we are actually doing in a country that never threatened us directly, while giving up on and letting run free a terrorist that has attacked us several times including the largest foreign attack on our soil ever, who happens to be related to the business partners of our president.
Obviously our priorities are out of whack for questioning that. What ARE we thinking?
Lets do a brief recap here:
6 679/K=diplomatic+relati ons+libya/v=2/SID=w/l=WS1/R=1/H=0/*-http://www.cnn .com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/libya.us.ap
a 22 .shtml
Circa late 90s the Republican party spear heads a big campaign to impeach to Bill Clinton based upon the fact that he scored a BJ from a Intern and lied about it.
Flash forward to now:
The United States goes to war with a country that has been under some form of embargo/watch for over 10 years based upon the premise that they have nukes (which turns out later to be false). People in power who are blatant supporters of the military action (Bush, Powell, Rice...etc) are televised several times prior to the war stating that Iraq has no weapons of significance (WOMD) and suddenly tell us the exact opposite of what we were told before. This can't be disputed.
Now, had this been a Democrat in office of any kind, you can bet your ass the Republican part would be trying to get a impeachment right about now. There would have been a ton of huge investigations where they broke out a microscope and shoved it up whatever Democrats ass they could find to dig up as much dirt as possible.
What is happening in the US today makes ZERO sense. For example, under primarily a Republican led government:
1. We are establishing ties with one of the Worlds most well documented terrorists...Kadaffi.
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=276
2. Under the guise of cracking down on terrorism, we attack a country that obviously has nothing and is just a bunch of poor people who have suffered enough abuse. And in this, we ignore well documented terrorist hot beds such as Egypt. It is a well known fact that many terrorist groups have ties to Egypt. In fact, the Islamic Jihad was founded in Egypt. What about Pakistan? Why was so little done in Afghanistan? This was supposed to be about terrorism right? It's obviously not. But under Republican rule, this sort of deception appears to be acceptable practice. We can send people off to die under false pretenses and nobody is held accountable for this. And we continue to send people over and nobody really is clear for what. If that had been a Democrat, you can bet there would have been a motion to impeach.
And with that being said, nobody is doing anything about this. Nobody is doing anything to stop this madness. Everybody is just in a waiting mode to see when it will end. What people don't realize is the US is now in the last stages of it's available military personnel. It will start doing a draft next.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/draf-
And for what? Why is the US even at war? Nobody knows. And the majority of America doesn't even realize the seriousness of what is happening here. People need to wake up and they need to do so now.
The MPAA really needs some better PR people. I'm on Michael Moore's side, but the MPAA has an easy response to his stand on piracy.
Michael Moore:
"I do well enough already and I made this film because I want the world, to change. The more people who see it the better, so I'm happy this is happening."
The correct response from the MPAA should be something along the lines of:
"While we are happy that Michael Moore's films have brought him financial success, we are disappointed in his apparent lack of empathy for the movie theatre employees who rely on box-office ticket sales for their much more modest incomes."
Again, my views are in line with Michael Moore's regarding fair use, but I'm still capable of recognizing valid arguments against that position.
Thats a good point. Also, you have to keep in mind that a lot of people might not even give this film a chance in the theatre if they have to pay for it. However, Moore can help spread his propaganda (which, truth or not, it is - its a blatantly political movie that supports the "anyone but Bush" movement) to a much wider audience, thereby better accomplishing one of his goals in making this movie. Those goals would be as follows:
1) Make money (the movie is already profitable)
and
2) Make people hate the current administration.
Now, whether you like him or not, you have to admit, this is pretty genius. He's already made plenty of bank on this film, and now, he's going to be able to spread it to people who are either too cheap to go see it in the theatre, or perhaps, politically opposed to himself.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
It is only strange if believe the republicans' redefinition of patriotism to mean 'support for the Bush administration'.
...but Quisling was the leader of the Norwegian "Nasjonal Samling" party, a Norwegian party that agreed with Hitler's ideals. That'd make him right wing. Extreme ring wing.
Actually, don't correct me. I know I'm correct already.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
Bush polarises people. Some people really think that he is great, sorting out the economy and liberating countries. Many think that he is spending too much money giving his friends tax cuts and totally failing to understand that how national credibility depends on doing the right things for the right reasons. Being against Bush doesn't mean you are a democrat. You could be Osama bin Laden, but at the same time you could be Warren Buffett or George Soros.
Your definition is wrong on pretty much every level. It's sad that it is modded up so high. But i guess it is a common misconception, as I've heard this argument a lot lately. It is wrong factually; and it is wrong in relation to the common usage of the term.
As for the facts, here is what Merriam-Webster says:
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing [documentary evidence]
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE [a documentary film of the war]
Do not be distracted by the "broad" synonyms. The definition states clearly "employing documentation in literature or art". This is what Michael Moore did; and did it with a surprising level of self control and artistry, to boot.
Some other dictionaries define things (of course) slightly differently, but there is no substantial difference which negates the above definition.
On a personal note: I went into the movie fairly certain that I'd see nothing new. I already knew all of the "facts" Moore played upon. And this was true to a large extent (though there were a couple of things I'd missed in the news, and a few more which I'd almost forgotten). But despite "knowing" most of the material, I found the "movie" profoundly disturbing and moving in ways I had not felt before. The presentation was incredible.
For example, the absolutely breathtaking intro during the credits... just scene after scene of the elite white house staff being prepared for a press conference, with music over top of it. The slow motion looks. The makeup and hair dressers milling around. The waiting. Was this "deceptive"? We all know that probably all politicians of that level of all parties do the same menial things to prepare: but then these images are not just put in to make the president look ridiculous, but are brought back later and we realise what exact press conference all that was leading up to... breathtaking. It is truly something to think about in regards to how "facts" are presented to us from the Oval Office... not much different than Moore's film. And in this particular case, much more in danger of being realistically convicted of deception and lies especially... and if there were justice: legally.
One of the many subtle and artistic observances of Moore which actually apply to our society and the way government works as a whole, not just the current regime: it's just that the current regime is a particularly gross and hypocritical offender, in the views of many people.
If you had any idea how much footage was staged in these nature documentaries, I think you'd agree that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Does Moore ever argue that the Saudis "run US policy"? No. Is there any amount of influence less than running policy and greater than zero? Yes. So, Hitchens' first actual disagreement (twelve! paragraphs in) is nonsensical - it is indeed possible for the Saudis to have undue influence on the US without controlling it.
It would be idiotic for anyone to say that the Neocons are lapdogs of the Saudis - Saudi Arabia was viewed as one of the countries that would straighten up and fly right after the democratic beacon of Iraq started shining in the Mideast. So, we have yet again a distortion of what Moore says.
(Granted, it's easy to distort what Moore means, because he tends to present facts and comments without forcing a narrative. Know anyone else who did that?)
The second criticism is both stupid and inaccurate. It would be possible to argue: 1) that we should not go into Afghanistan and 2) if we do go, we should send enough troops to do the job right and not make the problem worse. How do I know the argument could be made? Because many people made it about Iraq!
Strangely, that's not what Moore says - what he says about Afghanistan is that it was two months after the invasion that US special forces were sent to the part of Afghanistan where OBL was.
The rest of this article is no better than this. There are problems with Moore's movie (check out the daily howler), but the mainstream media can't seem to focus on them.
I'm absolutely certain that you're correct. However, why isn't Bush being held to the same level of accountability as Michael Moore? I mean, honestly, who should be held more accountable for their lies, an opinionated filmmaker or THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD? When Moore misleads people in his movies, conservatives get their collective panties in a bunch. When Bush misleads people, thousands die. Unacceptable.
It might be reasonable to claim that the French planned a stupid defense in WWII, but it's hard to claim that they weren't brave...as well as cowardly.
A nation is composed of a multitude of people. They aren't all the same. One problem that France had in WWII is that their brave defense in WWI had essentially cost them a generation of young men. When WWII came, they were thus unprepared. They could have done better with what they had, but the Germans surprised everyone at the time with their approach, so it's really unfair to blame the French for being the first to learn the new tactics the hard way.
I may praise Lafayette for his support of the proto-US, but I won't praise Louis...for him it was pure power politics. And it might as easily have favored our opponents (as it did during the "French and Indian war").
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The implication becomes stronger when Moore also presents the history of the gas pipeline prior to the invasion, which includes the Bush family, the officer who's name was blacked out by the White House when it released Bush's military records simply because he was Bush's business partner in oil, and the Saudis, and that the former Unocal adviser is now the president of Afghanistan. In a business sense, it's simply one hand helping the other, something most people can understand. In a humanitarian sense ( a dirty word to conservatives ) it's a disaster. Families have died due to these business dealings. When it happens on your block, you expect the criminals to be prosecuted. When it happens half a world away, its too abstract to accept, and that gives the neo-conservatives power over the rest of us.
An opposite opinion on the implications would sound rather ludricrous as they would claim these were all "coincidences". However, still expect a lot of handwaving, and misdirection.
= 9J =
Your definition of patriotism is actually nationalism, there is a very big difference.
Nationalism is the beleif that your nation is right above all others, patriotism is the love for your country expressed.
Moore expresses the love for his country in a very meaninfull way. He created a documentary which describes what he thinks is wrong with the government in an effort to change that.
You can find very few people, you included, who have gone to the efforts that Micheal Moore has to bring what he beleives is injustice to light.
In fact, that by definition makes Micheal Moore one of the most patriotic people in America.
What you beleive is Nationalism, which is patriotism expressed as "My nation is right."
Unfortunately many people have been fooled into thinking that our President and his political party represent America, so your Nationalism is represented by your support of these groups with your patriotism.
Many people tend to forget that the most patriotic men, the founders of our country, railed heartily against our government for many of the same reasons. The only difference between their actions and the actions of Micheal Moore, is that M.Moore exists in a system where the Govt. can be altered to his point of view if he can convince enough people. The great thing about America is that we do not need revolutions for this kind of thing.
So, saying that Micheal Moore is a patriot, and that he loves America is a patently true statement, by any logical definition. Though you would be right if you argued that Micheal Moore is not a Nationalist, so, if you beleive Nationalism = Patriotism, then you would be correct. But the definitions of each would put error to your belief.
Annendum:
I use the main definition of patriotism which is the expression of love for ones country.
And a common second definition of Nationalism which is the beleif that your country is right above all others. Also to clarify, I also beleive some feel that our President and his party are the "country" and those that disagree with them disagree with the "country"
Buzz_Litebeer, Extreme Moderate.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
The website is:
..... "While I disagree with many of his points and his insulting style, he does raise factual issues."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723
Paragraph #1. Personal reminiscing. No facts to contradict f9/11.
#2. Still no facts.
#3. Still no facts.
#4. Still no facts. Speaks of a previous debate.
#5. Still no facts.
#6. Stating a premise of the movie is NOT stating a fact against that movie.
#7. See #6
#8. See #7
#9. See #8
#10. I'm not sure what he's saying here.
#11. His opinion of what the movie seems to be saying.
#12. Sets up false dichotomies ("Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not.") that do not seem to be stated in the film.
#13. Complains about Moore ("In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11.").
#14. This one is cute. "A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims."
Yet he has not managed to identify the "big lie" yet.
#15. Another cute one. "The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive." But it is factual and caught on tape.
#16. Another cute one. "In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed." But it seems to be actual footage of actual Iraqis before the war.
#17. "Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American." I'm going to need to verify that Moore said that. This may be one actual discrepency.
#18. "Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem."
Well I believe that he was not a problem. He was contained and his country was collapsing around him. He couldn't even travel without body doubles.
#19. "From being accused of overlooking too many warnings--not exactly an original point--the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many."
And that is a factual error how?
#20. "Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"?"
Not even complete speculation. This does not count as a factual counter.
#21. No facts. He doesn't like the way Moore picks on Bush.
#22. No facts. He doesn't like the way Moore plays to racial inequality.
#23. No facts. "Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning." So? Attack the movie. If you can.
#24. "However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point."
He ADMITS that he doesn't have any facts to counter the movie with. Did you even READ this far into it? Fact-checking would be the FIRST thing to do to show how "flat-out phony" the movie was.
#25. Still, no facts to counter the movie.
#26. See #25.
#27. See #26.
#28. See #27.
#29. No facts. Just attacks on Moore.
Yet you claim
Perhaps someone could point them out? I've already gone through each paragraph, by the numbers. It can't be that difficult, can it?
...in approving downloads? Is it to spread his message? Very possibly. But can it be much deeper? I recall reading he will possibly be banned from selling his DVDs and Videos due to some federal laws prohibiting the candidates' names from being advertised in commmercial products, or something of that nature; I suppose similar to network channels not broadcasting Arnold's films half-a-year ago. So, that could very well be his real reason, as I strongly doubt he wants to forego potential profits, despite his political position.
A blog like any other.
You may not like it, and you don't have to agree with him. But why people think they are somehow impugning his credibility with the cry that this is not a documentary is beyond me. It just makes you sound silly.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
l
a ti s_doc.html
I'm not sure where you got this definition (oh, the dictionary. I see), but you left out one of the definitions:
n. pl. documentaries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.
Here is a discussion about what film people consider a documentary, rather than us couch potatoes (hint - it's not as simple as you state):
http://www.realityfilm.com/study/definition.htm
http://www.documentorseminars.com/pages/main_wh
"Why does everyone think it was ONLY Bush that thought he had them?"
Who is saying that?
I'm sure that they also both believed in Santa Claus and The Tooth Fairy at one time in their lives.
But Clinton did not invade. Bush did.
By stating that if you do not believe Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a documentary then opponent does not understand what it is to be a documentary, poster is stating one of the following:
1. opponent is stupid (ad hominem)
2. opponent is uneducated (ad hominem)
3. opponent chose to believe false information (ad hominem)
I see. So if I say I disagree with you, it's an ad hominem attack because it implies you are stupid, uneducated, or believe false information?
You seem to mistakenly believe (and attempt to prove by a baseless assertion, since we're so fond of meta-talk here) that an ad hominem attack is any argument which implicitly insults an opponent, when in fact it is merely an argument which attempts to prove its correctness solely through insulting the opponent. In other words, if I tell you you are wrong about the definition of ad hominem, but back it up with, say, a definition, while I have implied that you are stupid or uneducated, I have not conducted an ad hominem, because that implication was not the main thrust of my argument.
"Widely accepted"? This is ad numeram or perhaps even ad verecundiam, depending on who is doing the "accepting".
Once again, we've somehow managed to retain our knowledge of Latin terms, but not their proper usage. You see, if you were arguing over some factual point such as whether or not Iraq had WMDs, or whether AIDS is a contagious virus, and his argument was, ``well, a lot of people seem to believe it, so it's probably accurate'', then your critique would be correct and justified. But in this instance, you are arguing over the meaning of a word--whether this film can rightfully be called a documentary--and so to make his case, it is perfectly legitimate to present what the majority opinion is on the meaning of that word (assuming we both accept that language is determined by the practitioners and not by the dictionary publishers; feel free to dispute with the parent as desired).
See? Isn't debating fun?
That there is an "interest" (mild word) in oil driving not just the current Iraq adventure but middle-east policy at large is undeniable.
;)) fighting the Soviets, who then went on to form the Taliban government; Russia was one of the major oil trading partners with Iraq while that country was under sanctions ... swing your partner, do-si-do.
However, the idea that France (or, say, Russia) is above "feet wet in some shitty Arab country that means nothing to most people, except of course GW Bush and his oil frenzied cronies" does not match the facts. Russia (in the form of the USSR) certain got its feet wet (and often blown off) in Afghanistan, where the U.S. strangely enough trained or flowed money to a lot of people (the Mujihideen, spelling loose
A few tidbits about France's involvement in the export of Iraqi oil can be found here (globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm)
(And more on French involvement in Iraqi trade.)
The high-level U.S. motives in Iraq I consider partly cynical, though they're mixed with some good ones. Are they *mostly* cynical, and the good ones are only in there as window dressing, or is it a matter of inextricably linked attributes? That's not a rhetorical question.
[Note: I think the U.S. should stay out of this sort of adventure unless truly necessary, but even though it sounds definitive, "truly necessary" is a tough standard to agree on. A lot of people consider WWII to have been obvious (U.S. involvement, that is), but it sure wasn't at the time. The UN had found it necessary to place a series of arms-inspection teams (by most accounts ineffective due to manpower constraints as well as their acceptance of rather bizarre rules) into Iraq, and the uncooperation those teams faced is one thing that goaded the U.S., with greater support than it now enjoys for it, into war; this has always struck me as one of the most bizarre aspects of the whole thing.]
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
F911 - deceitful truth
END EXAMPLE showing Mike Moore being truthful albeit in a deceitful manner
Babylon 5 - deceitful truth ... remember that Dan Randall (the b5 ISN
news reporter) was very truthful... he just strung the facts together in an
unethically truthful way just like Mike Moore
If you are still a wee-bit confused about how Mike Moore editing works then you can check out the Babylon 5 episode "Illusion of Truth" which taught me that "truth" might not always be ethical truth and that "truth" might actually be a deceitful truth
Orwell
Many mention/imply that the USA is headed in the direction of Orwell's "1984" (perhaps F911 is an example of 1984 techniques in action). However, many are not aware of Orwell's other writings. For example, Notes on Nationalism:
I believe Juanita
Moore is against things, rather than for things. That's the main problem I have with him. He's a bomb thrower, not a provider of solutions.
Instead, he should have made a movie about what a wonderful president Kerry will make? Moore has been there when people in positions of power have strayed far from doing what is good for society. Sometimes people in power need to be told to stop doing something, just like a little kid doing something naughty needs to be told, "No, thats bad." Moore prefers to stay outside of politics - I think we can all relate to not wanting to get our hands dirty there. To stay true to one's self seems near impossible when you're a politician. Also, Moore does have his goals - vote bush out. Hell, if Kerry would be as bad as bush, i would expect to hear Moore speaking out against him as well.
If you look into the facts, Moore stays much closer to them than Limbaugh does. Moore states that F9/11 is an op/ed piece, but he'll also defend every fact he states in that movie. Limbaugh on the other hand, is someone who speak out for family values while getting three divorces himself. Someone who claims to tell the truth despite having an elaborate drug addiction.
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President."
- President Theodore Roosevelt
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
- President Theodore Roosevelt
And while we're at it, let's ask President Jefferson too...
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
- President Thomas Jefferson
You should go watch the movie, or at least the part where it showed Bush sitting around looking like a monkey for 7 minutes. He is not actually reading the book with the children, he is glancing at it and looking around nervously for 7 minutes trying to decide what to do.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
His movie broke plenty of records, so I'm sure the box-office employees will be doing fine, they're paid hourly anyway, and unless people stop making movies, they'll have jobs.
Paid hourly? With what? Fairy dust? No. Their pay comes from ticket and concession sales. Over the long run, fewer tickets sold might mean smaller raises. Or it could mean that the theatre doesn't remain profitable and closes down. Don't tell me you've never seen a theatre that has gone out of business.
Besides, when a theatre has 8 movies and only one of them is going gangbusters, it's not like the sales from that movie are not important. For every "Fahrenheit 9/11", there are plenty of movies like "Gigli", "You Got Served", and "Torque."
Not that they didn't already, but now it will be more obvious.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
that if right-wingers and the press applied the same scrutiny they've given Moore's film to the Bush administration, we might not be in the mess we're in today.
I've always noticed a lot more America bashing than French bashing on /.
/. childish and embarrassing (despite being essentially on the same "side" as many of the bashers, e.g., I hate Bush and his cronies [but who doesn't these days...], I'm liberal, environmentalist, etc.).
Seriously, though I think that's more a slashdot thing.
I'm American, and am pretty disgusted at the state of the U.S. these days -- having gone so far as to spend 10 of the last 14 years living outside the U.S. -- but even so, I find a lot of the America bashing on
However reasonable their basic complaint, people do not seem to think very critically about what they say, and despite the huge number of valid criticisms end up spewing bile almost randomly. It's as if people somehow believe that they won't be taken seriously in their complaints unless they're entirely against everything American.
That's something refreshing about Moore: though he sometimes succumbs to the temptation to rant, he avoids just attaching himself to simplistic labels -- he isn't "anti-American", "anti-gun", or whatever, he's just "anti-bad-stuff".
We live, as we dream -- alone....
I know it's common but that doesn't make it right.
VCD/SVCD/??VCD all suck and should be consigned to history along with VHS and audio cassette tapes.
Here is a public service announcement:
Attention warez scene d00dz! Here are the correct encoding setting for movies and TV shows.
XVid at 900-1300Kbps 720x480 (do not scale it down! for god's sake. why?)(actually, the height depends on the specific widescreen format used...it's often 330-340 pixels) Audio should be 5 channel AC3 or vbr stereo mp3.
p.s. Do not under any circumstances trade-off encode quality to fit a file on a CD! If your hdd is too small, buy a freaking DVD burner for christ sake. they're only $100 CDN.
thank you. that is all.
Well, asking that question is a fallacy to questioning, therefore I win.
But in all seriousness, the whole idea of pointing out a fallacy is to show that simply, the conclusion given does not follow from the premises given or implied. It's a small mind who thinks that an argument can be refuted by invoking a fallacy, and I believe the fallacy of an argument from ignorance fits this scenario nicely: an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false.
It provides a false dilemna: the invoker immediately assumes that there are only two possible outcomes: 1) that the target of the invocation has a sound argument, and his conclusion is true, and 2) that the target of the invocation doesn't have a sound argument, and thus, his conclusion is false.
He is neglecting several other outcomes, one of which is that the target of the invocation may in fact have an unsound argument, but nevertheless the conclusion he presents is still true.
There is a word for someone who practices this kind of doubletalk in argumentation: sophist. The sophist and orator care not about what's correct, but winning the argument. He invokes rules of argumentation like they are tools in a belt, rather than actively seeking out the truth. It's quite sad.
I agree with parent. A perfect example of what the starter of this argument was trying to convey can be best exemplified by Plato's argument for garnering respect for the state of Athens:
We owe a great deal of respect and gratitude for our parents because they have provided us with many goods and have protected us when we could not, thus, a fortiori, we owe an even greater deal of respect and gratitude for the state because they have provided us with even more goods and have protected us moreseo than our parents.
The idea is that the argument for showing respect for our parents is implicit: everyone is assumed to know that this is a sound or accepted argument. Where the grand parent is having problems is seeing that this is not the argument being presented. The argument being presented is that the state of Athens is of the same type as parents, and thus, the argument still holds.
To go back to the original argument, the movies cited are of the same kind as Fahrenheit 9/11, and if they are to be considered documentative works, a fortiori so should Fahrenheit 9/11. He makes no explicit argument about the cited movies, and assumes that we can all agree that they are indeed documentative works.
I think the grandparent really needs to go back and read all of the responses, as I don't think he is truly grasping what was originally said.
Many mention/imply that the USA is headed in the direction of Orwell's "1984" (perhaps F911 is an example of 1984 techniques in action). However, many are not aware of Orwell's other writings. For example, Notes on Nationalism:
One last thing ... I triple double dare slashdotters to watch the Iraq torture
video clip
I believe Juanita
You didn't even mention the security aspect of his sitting there for 7 minutes. How was he, or the Secret Service, to know if the people that attacked the WTC wasn't going to come after Bush, too? He was _scheduled_ to be there with those kids, so 19 commandoes could have been waiting outside to kill him.
The point is, it was stupid to sit there for 7 minutes after the second plane hit, ANY way you look at it.
Or, perhaps, who is living in a city or a neighborhood where being seen at this movie is bad.
Or, perhaps, who is living in a city where not a single theater has this movie.
"The English hate the French." Now there's a generalisation if ever I've heard one. As an Englishman, I'm quite offended by this. All of our countries have a chequered history. Sometimes our leaders (be them monarchy or polititions) have made bad decisions, sometimes good ones. I think France is a wonderful place, full of culture and friendly people. If you come and get to know real English people, you might think differently of us. I work with North Americans, most of them from Utah. It is amusing how little some of them know about anything outside of their own country, but they laugh along and are happy to learn. In the meantime, use English get a new perspective of living in the USA. Wouldn't it be great if we could all just get along?
Michael Moore completely supports the P2P downloading of his film ... his distribution company, however, will sue you pants off.
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
I was using it in the euphamistic sense, not in the "stealing a CD is the same as downloading an MP3". I've been in copyright battle so I know the difference. To clarify what I meant to say though, was that the Bible clearly condemns theft and promotes pro-social behavior. Hence, those who would steal a Bible and read it seriously would benefit from the message. Equally, one would think the same thing could happen with "The Passion". Finally, before I get pranced on by fundamentalist atheists, I want to make it clear I am an atheist. I just see that religious books do have some value to them. And now, before I get pranced on by some fundamentalist Christians for not seeing the Bible as the word of God, I want to make it clear that I was a Christian for nearly 20 years before I deconverted. Slashdot is silly because one can't really say anything without someone else taking it the wrong way.
You're speaking to an ex-libertarian. I'm quite familiar with the concepts behind the movement.
Hate to break it to you, business and free markets do not, have not, and will never exist. they are great on paper. In the real world, this thing called money can override nearly everything else that should be a factor in a free market, usually to the detraction of the welfare of the people.
See business is inherently organized, and controls large amounts of money. The only way to counterbalance that power is by organizing. government is the de facto organizing of people for their own well-being, at least in the modern pseudo democratic paradigm we live in. It does go too far sometimes. Libertarians and many other right wing people go far too far the other way as well. They pretend the market is self correcting. It is not. It is far more complex than that.
Much like we don't still live in caves and trust nature to meet our needs on her own, and instead engineer and produce improvements to ensure our own well being, likewise a "wild" market is not suitable for a stable society.