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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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
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'
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?
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.
It is only strange if believe the republicans' redefinition of patriotism to mean 'support for the Bush administration'.
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?
Actually it depends on his contract with Lions Gate. Since online download is a seperate distribution channel (just like the DVD rights are seperate) it might not be covered. As such the origional author MAY be able to offer a gratis license to obtain the film via a unique distribution channel not specifically covered by the agreement signed with the distributor. Most music contracts in the last few years have covered this but I'm not sure if the movie studios have caught on yet.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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
"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
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.
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.