Slashdot Mirror
Michael Moore Seeks TV Airing of Fahrenheit 9/11
telstar writes "According to Michael Moore's website, he plans to forgoe the nomination for Best Documentary in an effort to get his highly controversial movie Farenheit 9/11 on television. Despite having no assurances from the home video distributor, Moore hopes to air the film prior to the November elections ... suggesting the eve of the elections as a potential air date. Considering how many questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda, one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."
It will get people to vote either to oppose Bush or to oppose people who are influenced by the movie. Either way, democracy wins over apathy!
This election hasn't been about issues anyway. It's about Bush during 9/11 or Kerry during Vietnam.
Mostly because the facts are so skewed that this can't be placed in Documentary.
And I am sure his reasons are pure, simply wanting to inform the electorate....Right.
Agree or not, its simply propeganda, and he has made enough money that he just wants the POWER he thinks he would get if Kerry won, so he could take credit and be even "more important" than he already thinks he is.
What do people that have too much money want? Power.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Was that supposed to be "thoughtful contemplation?" Perhaps before the good Commander posted that, he should have paused for a bit of thoughtful contemplation...
Joe G.
Bishop, CA
Don't Die Wondering
Considering how many average Americans vote out of raw emotion anyway, expecting them to intelligently dissect the issues is a little beyond their ability. Most of them can't even program the VCR.
And considering the fact that the winner will get to pick 3 supreme court justices (hence setting the tone for laws in our country for the next 20 years), it's no wonder this has degraded into a schoolyard brawl.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
After all, the Swifties/Bush/Cheney have a 24 x 7 ad running. It's called Fox News.
As opposed to all of the partisan commercials, and of course, the Fair and Balanced(TM)(C)(Patent Pending) "news".
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation.
Since when have the American electorate ever shown thoughtful contemplation? We sell our presidents like soda. The electorate consistently rewards mud slinging (or fails to vote against it) and runs on emotion rather than reason. That's why we get the government we deserve. McCain-Feingold will never change this fact. Until people stop voting for the 2-party duopoly and stop rewarding the lies, this mess will continue.
even if we assume it to be pure propaganda, would you say that a partisan filmmaker saying the president is wrong hurts more or less then the Vice President of the United States saying that if voters make the "wrong" choice in November, the terrorist boogyman is literally going to kill them?
one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation.
Not to mention it may very well be prohibited under the mccain-feingold act, a trashy unconstitutional piece of legislation if there ever was one.
Funny how the supreme court finds it more important to protect simulated child pornography (unimportant) and is okay with silencing political speech (the most important type!).
If someone ever finds the supreme court's balls, please return them to washington. They're desperately needed.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
I find it funny when people say Moore is biased. Yes Moore is biased, just like 99.9% of the media.
The only reason Moore looks strange is because:
1. Is assumes honestly that he is biased
2. People are only used to see things in the media from an angle that is different (almost opposite?) from his (which is, BTW, probably even more biased than his)
3. Is style is different from the usually polished media.
Before everyone starts flaming, everything in the documentary was 'facts'. Now, the way he presented them was his own spin on the 'truth'. You need to take it with a grain of salt.
Nobody wants to talk about the real issues anyway. Both the parties are busy butchering each other on stupid stuff.
Free XBox, PS2
Well this isn't a political ad. It is just critical of bush but doesn't support anyone else, so I don't see what the conflict of interest would be. /voting for Nader
Someone explain to me how the presedent hurts/creates jobs, that is something that has never made any sence to me.
After scrutinizing thoroughly both candidates' proposition, my mind is set.
It was nor quick nor easy, but I'm really confident about my vote now.
GO NIXON!!!
The Michael Moore is a Dirty Liar flamewar...
Love the color scheme BTW...
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
Thorough contemplation? Not meaning to flamebait but in this era of sound bites and "fair and balanced" news, how many voters are even capable of thorough contemplation.
Sure, Michael Moore plays the propaganda machine like a harp, but that doesn't mean his documentary shouldn't be shown on television.
Bush brought this up when he said 'lets ban the 572s' Not a peep out of Kerry. He cries like a baby about the swift boat ads but he has benifited like hell from moveon.org soros and moore.
Is kerry going to cry like a baby when we face critizism from foreign countries?
love is just extroverted narcissism
...one has to wonder whether airing such a controversial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thorough contemplation."
You have to wonder?!? Of COURSE it does! What Michael Moore and his supporters have to decide is, are their reasons for removing George Bush so unquestionably righteous and so critical for the country's survival that they justify any and all means, including short-circuiting the democratic process, to get him out?
Political differences aside, I'd rather take four years with almost anybody as president than accept this kind of overt political manipulation as the new standard of behavior in American society.
Do you honestly thing GWB isn't above "influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation". That's all he's got. He hasn't done one good thing for AMerica. He's only made things worse.....unless you're a multi-millionaire
Unemployment is currently at the same level that Clinton ran on in the 1996 election, 5.4%.
Presidents don't make jobs. In the best case, they can get the hell out of the way of the companies that do make jobs. I hate it that your friends don't have jobs, but perhaps you need to look elsewhere for answers. As for me, I just sold a business because I could not get quality employees. It became too big a hassle. Then again, in my 40 years, I have never been more than two weeks without a job, and never accepted unemployment checks, choosing a lower job until I could work my way back up instead. I guess its just a matter of choice.
Who is President simply does not affect jobs the way so many state, but I guess it does make some feel better if they have someone to blame for what is likely just bad luck.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Its obvious to me at least that he will have to edit out portions of the film in order to be aired on TV. I fully expect it to showed on AMC(american movie channel). I wouldn't be surprised if many stations picked it up. Its sure to draw a large group of viewers. Whether or not any advertisers will buy time slots during it is another question all together.
Lastly I'd like to add that while some call it emotive and propaganda and claim it would be detrimental to our political process I'm going to have to dissagree. While the film is over the top and largely misleading it is still the only thing out there that questions effectively our presidents leadership. Which NEEDS to be called into question in order for democracy to work. War time or not, leaders need to be questioned. Even if there is no basis or ground for questioning them. They need to explain themselves adequately and constantly otherwise we have no accountability.
How about his sources?
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
there's some irony in linking to one man's website to rebut the statements on another man's website.
MORTAR COMBAT!
Using anothers fault and deception as a defense against your own is not the way to win a debate.
He lied about X
ohh yeah, well you lied about Y.
It does not change the facts X
BTW I despise both Bush and Moore. Both are propganda machines they prey on peoples willingness to believe distortions of the truth.
Moore's critics are more concerned with exposing tiny little continuity issues in his film than they are getting to the truth. Almost every single one of the supposed "faults" they can find in the movie are trivial at best, and even more a perversion of reality than anything in F911.
I'm not saying I don't think the movie was biased. Of course it was, but trying to pick tiny aspects of unimportant sections apart is a distraction and doesn't diminish the significance of Moore's main theme which NOBODY can refute:
* There were some substantive conflicts-of-interest regarding the powers that presided over the 2000 election
* The Bush family has a suspicious relationship with the Saudis and has exhibited favoritism that was not in the best interests of America, and is possibly illegal
* Almost all of the politicians involved in spearheading the "war" don't have children serving and have inconsequential/nonexistent military service records
* While Bush's policies predominantly favor the rich, it is the poor who end up paying, specifically when it comes to military service
I could have done without Moore's commentary over Bush's classroom visit when the WTC was attacked, but nonetheless, that "seven minute segment" is something everyone in the country NEEDS to see.
All of this notwithstanding, there's probably not a snowball's chance in hell this movie would make it to network television prior to the election.
F911 is an extremely powerful film. Which is why the right wingers seek to discredit Moore at any cost. If it didn't have a lot of substance and truth in it, they wouldn't be so afraid of people seeing it.
questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda
1
People are still questioning it?
Moore hopes to air the film prior to the November elections
There's your answer right there.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie, but there was a clear opinion expressed. F911 is material disseminated by an opponent to a poltical agenda, thus "propaganda" by definition.
It is entirely possible for something to be both truthful and propaganda. In fact, I'd venture to guess that most politically-biased material is truthfull. At least, efficient propganda is.
The only thing I took issue with was claims about the family ties between Bush and bin Laden. They are actually very weak ties and arguments. Specifically the one with the Carlyle Group. For more information on this, I would suggest checking out the following K5 Diary entry: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/8/2/121046/020
Deceiving perhaps. Deceiving in the way that any propoganda piece is. But subversive? In what way? Part of freedom of speech includes the freedome to present political propoganda. The film is no more nor less subversive than the adds being aired by both the Bush and Kerry campaigns. Subversive is a dangerous word to use.
So, what you're saying is that the media hasn't given enough support to this war effort? I find it very confusing to hear that the nation's media has been too liberal when the bottom line is that we are, and have been, supporting the president by virtue of the fact that we're still in Iraq.
I see the media presenting faux pas by both Kerry and Bush, though there seem to be more opportunities to needle Bush. Why's that? Is the media really leaving out Kerry's flubbs? Or is Bush really less articulate, less informed, and less balanced?
The only this that I can give Bush credit for is his leadership quality. I don't agree with his choices at all, but if he did make decisions that I agreed with, I'd be very confident that he would be able to make things happen.
Too bad he's a sexist, homophobic warmonger.
If the elections had been about rational choices in the first place, the person who wrote the description of this posting would have a reasonable point. However, the main flash points of presidential elections (or at least the issues that seemed to have most affected voter opinions and outcomes) have little to do with rational selection of presidential candidates. Furloughs and Willie Horton and VP Quayle's National Guard service to Clinton's affairs to Kerry's "falsification" of his records (and perhaps job loss for GWB - depending on how much one believes he and his appointees have influenced it and in what way), elections have been focused successfully on emotional issues and displacing other (perhaps) more substantive issues.
Given this history, it makes sense for MM to try to do what he is doing, since it has been employed by others in slightly different ways to good effect. Let his opponents argue against it (and perhaps others counterargue it); maybe they don't want to, but give them a chance to. Showing F911 might help people to vote for GWB or Kerry for the right reasons - they can at least see what Moore claims, and what others say is untrue, and people can decide.
Then again, it may be moot, because I don't see him getting the time.
I don't feel that having F911 air is any more inappropriate then allowing all of the talk radio people continually talk about what a great man Bush is. It's all a matter of free speech, which should be protected. That being said, I have serious doubts that the film will ever be shown on a major network. The "Liberal Media" tag has been thrown around for far too long by people who are so far to the right they no longer understand where the center may be. The truth is that most of the media is controlled by large corporations who stand to gain nothing by allowing someone in office who might restrict them from growing their monopolies. For the last 4 years, the media has given Bush a free ride. No serious investigations have been done into his past, despite allegations of conduct much worse then anything Clinton was ever accused of. Bush has been allowed to change his position over and over again and still point the finger at Kerry for being indecisive. The total time spent airing the RNC vs. the DNC should show whose side the media really is on.
DeviantArt Page
NSFWAnyway, this film will open some eyes, hopefully those of republicans who vote that way because of their parents, not because they've actually sat down and thought about it. If you love America, whatever your political affiliation, you should see that film. It's in some small way an antidote to at least some of the crap that's filling the airwaves these days.
Flash back to World War II, for example. Consider the famous German propaganda broadcasters - they were on government-owned radio stations, broadcasting to the German people that England was about to surrender, and Hitler was marching through London. The average person had no way of knowing whether or not that was true. They couldn't go online to someone's blog showing the Allies storming the beaches at Normandy. They couldn't flip to FOX News showing German troops freezing in Russia. And they couldn't turn on AMC showing Steve McQueen jumping his motorcycle across the border. It was either accept what the government said, or die.
Nowadays, however, you can find hundreds of sites devoted to debunking Michael Moore. You can go look up the Congressional Record and see if all those people in F9/11 really did object to certifying the election results and if it was really true that no member of the Senate would sign their objections (it was). You can search newspapers and see old video clips and see if Moore really did edit Charlton Heston's speech in Bowling for Columbine (he did). You can see if the family Moore interviewed really did lose a son in Iraq (they did).
The days of newsreels in the movie theater are long gone. If you go to any movie and take what is says as fact (Be it Fahrenheit 9/11, I Robot, the Passion of the Christ, or the Pokemon movie), you're an idiot. Moore has said many times that he wants his movies to raise questions, not indoctrinate people. That's why I go to see them - to have my values and viewpoints challenged. But you can't suddenly base your entire life on them, any more than you should change your values based on someone coming up to you on the street and saying that your political party sucks.
I'm not a huge fan of Moore outside his movies - I think a lot of his speeches are grandstanding, and I thought he was kind of a jerk at the Oscars, but that doesn't mean he can't make movies that make you think. I mean, David Lynch makes good movies, but man I wouldn't want to spend 5 minutes along with him.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
And now for the slow paintfull demise of Slashdot.
Let's get irrelavant and uniformed people to bitch about politics on a site that should be about technology and geekhood.
Yup, so let's see... there's a bunch of Germans and Swedish people bitching about a President they can not elect nor vote against.
This is just going to be useless bickering...
"The movie is full of lies!" vs. "The movie is SO true!"
Does the movie have lies... YES. Does it also have some truth.. YES. Until you yourself can admit this, you're not going to get anywhere or ever be better informed.
------------------
Oh, but that won't be it.... We'll have moderators split with their party ideals and mod up what they like and mod down what they don't. So intelligent posts will get modded down just because. And it won't matter what political party the poster belongs to, it will just happen.
------------------
In the end this whole "politics" section is silly... Let it die like the "radio" http://radio.slashdot.org/ section.
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
You are under the naive delusion (common of geeks and kids) that there is a crisp and objective "correct answer" to everything, and that knowing the correct answer will solve anything.
[
I guess if you call altering newspaper editorials and letters to the editor "facts". If I interview 20 people and 6 of them agree with me and I only use those 6 to support my point of view even though 14 disagreed then did I represent "fact"? The way I see it there are lies, damned lies, and Moore "documentaries".
Now, the way he presented them was his own spin on the 'truth'.
There's spin and there's deception.
If I say "John Smith has not beat his wife in the past eight months" it implies that at some point in the past he abused her. The statement may be true, but very deceptive. Moore used the same tactics in Fahrenheir 9/11.
For example, Moore claims that Rep. Porter Goss doesn't have an 800 number that people can use to report problems with the USA PATRIOT act. An ordinary phone number (area code 202) flashes on the screen. However, Rep. Goss does have a toll-free number for USA PATRIOT act. It's (877) 858-9040. Moore was technically correct when he stated there wasn't an 800 number, but this tactic couldn't be considered anything but deception.
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
This wanker has been brought up so many times, and refuted just as many. Dave Kopel has very little difference to Michael Moore in that the majority of their content is editorial spin. Micheal Moore's movie has a lot of irrefutable facts. He spins them to suit his agenda. He leaves out stuff that makes it difficult to suit his agenda. Dave Kopel does the exact same thing in the other direction.
By your own reasoning, The West Wing should be regarded as a political statement because it is fictional yet depicts political opinion. Should The West Wing not air for weeks before an election?
And Ann Coulter's book where she accuses everyone who was ever a democrat of Treason?
Or any other similar book?
How about the Swift Boat veterans, at least one of whom recived his bronze star for the same combat action that never happened that Kerry was awarded for. Or the one who stood next to Kerry eight years ago and praised his valor under fire during that same combat action that never happened?
How about those republicans who claim that the Clintons "may have" had up to seventy people murdered?
How about the 70 million dollar investigation of a sub-million dollar land deal where everyone lost money, and blow jobs? Compared to the indescretions of the company Cheney headed with many millions in mistated earnings, the subsequent defrauding of the government in no-bid contracts, and energy industry meetings the American people aren't allowed to know the substance of for no reason beyond "I would prefer not to."
Is Moore a paragon of unassailable objective truth? Hell no. But he's a lot better than those of opposing idiology. He's simply misleading. On the other side of the aisle, they're out and out making shit up with no basis in fact. That's the fucking crime in all this. And the republicans brought it on themselves. Just wait, since it looks like Bush is going to win. Why on Earth would the Democrats NOT adopt the exact same tactics as the republicans next time around?
Sure... Who still believes that people's emotions are not being used to manipulate them?
Making people think that Saddam was associated with 9/11 was one very emotional way to win hearts for a caseless war. The Jessica Lynch story is another forged one made specifically to play with emotions. There are hundreds of other examples...
Also, gloryfiying the army while refusing to show dead soldiers is another way to play with emotions, or actually prevent them.
Let it be clear: as much as any others, Americans are being manipulated by their politician AND mainstream media. You'd better prepare for it to get worse in the next two months..
Or maybe more people than you realize that Bush is a bad president. Maybe it has nothing to do with "bias" and everything to do with "intelligence" and "critical thought." Just maybe, just maybe, many people have very good, substantial reasons for disliking Bush, and labelling it "bias" is just a cheap way for some to avoid having to face that reality.
People generally hate obviously unfair propaganda. Michael Moore has done more damage to the left than anything the GOP could have done.
What I always find interesting about the left is how they sabatage themselves. Look at all the ridiculous things they say about Bush... comparing him to Hitler, saying that he's out to kill as many people as possible, that he wants to poison everyone, on and on. I remember exactly the same thing happening with Reagan. The things they were saying about him were insane. (Literally, saying things like, "He WANTS a nuclear war!!").
The left seems to do this far more than the right. The naive left starts believing all this weird crap and alienates the middle. Of course, the GOP has the religious right spouting weird nonsense, but not nearly to the degree that the left does.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
"...one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."
What's the difference between last-minute emotions and the entire campaign season based on emotion? Bush's team's brazen attacks on Kerry's service in Viet Nam countered with photo ops of Kerry kite surfing don't really offer that much to contemplate.
And why is that? Because there really is not a big difference between the two. They both represent the powerful elite, and are dependent on them for the money.
American politics so out of touch with the needs of the general populace. You know, like Greenspan suggesting to cut social services for baby boomers, but not a word about Bush's record breaking deficit. Where did all that money go????
The real problem is privately financed campaigns. Our elected "reprsentatives" are more loyal to the big bucks than the real needs of their constituents. Elections are won by strategic smearing and slurring, rather than clearly laid out policies and positions. It's the way the system works.
It's sad and kind of funny too how emotionally connected people are to their political "team." Ever watch a "liberal" and a "conservative" discuss principles and policies? The conversations don't last too long!
Until we the people start demanding cleaner elections, and actual positions on issues beyond abortion and gays, we will have nothing but emotion driven political discourse, I mean sound bites!
Or, for instance, if you call thousands of voters in South Carolina, and ask them how they'd feel if they were to find out that John McCain had an illegitimate black child, that implies that he does. Not false, but deceptive. But, gee, wonder what the intent was. That would be to deceive the voting public.
but if you make a statement, like - oh - saddam hussein is in cahoots with al qaeada, or that there are WMD that are about to be used on the US, and they turn out to be... well... *false*... then it is a lie.
... hi bingo
Has ANYONE involved refuted them by suggesting alternate explainations? (ie the white house?) NO?
The best and only counter-arguments (if you could call them that) i have heard have been:
a) Yeah, well Michael Moore is overweight!
b) This is all lies. I can't prove it, discuss it, refute them or offer alternative explainations, but lies is what they are.
Jeremy
This is an article that should have been posted *only* to the newly-created Politics section of Slashdot.
The facts are cited yes, but not the conclusions.
"X" is a fact. (link here)
"Y" is a fact. (link here)
"Z" is a fact. (link here)
However, when you then say that "X->Y->Z and therefore W is true, and see the links that backup X, Y, and Z for proof."
The test here, really, is this:
If Michael Moore had of presented his film with neutral point of view, would most people agree with his conclusions presented seperately?
I'll give you an example:
Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin' woman and that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell them by the color of their skin."
The links he use only provide casual relation of the facts, they are not evidence of his claim. He links to an article which says that the owner of a company purchased by the owner of a subsidary who prepared the felon list gave $100,000 to the RNC. Is Michael Moore suggesting that the $100,000 was quid pro quo for putting blacks on the list? Is he suggesting that the man who sold his company to a company who has a subsidary that prepared the list had influence over the list? He doesn't say. He uses inference and the "ohh, of course there was collusion" factor to make his actual claim. The links are just simple distractions here.
Likewise, he doesn't address any counter-arguments. For example, that the "vote counting" woman in fact does no vote counting. For example, that the people who actually supervise the vote counts are elected officals of the county they work for. For example, that most counties in Florida did not use the felon listed. This presents a serious credibility problem. If you read the refutation points that are linked, it is interesting to note that race was specifically disallowed as a criteria, and that no evidence has ever been presented to counter this. But again, Moore doesn't address any of this, and instead, tries to prove wrong doing by inference only.
So, basically, what I am saying is this: having the articles that back up his quotes, figures, etc are nice, but they only backup the individual statements - not his combined synthesized conclusions. That is a major flaw.
Gee the Republicans have used Propoganda, lies and emotional manipulation through scare tactics for years, decades even.
I say about time the left resorted to the same tactics, they didn't start fighting dirty...
Personally I don't care if F911 is truth or not as long as it helps stop Bush getting reelected.
An honest meta-question for /.
Why do political stories that do not involve technology make the front page? It's true, we can set our filters to turn off postings from this group, but the questions still needs to be asked.
Are we in fact winning? I hadn't noticed what with 1000+ dead troops in Iraq and no links found to al-Qaeda and no WMDs and Osama bin Laden still on the loose and hundreds of children being blown up in Chechnya and airplanes being blown up in Russia and the anthrax killer never found and the Taliban regaining power in parts of Afghanistan and bombings in Bali and Turkey and Moscow and Madrid and...
Unemployment is currently at the same level that Clinton ran on in the 1996 election, 5.4%.
I really doubt that is an accurate reflection of the current state of the job market. We've been in a recession long enough that many people without jobs are no longer being listed as unemployed. Further, many people are underemployed or working for less money than they were a while back.
Congradulations for such a stellar work record. You're lucky and a rare exception. But don't point to those of us who have bad luck and say it solely our fault.
Also, Bush clearly hasn't helped the economy. Look at gas prices - which are a result of the instability in Iraq. Thats the simplest example I can provide.
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
Have any sources of your own to prove this?
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
After Moore said he encouraged p2p sharing of his movie I found it on torrent and watched it out of curiosity. I despise Moore for his attack on the Second Amendment, his "Bowling for Columbine" movie was a blatant and cowardly attack on my right to keep and bear arms, including my right to own assault weapons and handguns if I so choose, which I do.
I don't care about his politics, I don't buy into the right wing v. left wing crap, it's all a puppet show to distract people from the truth that "other people" run this country from afar.
But, this movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 is pretty damning. Bu$h is so deeply connected to the $audi's that it's far beyond disgusting, it's criminal. Of course ALL politicians are criminals, none of them have clean hands. I would like to see Moore expose the rest of the profiteering criminals in our government.
I'll explain.
He comes out with Fahrenheit 9/11. It's full of things. It's a very effective piece of propoganda. And there's almost nothing in it which is false or a lie.
It's been my experience that it's by and large intelligent people who go see his films. Think about it - it's the intelligent people who will give his work the time of day. It's been my experience that the people who say "he's a damn dirty liar and I won't support that" haven't done their research and are on the whole the ones who would rather not hear anything he has to say.
Consequently it's these same intelligent people who walk out of the theater saying "wow, that was pretty bad for Bush & Co. - but I bet it's only one side of the story". And it is.
Moore tells you about the VA Hospitals Bush closed down, but not about the ones he opened up.
Moore tells about the opinon piece that says Gore won, but he doesn't tell you about the dozen stories that say he lost.
Moore tells you about the judges Bush couldn't get appointed, but not about the ones he did.
People have made it their goal to point out the one-sided arguments in the film while others have pointed out the fallacies in those arguments against the film.
56% of Americans have either seen the film or plan to see the film. There's no way in hell that 56% of Americans are informed about politics. So they learn a lot from Fahrenheit 9/11. Then they learn a lot more from the people against F911. Then they learn even more from the people who are against the people who are against F911. And they decide for themselves who they want to believe more. Or more importantly they decide for themselves which information is important to them.
And then they're informed. In ways they never would have been before. I wouldn't know most of this stuff if I hadn't seen the film and then read all the debates. And I wouldn't have read the debates if it weren't for the Internet. Hell, Michael Moore used footage he got from the Internet to make the movie.
And that's why Michael Moore is a genius. Thanks to him there's a ton more informed voters out there, if for no other reason than people need to see the movie and get their ducks in order in order to hate Moore and his arguments. In many ways he's leveled the playing field.
Schnapple
Er, what's ironic about about?
Just a note in relation to your comments on Russia.
Personally I think that they are going to make our efforts in Afganistan and Iraq look like a picnic. I am fully expecting an action more reminicent of Sherman's march than anything else. This is truly a global war on terror, and while Michael Moore and you can debate how its going here, you won't have any say in what the Russians do, and I think it will be a very dramatic statement.
Moore wants people to vote against Bush, but this movie will have an opposite effect.
Let's say an undecided person watches the movie the day before. The day of the election he comes in all pissed off about Bush. His Co-worker then points to one of the numberous sites calling the movie a "work of fiction" with source to reputable newspapers, etc.
The guy is then pissed off that he was "duped" by Moore.
Whether the being "duped" is true or not, I'm not arguing, but I DO see this transpiring. He'll then go into the voting booth feeling like he was lied to, and will NOT be trusting of the other candidate, i.e., Kerry. And will either vote for Bush, or vote for Nader if he still hates Bush.
My words of advice:
Vote for who you like, and not who you Hate. If you hate them all, vote for your mother instead. You still don't hate her right?
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
I see your point. In an ideal world, which I know we aren't living in, I'd like to see something like the standard placed on peer reviewed scientific articles applied to political information. Science is full of controversy and vociferous disagreements, but articles still manage to get written from a particular viewpoint. The rule is you just can't ignore possible alternative interpretations of the facts, much less facts unfavorable to your position. You have to state your opponent's position as strongly as he would, then refute it and show that your position is better.
It's just an idle dream, I know.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You would vote for Kerry. He will decimate our military as his voting record and political lobbying has demonstrated.
The militant Islamics will be emboldened and [surprise!] not walk down the happy-happy-joy-joy path of peace and harmony with us as liberal myopia would dictate, but take our castorated military as a gift from Allah... as *they* demonstrated during the Clinton years. The whole "balance of power" concept is not going to work in the hands of a moslem. Why? Allah wants you either Islamic, or dead. Every moslem that helps accomplish either gets a dozen sexy wives in paradise. Why do you think they're lining up to strap on ball bearing bombs?
I haven't seen F911 but it sounds like a bunch of emotional puff and blow. Anyone I talk to that is struck by it, can only recall the tearful mother who lost her son, and the accusation that Bush lied.
Want nuclear hell? Vote Kerry. He can deliver the *only* thing they want. Our stones on a silver platter.
Do you think it was wrong of Kerry to come home from Vietnam and tell Congress we should end the war? Ask the American people if anyone knows why we're in the war to begin with? Tell Congress of the atrocities and war crimes he witnessed. Don't play "Oh it never happened, We'd never do that" game with you. We all know god damned well that it did happen. Kerry didn't turn his back on his fellow soldiers. He turned his back on the administration that got them in that Fucked up Ware to begin with. He tried to get his fellow soldiers out of that hell hole before more lives were lost in vain. That one hell of a noble thing to do in my book. And you can bet that he did it knowing full well that piss ants like yourself would never let him forget it.
You realize that the 9/11 commission concluded that Saddaam Hussein was in cahoots with al qaeda and that the best conclusion from the evidence on "invasion day" was that there were WMDs(and I believe there are) and that they would be used against the US.
When you are mistaken and draw a conclusion based on the best available information, you aren't lieing, you are mistaken.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Right, which is why "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" were so unsuccessful.
I believe you've got it completely backwards. People hate substantive discussion of issues. People hate nuance. Nuance and intelligent discussion = nerd. And people really hate nerds. Take Al Gore, please!
Pro wrestling has more fans than "Meet The Press" and image triumphs over substance every time. Unfair propaganda works.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
It's not a police state or censorship for a television station to decide not to air it because they worry about the image of their station or the loss of ad revenue or viewer ratings from the backlash that might occur from airing it. It's business - nothing more.
Yes, you're right, the movie doesn't show all of the footage of all of the events that transpired during the making of the movie. Yes, you're right, the movie isn't 6 MONTHS LONG. Yes, you're right, it's a MOVIE.
And yes you're right, he didn't SHOW that part, but he did explicitly STATE it (as geekster already mentioned)
You're using the EXACT SAME propaganda tactics to try to discredit f/911 as you and others are charging Moore himself with using.
No Comment.
I've wondered why nobody has pursued Bush's illegitimate and aborted child
Probably because they're all on the same alien spacecraft with Art Bell, wearing tin-foil hats and talking with Elvis. What gives with people buying into this stuff anyway? Why do otherwise intelligent people suspend all critical thinking and go Unabomber wacko when they hear or see a conservative?
A friend of mine had an interesting theory (which he based on my behavior, amusingly). I used to be significantly overweight, and have since lost it all and am in good shape. When I see overweight people, especially fat geeky introverted guys, I tend to really get disgusted with them. I'd want to go over to them and tell them to put the 60 ounce sugar fountain drink down and get a grip on their life.
My friend (a wanna be shrink, I think) observed that I'd react most severely to people that were like the part of me I was irresponsible with. Some sort of self hatred I projected into these beefy nerds. Look at the ABB (Anybody But Bush) crowd. Their hatred is equally emotional and irrational. A bunch I know scream about him being a former alcoholic and alleged coke user. "He's no better than anyone else." Curiously, those that scream the most are the ones who refuse to get control of their own substance abuse issues. And isn't it curious that the party that has made abortion rights a perpetual issue is accusing Bush of having one? Yes, they claim hypocracy, but don't they have a mirror in their house?
My recommendation to all you loathing, under-successful people of intelligence and potential: Get off of the loser trip today. Set down these two rules for yourself:
1. Do not let yourself condemn or criticize anyone else. You've got enough to work on with yourself. Deep down, you know you're projecting self-hatred onto others. You know hating Bush or Kerry not only doesn't fix your own problems, but is a lie to yourself that allows you to pretend you're doing something when you're not.
2. Establish your principles and DO NOT SACRIFICE THEM FOR ANYTHING. Be consistent - this is your gold standard and the definition of your self value. This is what you'll be remembered for - not for all the attacks you made on other people, or how you were a "master of nuance" (history looks very negatively upon such intellectual frauds). If you believe it is wrong for people to be attacking your candidate on his Viet Nam service, then apply it to both candidates. If you think it would be wrong for George Bush to come out with the espose the night before the election on Kerry's affairs or nasty details on his divorce/affairs, then stand up and oppose Michael Moore doing the same to Bush. The more you stand up for the other side or other guy, the more you'll find your objectivity strenghtening.
I didn't become un-fat before I started dealing with my lies, delusions and hatred of myself as expressed in others. Give it a shot and live won't suck so much!
Well, Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda. There are extensive Iraq/Al Qaeda ties dating back to 1998 when Saddam offered political asylum to Bin Laden.
And before you make any claims about WMD, I suggest you read the reports from the Iraqi Survey Group (ISG). They are the only team in the world in Iraq looking for WMD (besides the terrorists), and they provide explicit details of what they have found. (Here is a teaser: They have found a lot more than a defective Sarin IED)
BTW I despise both Bush and Moore. Both are propganda machines they prey on peoples willingness to believe distortions of the truth.
That's spin too, by expressing the same opinion on the two people, and showing a similarity, you are showing them as if they were equal. That would not be a fair comparison, because although his credibility might be questioned, Michael Moore is not responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and Bush is. That is spin too, it is a fact that he sent an armed force to invade Irak and Afghanistan, and that they killed lots of people, many civilians, then my opinion is that it is wrong, and another one's would be that it was necessary. Of course, we as humans cannot be objective, because that's not the way we understand the facts.
That someone publishes something "with a spin" is not wrong, it is inevitable. The wisdom is in reading from many sources, so that spin can be cancelled, and you can get your own interpretation. But showing the facts with a spin is not the same as lying. Journalism is mostly related to opinion, just because it is a documentary it doesn't have to be objective, because it is made by someone who does have an opinion. In your advantage, MM tells you that he hates bush, so you know which way he is biasing his documentary, and it is easier to digest it. It would be much worst if he portrayed himself as an objective journalist, and then deceived you.
If you're refering to the counting of the electoral college votes, then Al Gore had a duty to essentially tell them to sit down and shut up. The rules only allow a vote to be challenged if the motion challenging the vote is properly submitted theirs was not and so they were out of order.
I think it's best to air it on PBS primarily because they aren't mandated to censor it.
/.'ed so fast; it'll make Superman look slow.
Maybe even Comedy Central (this also depends on what side of the coin/river u are on) will air it; hell they did air the South Park movie uncensored once before.
Or if he really wants more ppl to see it, Michael Moore might as well release a bitTorrent of it (official one) or webcast (or both). It'll get
Of course he can air 9/11 on TV! We'll just need to show Swift Boat ads during all the commercials and have Ralph Nader present it. That way everyone gets their propaganda!
I'm not sure what your point is, how many were there before 9/11 ... there hasn't been enough time to tell if there's going to be more attacks.
>here are extensive Iraq/Al Qaeda ties dating back
>to 1998 when Saddam offered political asylum to Bin
>Laden.
If there are, I'm sure that the Bush administration would have explicitly demonstrated this fact in every media outlet that would repeat the admin's claims.
and, there have been no credible reports that have linked the two.
why does reality hate america?
... hi bingo
And you think the US is fucked up NOW? Just wait till the libertarians turn ALL governmental control over to the corporations! WHEE!
The War on Terror needs to be fought, maybe differently than it has been, but in terms of the US, things are going pretty well.
Either that, or the complete absence of terrorist strikes in the US since 9/11 indicates -- not that we are fighting "terror" and winning -- but that there is no terrorist threat to the United States of America.
The "war on terror" is a con being used to justify military spending and to restrict our rights. It is precisely the sort of thing Orwell wrote about fifty years ago.
America is not at war. There is nobody to fight.
Which is why we shouldn't elect Kerry. He said that Saddam was a danger that needed to be removed and that he had (and used) weapons of mass destruction.
Or were you talking about someone else? Or maybe you were talking about the Kerry who voted for invading Iraq before he voted against it? Or when he said we should support our troops now that they're there before he voted against funding for them? Perhaps you just meant Bush who's been saying the same thing John Kerry was before the war, only he hasn't changed his mind.
what's going on in Russia isn't Al Queda at all, it's just the latest string of attacks by Chechnian revolutionaries
How do you make this conclusion? There's overwhelming ongoing data regarding Al Quada's operations in Chechnya. Many of the 9/11 terrorists were originally recruited to go to Chechnya. There are financial ties, operational ties, recruiting ties, etc. It's rather shocking that anyone would make a comment otherwise - it's like claiming Chirac isn't French.
On a more humerous note, it appears that Putin has adopted the Bush doctrine. From Yahoo news this hour:
Russia is prepared to make pre-emptive strikes on "terrorist bases" anywhere in the world, the Interfax news agency cited the country's chief of staff as saying.
Pre-emptive action? Against bases ANYWHERE? Iran? Iraq? What, and not wait for thirty UN resolutions and negotiations? Good grief, what next?
Chechnian rebels are also Islamic fundamentalists
Understanding the world in terms of Christianity/Islam isn't going to get you anywhere. The Chechnian rebels are now Islamic, but they used to be secular - non-religious. They are Islamic now, but they are obviously different from Al-Qaeda. They have territorial claims, Al-Qaeda has not.
Actually, the way the Russians have treated the Chechnian people makes quite good soil for fundamentalism. Just like the US and Iraq, I suppose.
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
If I interview 20 people and 6 of them agree with me and I only use those 6 to support my point of view even though 14 disagreed then did I represent "fact"?
Why not?
Microsoft does it all the time and people take it as fact.
US News media does it all the time and people take it as fact.
Marketing people do this all the time and people take it as fact.
Al Qaeda, esp bin ladin, has called for the downfall of Sadaam for about 10 years. They have never worked together. That is why Poppa Bush called for Sadaam to be left alone. He knew that Sadaam was keeping Al Qaeda at bay.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Considering how many questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda,...
---
Hey wait Slashdot...
propaganda must come from an agenda, a group. One fat guy from Michigan is NOT propoganda. It's called a documentary stupid.
See how CNN brainwashes you? They made all of America define Moores movie as propoganda without even checking thier dictionaries.
Ann Coulter is a propagandist. Micheal Moore represents himself and that's it! Buy a frellin' clue Slashdot.
Bush should be apologizing profusely for the US aggression in Iraq. UN hearings are in order. Reparations should be made. Instead, we have a man that gets on TV and says that eventhough all the pre-war intelligence was wrong, we were still justified to invade Iraq. What does that make the US?
For the record, it appears the Democrat party has done America a great injustice and nominated a man who says he also would have invaded Iraq, knowing what we know today. Neither one is an acceptible president. Bush needs to go for punative reasons - either that or we start the impeachment in 2005. Defeat Kerry in '08.
XML causes global warming.
Call me a cynic, but I have a hard time believing that a site called anyonebutbush.com is an objective source of facts and information. If you want to read such a site for your amusement, go right ahead, but to cite it in an argument as a factual source will not convince anyone who was not already a Bush basher.
/yawn
Another authoritative commentary on Cuba by someone whose only first-hand knowledge of the country comes from watching re-runs of "I Love Lucy." Gotta love armchair pundits.
There was only one thing wrong with this fact. When Mr. Bush was in the class room, there was no evidence that what happened to the first tower was anything other than a terrible accident. As such, there was no reason to imagine any type of military response. Of course, hindsight makes it look like Bush made a mistake here, but given the facts know at the time, his actions were appropriate. I consider this another piece of Mr. Moore's bias, he never bothered to mention that there was no way for Mr. Bush to know that this was anything other than an accident. While I can fault President Bush on many other things, I think his response entire appropriate here.
Speaking as a person who usually votes "left"
Michael Moore has become known for this junk.. He alters text and then displays it like it was an original document. He edits together people's words.
This is tantamount to lying in your bibliography, and this kind of routine sloppiness certainly disqualifies his work as any kind of 'documentary.'
I expect this kind of distortion of truth from the Republican party (considering all the misleading shit they put forward at their latest convention).
Now Democrats have their own Rush Limbaugh. What's sad is that this type of tactic will probably be as effective for the "left" as for the right.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
uh huh ... so, like, the war on invasion by the aliens is going pretty well too, since none of that seems to be happening.
sheesh. baaah!
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Everything there has already been debunked in the War Room. If you want to discuss specifics with me, don't just post a link, post a particular. If not, every time you point me to that site, I'll point you to the War Room.
No, the war room skirts around the issues. Read more closesly at Kopel's page, he includes counters of Michael's "War room" counter arguments. There is so much goddamn spin and sleight of hand in F911 that it's difficult for me to take seriously at all. It's not that he isn't mostly accurate factually, its that he implies so much bullshit that you begin to drown in it half way though.
Carefully read through kopels page, and then read Moore's counter arguments, before you come to a decision on just how good of fact check Moore's war room does.
FOX news had George W. Bush's first cousin, John Ellis, work the election desk on Election day 2000. This wasn't disclosed until afterward. Ellis had direct control over the results that FOX broadcast. But we already knew that FOX wasn't on the up and up.
It seems to me that Carville and Begala consulting for the Kerry campaign part-time, and cheerfully disclosing it, isn't a horrible conflict of interest. Especially since the show "Crossfile" is meant to be partisan opinion.
The most disturbing trend on _all_ shows is the attempt to take 'opinion' people (like Sean Hannity) and dress them up to be journalists. Talk about making a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
David Brinkley did it right. He became a commentator _after_ he hung up his anchor spot.
My father is a blogger.
If I interview 20 people and 6 of them agree with me and I only use those 6 to support my point of view even though 14 disagreed then did I represent "fact"?
Yes. Documentaries are not statistics and are not reporting. A documentary is simply a movie based on real people and real events, period. Documentarists have always presented their point of view - in fact, most people agree that that's preciely the point of documentaries (Moore actually got the highest american award for best documentary, remember?).
Unfortunately, some people (like you) think that the only people allowed to express their point of view are the ones they agree with. Maybe you should apply for a job with the KGB (or, the way things are going, with the Bush administration).
If you think anything in Fahrenheit 9/11 is a lie, sue Moore and get rich. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people willing to finance your legal expenses (as long as they don't have to go public). For some reason no-one has...
And if you think that "the other side of the story" stands up, go make a documentary showing it (it's not as if you need a huge budget or a big crew). Again, for some reason no-one has...
RMN
~~~
ya know what -
F911 is the counter argument. for years we've heard the administrations steady drumbeat of all terror, all the time, through various media outlets - there has been no counter argument to the admin's claims. even the NYT and WP admitted that they should have been more vigorous in verifying the steady stream of shit coming from the whitehouse.
Finally - we get the other side of the story, and you have the audacity to point out that theres an agenda? no shit. you watch a cousteau documentary, and you get a pro-environment slant. you watch a holocaust documentary, you get an anti-nazi slant, you watch an energy companies documentary, you get a "how wonderful the world is with our energy" slant.
the purpose of a documentary is to advance the authors point of view.
the *NEWS* is supposed to report both sides of the issue.
... hi bingo
It is also a mistake of the editing and cutting, which was done by Michael Moore.
When doing "Documentaries," you are carrying a responsibility of presenting truth to the audience. Unfortunately, Moore gives documentaries a bad name. He doesn't use much logic to peice together his arguments, rather, he relies upon the heartstrings of his viewers. He does his own stuff, because he would definitely be fired if he ever worked in a normal reporting position. Remember the NY Times fiasco?
Gore lost. It has been four years already. It's about time that you got over it, stopped bitching, and got on with the rest of your life.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Are you trying to show a possible trend with a single data point?
Well gee, I thought we'd have INFINITE ATTACKS PER MINUTE after 9/11, so YEAH, we're doing GREAT!!!!!
Or maybe I thought that since the last terrorist large scale action on our soil (oklahoma city 1995) occurred six years earlier, that we could expect another attack within six years! We're over halfway now, so far so good huh!
Or maybe I thought that sine the last FOREIGN large scale attack on our soil (pearl harbor, 1941) that we'd see another one within SIXTY years.
What are you, an idiot? We're doing pretty well because there hasn't been another attack here? Tell you what; when we get Iraq calmed down, let me know, and I'll agree we've done anything to calm down terrorism. Until then, all we know is that we haven't been attacked again yet. We are in no way secure from such an attack, nor will we ever be. Pretending we are is just wishful thinking.
Moore even said in all his interviews that of course the movie is biased, the facts were all facts, and they were framed by his opinions.
Moore said the same thing about "Bowling for Columbine", but then deliberately staged the bank/rifle scene several months in advance by lying to bank officials about his intentions. It was never possible to pick up a rifle AT THE BANK by opening an account and bank officials allowed him to do it, for promotional purposes, precisely because he lied about his aims.
He then went on to say that anyone could do what he had done at the bank, which was utterly untrue. This isn't 'framing the facts by his opinions', it's a goddamned, bald-faced lie. And it wasn't the only lie in "Bowling" either.
And now you expect me to believe that "Farenheit 9/11" is completely devoid of lies, that somewhere between "Bowling" and "Farenheit" Moore decided to turn over a new leaf? Give me a fucking break! A sucker I may be, but brain-damaged I am not.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
After five years of making thoughtful and informed posts, I have some karma to burn. I'll regret having posted this when I see that "-5 Troll" beside it later today -- but I figure, a guy's got a right to let off some steam.
.
I'll let you in on a little secret of mine. Liberal as I am, I enjoy tuning into Fox. I like reading the RNC's website. I have fun watching the masters of hypocrisy and intolerance. They say some mighty funny, outrageous things! I wouldn't want these crackpots in charge of my country, my legal system or even the corporations in which I own stock -- but that doesn't stop me from laughing at 'em. For every three logical things they say, they just have to throw in a zinger -- a racist slur, a completely inappropriate personal attack, a tremendous fallacy, a made-up statistic, or what have you. And I find that funny as all hell!
To all of the Bill O'Reillys of the world, for the Rush Limbaughs, the Ed Gillespies and the Zell Millers, I would like to say: nyeah nyeah nyeah, we have our own pundits now!
(I apologize that all of those links are to biased sources; I tried to find more impartial sources for my quotes, but "unbiased" news sources tend to shy away from reporting on the more outrageous things our politicians and public figures say, because they would quickly gain a reputation for being biased for having done so.)
Yes, now we progressives have our own crackpot figures who make completely unfounded statements with fallacies you could drive a truck through. They twist words, edit footage and tinker until the truth looks juuuuuuust right. Like their regressive counterparts, they're darned good at it. I honestly enjoy them as entertainment, I do.
Aside from giving me great insight into Bush's and Cheney's motivations (money) and Bush's personality (insecure, attention-seeking jock who aims to please his parent figures), Fahrenheit 9/11 was funny, tragic, moving, a reminder of all we lost that day and all we've lost since: collective innocence, blissful ignorance of the effects of our actions abroad, good men in uniform, personal freedoms. Looking through the bull puckey about Saudi air travel privileges, tuning out the anti-war propaganda, I sat in the theater and saw a decent movie.
But this movie did not sway my political position any more than watching The O'Reilly Factor would. This is because Michael Moore, like all the rest of the pundits, makes entertainment. He tries to deliver a political message, but the message is almost always choked by his own hyperbole and willingness to sacrifice the truth in order to inspire outrage in his viewers.
If the intent of releasing Fahrenheit 9/11 ahead of time is to sway the minds of voters, I am afraid the stunt will backfire horribly. Most of the nation is already set in stone as to who they will vote for. The only votes left up for grabs are the precious, the few, the "swing votes." By definition, these people are independent, and like to think about their decisions before making them. They like to check their facts, and they are not easily swayed by appeals to sentimentality. If these people are forced to approach Fahrenheit 9/11 as a run-on political advertisement, they will rebel. They will scoff at the inaccuracies and ignore the redeeming social and political message of the movie. And that just might sway them enough to vote for the other side . .
Just a thought.
"... one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."
Riiiigght, since it's so different from all the rational, fact-based and totally truthful informercials paid for by each of the wholly respectful campaigning parties...
Do you mean to infer that Senor Moore should be barred from showing his "emotion-influencing" film because he isn't a political candidate himself? And how is this any different from the plethora of other instances wherein Hollywood has poked its bulbous nose into election issues?
All the hullaballoo over this film is merely the result of carefully crafted propaganda. The man is entitled to his opinion. The People are entitled to watch it or ignore it, at their choosing.
I, for one, think he's full of himself. But he has the right to display his film to whomever wishes to see it, without interference from our reigning king or the apparent challenger to the throne [whether or no the two "front runners" will in the end be any different from one another in practical application of the office remains to be seen].
When we were shown the videotape of the police beating rodney king, that was also skewed. It hardly showed the LAPD at their best, nor was it representative of the vast majority of LAPD officers, however... it was the truth. A single "mishap" of that magnitude is enough for a criminal case, and the fact that it might not happen all the time is irrelevant.
The vast majority of serial killers spend the vast majority of their time not killing, does that make it OK? Could you walk into a court of law and say "well, you do have my client on film killing someone, but he doesn't do that all the time, certainly less than one hour a month, how about we just let it slide".
The facts are the facts. Biased or not, what was shown in that movie should be enough to get bush nailed to the cross, even if it is a selection of his worst deeds.
good for you.
I really think that us that identify with the libertarian philosophy are going to have a REALLY hard time getting a candidate we like (and this year's lib candidate just doesn't have what it takes.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
In case you haven't noticed, the people in America (where I live) are too stupid to elect a legit leader
I live in California (Kali?) where we elect actors . . . So there!.
I do agree with you about the legit leader thing though.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
How many terrorism related deaths have there been in the US since 9/11... The War on Terror needs to be fought, maybe differently than it has been, but in terms of the US, things are going pretty well.
"There's not a single bear in sight--the 'Bear Patrol' is working like a charm".
"That's specious reasoning,"
"Thanks, honey,"
"According to your logic, this rock keeps tigers away"
"Hmmm. How does it work?"
"It doesn't."
"How so?"
"It's just a rock. But I don't see a tiger, anywhere."
"Lisa, I want to buy your rock."
-Colin
And this Kopel's page is full of absolute truths? Nice that you'll beleive one political operative so completely, but discount a different political operative... Could it be that Kopel's half truths and spins fit better with your picture of reality that Michael's do?
Did criminal actions take place during the war? Yes. Were those criminal actions performed by US Servicemen? Yes. Therefore, yes, they were war criminals. But Kerry wasn't coming back to say "Bob Jones - he's a criminal. Fred Murphy - he's a criminal too. Lock my fellow veterans up". He came back to say "this war and the policies behind it are wrong, it was started on a false premise, and criminal policies are being handed down as 'orders'." Kinda like the one in Iraq now - false premises (WMDs), and criminal policies (Abu Gharib).
He did throw his medals, or ribbons, or whatever at the whitehouse in protest, yet still manages to conjure them up today.
If you don't know what he threw - medals, ribbons, or whatever - how can you complain when he shows something? Maybe he's wearing the medals now, and he threw his ribbons (don't see him wearing his ribbons, do you?). Or maybe, as you say, he threw his 'whatever', and it's still lying on the Whitehouse lawn.
-T
Watching Winslet & DeCaprio cavorting around is entertaining and all (and the fact that both characters die by the end of the film is an extra bonus), and attention to historical detail makes a film seem more immediate and "puts you in the story," but if you want to know why Titanic sank, you should look elsewhere. Even if every detail is scrupulously correct, that doesn't make it useful. Why treat contemporary politics differently?
Semantic check:
"Either that, or the complete absence of terrorist strikes in the US since 9/11 indicates -- not that we are fighting "terror" and winning -- but that there is no terrorist threat to the United States of America."
Statistically - you are far Far FAR more likely to be killed on the highway then by a terrorist.
Statistically - you are more likely to be killed by someone in your own family than by a terrorist.
(neither of those statistics include people killed in foreign countries)
So, there IS a terrorist threat to the citizens of the USofA. Just not much of one. But that RARITY in itself leads the media to cover it completely out of proportion to the likelyhood of it happening again.
Now, is there a terrorist threat to the USofA? No.
Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA. Under no circumstances will we overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy.
On the other hand, we can slip into a fundamentalist theocracy (see Bush and Co.) or a corporate-based fascist state. But that won't be because Osama did anything. That will be because WE voted for it and allowed it.
No, of course the Kopel page isn't full of absolute truths. But, if you're going to watch F911, I think it'd be smart to make an effort to read both the Kopel page and the Michael Moore war room before coming to a decision. I know too many people that take F911 as gospel, and its irritating. (but then again, people who take gospel like gospel are a bit mislead as well :P)
Let's be more specific... How many terrorist deaths in the US did Iraq fund on 9/11? That would be 0.
.. oh, you get the point.
How many terrorist related deaths in the US come from Iraq before we invaded them? Again... 0.
How many Assam Bin Ladens (SP) have been captured since 9/11? That would be 0.
Yep... War on Terror is a big success... Just like the war on drugs... the war on poverty... the war on
People always talked about all these mysterious votes that were not counted. What about the fact that the media declared Gore the winner before all the polls in Florida had closed. Remember that Florida is in two time zones. And the panhandle is heavily Republican. And guess what, there was a very low voter turnout in the panhandle because they thought that Gore had already won in Florida.
Of course, anyone spouting this line shows they have no concept of how legislative process (and politics in the US in general)works.
Let's take a hypothetical example:
I write a bill. It is good. It goes through committees and ends up with a hundred unrelated riders.
Now, my friend, he doesn't mind those 100 riders, so he votes on the initial bill. The bill doesn't get enough votes, gets sent back to committee.
In that committee, it gets reworked, a few more riders. Gets sent back to congress. It gets voted for debate (my friend votes for the debate to happen), and then in the process a few more motions get approved that tack a few more provisions on that bill.
Now, one of those provisions says that some state can take more water from the Colorado river than it already does. The Colorado river is already under huge pressure from water users, and my friend is a representative from CO. Therefore, when the bill comes up, he votes against it because he can't approve a legislative measure that would deprive his already drought-conditioned constituents of even more water.
Problem is, that bill would have provided affordable housing for 250,000 families across the country.
So, when my friend is up for election, his staff pulls the voting records, and presto! My friend is "against affordable housing for working class families". Even better, he flip-flopped on the issue, because "he voted for it before he voted against it."
And then idiots like you repeat it. This is why our political climate is like it is, because you and your ilk can't think for yourselves and just regurgitate what some website or candidate talking point says. Do us all a favor, and if you don't have anything to say that isn't just PR for one side or the other, just shut up.
Ok, I won't "condemn or criticize anyone else" - but I'm certainly going to condemn and criticize a group. Bush himself *might* not be a bad guy, but his administration as a whole is horrific. Let's look at the score:
- Unjustified war in Iraq. No WMDs found, no tangible link between Saddam and Al Queda. Was Saddam a tyrant that deserved to be overthrown? Yes. But the United States had no legitimate excuse to do so. We *ARE NOT* the world's police. We have better things to do in our own country with the hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives this war has cost us. War should always, always, *always* be the last option, and only when it is absolutely necessary. I think a certain religious figure the administration claims to believe in would agree.
- Extremely shady corporate connections. "Kenny Boy" Lay and Enron. Halliburton, run by Cheney at the time, found guilty of illegal accounting practices. No-bid contracts.
- Voting machines. Do I really need to say any more? You read slashdot, right? I just can't in good faith believe that these things would have been pushed as hard if the guys who run the companies didn't favor the incumbent.
- Environmental policy. I'm not going to get started on this really, it would take too long. Go ahead and google for "Bush administration environment" if you need convincing that they are *really* frickin' bad on this issue.
- Inequal rights. I don't care where you stand on the issue, but do you really agree that a constitutional amendment is the best way to "preserve the sanctity of marriage?" Why is this a federal government issue in the first place? Isn't marriage a (mainly) religious practice that the government only cares about in terms of taxing? I personally think any two people who are actually going to stay with each other in the long run should be legally allowed to make that commitment, but I can see why some would disagree. But a constitutional amendment is very much the wrong answer to this social disagreement. Why not just have churches that don't like gay marriage not recognize such unions? The catholic church doesn't recognize my marriage (as I wasn't married by a priest), and they're welcome not to - but it is not the government's place to make moral judgements.
- Dismantling of "inalienable" rights. Why does the government need to be able to review my library records? Is there anything in public libraries I'm not supposed to be reading? Have any terrorists really been caught by spying on the entire populace, ever? Why the hell are people being held in prisons without due process? Are they so dangerous that due process would harm the country?
Ok, so what are the administration's strengths? Really? I can't think of any. Defense? Granted, they're probably more militaristic than a democratic administration would be, but I have yet to be convinced this has helped make us safer. If anything, the Iraq war has lead to a greater percentage of the world hating the US, which just can't be a good thing in the long run.
Fahrenheit 9/11 might not be 100% factually accurate. It might be misleading in some parts. But have you seen it? The movie is a stunning indictment of the general wrong-headedness of the current administration, and even if 50% of it was bunk, it would still piss me off that our leaders are getting away with as much as they are.
In short, I don't like John Kerry, but he's the best bet to get this completely unpalatable administration out. And that's why I'm going to vote for him, and encourage to the best of my ability everyone I know to do likewise.
To tie this all back to the parent post - I'm not projecting self-hatred onto others when I say I hate the Bush administration. I like myself, and honestly believe I'm a good person. I have my faults, but I recognize them and try to either make up for them or work to make them go away. But I hate this administration, and wish nothing but bad things to happen to those involved it it (mmm... life-long prison sentences...). I'm not going to stand up for the administration for the sake of giving myself objectivity - I'm going to stand by my principles and do what I can to get them out of office.
In my opinion, yes, Fahrenheit 9/11 is biased, but no more than mainstream media is, in the opposite direction. Nothing Mr. Moore says is strictly untrue, but it is portrayed in such a way to make the Bush Administration look bad. I don't think that he ever claimed to not be biased, and perhaps its not such a bad thing that people will see the other side of the coin of mass media. After all, he doesn't claim to be impartial, the news does, and is often hopelessly unblalanced. I say show it and let people make up their own minds!
Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA. Under no circumstances will we overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy.
It's this kind of thinking that really pisses me off - remnants of Manifest Destiny. Why the hell do we, as residents of the United States of America, think that we are invincible? This is what happens when you don't pay attention in your history classes, boys and girls! Let's take a look at the Persians, the Greeks, the Holy Roman Empire, the British Empire, and, hell, even the USSR. These were mighty, mighty nations with incredible power, control, and influence and they all fell out of power. The fact of the matter is that, eventually, the United States WILL fall and we may very well refer to the means of that as 'terrorism'.
Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Yeah, wouldn't you consider the American Revolution against the British an act of Terrorism? What is defined as terrorism is actually capable of bringing about positive change.
As residents of humanity, we need to recognize that all Nations created (in past or in the future) are corrupt and either have failed or are doomed to fail. Now, perhaps I'm just a doomsayer, but my feelings are that the unrest of many combined with the apathy and ignorance of many more are telling evidence of a major paradigm shift in American culture. I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to some change. Especially if it means taking the two-party system to the scrap pile.
Now I'm not saying that we're going to overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy in its place, but it is totally and intrinsically inaccurate to say that "Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA". Even the terrorist act on 9/11 is stirring the pot and, if you can't see that, well..I don't know..I guess I wouldn't be surprised. Seems like most people don't anyhow..
Anyhow, my two cents..
Those who can, do. Those who can't, go into business for themselves.
No, I don't concede that Michael Moore is a liar. In fact, I haven't even seen Fahrenheit 911. So it would be inappropriate for me to judge either way. What I am doing is attempting to counter the implication (I'll admit that it's unsaid) that I'm getting from a whole lot of posts that Michael Moore is engaged in unfair shenanigans that the Republicans would never consider themselves.
About a decade ago, the Republicans decided that they would do whatever it took to win (dirty or otherwise), and for the most part, the Democrats haven't done the same (and have suffered for it) (this statement will undoubtedly get several very vehement replies, but I believe that it's true). Some may view what Michael Moore is doing as leveling the playing field - I won't make that judgment because (as I said) I don't know that he's being deceptive.
You should take anything that you hear from anybody with the appropriate grain of salt. That goes for Michael Moore, John Kerry, and yes, George W Bush. I believe that you need an awfully large grain of salt with anything that W says, but that's just me.
Bush may have 'won' Florida, but my beef is this. By any standard, he only won because of the butterfly ballot screw-up. And even then, lost the popular vote and only won by the slimmest Electoral College margin.
Probably the exit polls the networks relied on more accurately reflected the voters' intentions than the actual count did. But them's the rules.
All fair enough.
But the guy ran as a moderate 'uniter, not a divider'. Now you'd think a moderate uniter, especially one that got in through a fluke, might try to actually govern from the middle. Well, we know that didn't happen. GWB's been all talk, spin and constantly recallibrated salesmanship. All covering for actions that have been about as partisan as possible. So some people are mad. Go figure
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
It's an illustration. It shows how one can recite facts while distorting their meaning.
Here's another one for you. Suppose we were discussing Adolf Hitler and I told you that:
1. He united the German people and lifted their spirits following their defeat in WW1.
2. He was elected by a large majority in a fair election.
3. He conquered most of Europe.
These are historically verifiable facts, yet they do not convey the truth about the man. This is what Moore does. He shows the portions of interviews and events that support his goal. It's not 'spin' or 'bias'. A half truth is a full lie.
Actually the 9/11 commission did conclude that there were links to al-Qaeda (just not to the 9/11 attacks).
Quite correct. In short, the links amounted to:
- al-Qaeda asks Saddam: "Can we set up a radio station inside Iraq to broadcast propoganda into Saudi Arabia?" Saddam says yes - it makes sense to him to help destabilize Saudi Arabia.
- al-Qaeda asks Saddam: "Can we set up a terrorist training camp inside Iraq?" Saddam says: "Sod off!" He's not stupid.
And they did find that sarin gas bomb that had about a gallon of sarin gas.
Quite correct. There are, however, two points that you missed.
The "bomb" - it was an IED - consisted of a unmarked 155mm mortar round. There's no proof that the round itself came from, or was manufactured in, Iraq. It was found near the Bahgdad airport, so it may have some from Syria ... but let's say that it was made in Iraq.
The bomb did explode, or partially release - yet it didn't kill anyone. Why not?
One of the unspoken details of the whole "WMD" fiasco is that chemicals decay. Nerve, chemical and biological agents have a limited "shelf life". Sarin gas - even in binary format, as the round apparently was - is effective for only a limited period of time.
Based on the available evidence (rather than hearsay) it most likely that the round was over a decade old. In other words, it was produced before Gulf War I. In other words, based on available evidence, the various bans and inspections in Iraq were working prior to the invasion. No new weapons were being produced, and Saddam only had a small, poorly developed, ineffective and rapidly decaying stockpile of decade-old weapons.
... So, when my friend is up for election, his staff pulls the voting records, and presto! My friend is "against affordable housing for working class families". Even better, he flip-flopped on the issue, because "he voted for it before he voted against it."
Ok, that's a long winded discussion about a hypothetical situation. Why not tell me what the specifics this situation were? The tax break for the elite was the reason for the vote change? So what? At that point, Kerry had to be thinking election 2004... his people are telling him, "do not change your vote." And he changes his mind because he he thinks it's the right thing to do, to not vote for it. Personally, that sounds like the kind of guy I want in charge. Someone who'll make up his own mind, right or wrong, and stick to it. Not a president who will do whatever his cabinet says is right. It's the same criticism I've had with the media. Ask the hard questions. Don't just be a mouthpiece for whoever.
The parent post is very insightful in my opinion. Seeing problems as Christianity vs Islam, left vs right or Republican vs Democrats has never brought people closer together. And unless you are willing to eliminate one of the two parties, you will never have a solution till both agrea.
As for the Chechnian rebels. Being Islamic did not make them pickup arms. Being oppressed and having little to no future did however. People with little hope can^H^H^Hwill do horible things.
So if we don't want any more tragedies, will must bring people hope, hope for a beter future.
Read some history, follow the violence and find the gold. `It's all economics...`
Wouter
It is possible to make only true statements, and yet lead people to a false conclusion. It's called spin, or marketing, and it is done all the time.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Dave Kopel Debunked
AZspot
Q: Do you know what time it is?
A: That was the number 12 bus.
In this case, the questioner will usually assume that the fact that the number 12 bus went by can somehow tell him what time it is. (ie it goes by every half hour.) However, you can mislead someone, without "lying" by violating this presumption. Say you happen to know that the #12 bus was 15 minutes late, but don't mention that. Your "factual" response has led the questioner to think it is 15 minutes earlier than it actually is. The movie _Being There_ is a good example of humor that works by violating the Presumption of Relevance.
All of which is to say that, according to David Kopel, at least, (I have not seen F9/11), most of the problems in the movie are from violating this precept--putting two facts together in such a way that the only logical conclusion you can draw is an incorrect one. This is misleading. This is wrong. I decry it.
However, what really annoys me(as someone who opposed the War in Iraq) is that Bush did the *exact same thing* when he argued for going to war against Iraq. I honestly don't understand how someone can micro-analyze one side of the argument, but not the other.
Personally, I could have been convinced to go to war against Saddam Hussein. But not with the arguments that were made at the time, which didn't pass my sniff test then, and look even worse now.
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
I'm sorry, but Moore's movie is not simply Michael Moore's free speech...it is a piece of deliberately constructed, disingenuous propaganda designed to benefit one political party over another, and Moore has stated so himself.
one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation.
What kind of bullshit is that? When Dick Cheney says "If you elect Kerry, the terrorist will kill your kids and torture your dog", I am supposed to worry about some hyperbole from the good guys side?
These assholes got into office in an embarrassing shameful abuse of our system. They will sink to ANY low to get re-installed. Fuck them. There are no more rules.
I finally saw F911 two nights ago. Of course, its full of MM's opinions on matters, but the film forces something upon the viewer that is genuinely necessary:
It makes you think!
It shows that George W. Bush and the people in his administration are not the simple Mayberry-ites they try to project. These are people with histories and dealings with many of the bad actors in today's world. They have ties and influence (and influenced by) a lot of what is the core of today's terrorist regimes.
You can dispute the movie all you wish, but it makes you think and wonder what's really going on. Oh, and its highly hypocritical to hold MM to a such a high standard when the Bush administration is allowed a pass on too many matters.
I think everyone should see it. Be full-warned that it has a strong emotional thrust in the second half, and the last third is a good bit different. I'd say all of the contested distortions are in the first half of the movie.
I always get the shakes before a drop.
But we aren't fighting those people! Those are American terrorists, and we're not doing anything about those!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
> Just like the US and Iraq, I suppose.
This would be the case if the US had have carpet-bombed Bagdad, Basra, Nadzaf, wiped out few villages, their troops tortured, killed, disappeared, raped civilians off the streets as a part of any military campaign waged there etc; (roughly 1/3 - 1/4 of the nation would get killed or lost http://www.hrw.org/photos/2002/chechnya/), the US press would had then refused to publicize proofs of those atrocities, coz it would be non-patriotic. If the US representatives would refused to negotiate or even talk with any (even the moderate and certainly not fundamentalist) representatives of the country in question (Maschadov in the Chechnya case).
If in the case of nearly any trouble the US press would say "a person of Arab (Caucasian in the Russian case) look was seen there".
Under such circumstances you may say that it is "just like the US in Iraq"
Forthemore, it seems that the Beslan attack has been performed mostly by Ossetians, Ingush and Arab muslim radicals. Whoever was it has surely nothing to do with Chechen citizens nor Maschadov.
And he's the bad guy? I don't get it.
I can see that. There must be a lot of things you don't get. I am not a Bush supporter, but the stuff Moore picks out and focuses on are just bizarre.
Reading a children's book is a good example. What the fsck did you want the president to do? Throw the book up in the air and scream like a madman? Instantly launch a bunch of counterstrikes at a then unknown target? Hold a press conference within five minutes to present a weepy announcement? Moore's portrayal of that event is weird. Is he implying that Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen and the children were an "alibi"? Is he implying that Bush should have instantly restored order instead of reading to children? Is he implying that simply reading to children is an unpresidential activity?
Moore has taken a bunch of BFD-class molehills and tried to construct a mountain out of them. Bu that mountain is very crumbly and doesn't give you much of a view when you get to the top.
Yes, he's fat and vain, but being fat and vain doesn't make you wrong when you're right.
No one, and I mean no one, is claiming that Moore is wrong using "fat and vain" as evidence. That's beyond stupid.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
The Viet Cong used Kerry's speech as propoganda and as a tool for mentally torturing our troops that were still POWs
Yes, and one weakness of a free country is that people are allowed to say things that are embarassing to that country, and which enemies can use to their advantage.
I understand that some of the people who had to undergo listening to Kerry's speach to Congress while PoWs (and presumably a lot worse at the same time) will never be able to let that go. It's going to be impossible for some of them to ever seperate in their minds Kerry's words from the conditions and abuse they were subject to.
But, if we cannot support a man for speaking what he felt to be the truth then... what WERE/ARE we fighting for?
Let's not all fall into the trap of thinking that the Viet Cong would not have come up with some other way to demoralize PoWs if they didn't get ahold of Kerry's testimony.
Problem is that people like you get hung up on the small points
You mean like people deliberately lying to me? Yeah, I guess I'm old-fashioned that way. Color me crazy, but when I know you're a liar I have a pretty hard time trusting the veracity of what comes out of your mouth.
but for many people giving out one free gun is one too many.
Well, now ain't that something! "Many people", in this case, represents a tiny but annoyingly vocal segment of the American population. The vast majority has no desire whatsoever to ban gun ownership, and would never consider repealing the Second Amendment.
In fact, it appears that the anti-gun lobby is losing ground since the number of Americans in favor of an outright ban in firearms is lower now than it's been any time during the last twenty years, and more Americans go armed today since the immediate post-World War II period.
Gun ownership is not fascism, by the way. To imply such a thing is to mark yourself as a loon.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
You have entirely missed the point of calling Bush out on his abortion, alcoholism, coke habit, etc.
The reason is that he oppresses people who have had these very problems. The right has abortions (Bush), gets divorced (Limbaugh), has affairs (Gingrich), does drugs (Bush), etc. But the right likes to claim these things are only done by evil people. The left believes that view to be wrong and points out the hypocrisy in order to make the case that the evil is not in doing those things but in oppressing, as opposed to helping, those so afflicted.
The right is in the position of the privileged class. They can do with impunity the very things that they throw the poor in jail for. That is evil and that is why the left is so loud about such issues.
Moore's film is no more propaganda than what's shown on FOX or Murdoch's radio stations. Freedom of speech should extend beyond those who own the media.
I still don't understand what it was that Kerry did that you think is wrong.
Was he supposed to cover up what he had heard reported (and presumably had seen)? Would that have stopped torture of POWs? If you were an American prison guard, and knew that some of your compatriots had been tortured and raped by the compatriots of a man in your custody, would you abuse that prisoner? (Think carefully about your answer, and check the news before you respond.)
And let's get the story straight, here. Are the Swifties saying Kerry didn't earn his medals because they saw him NOT doing what his Naval record says he did, or because they don't like the fact that they were tortured while listening to him talk about bad things that American soldiers had done?
I'm sorry, but every single argument you've offered has, at root, been emotional and not logical. Either Kerry lied, and no one told him about atrocities they'd committed (or those things never happened), or else he told the truth. Whether you WANTED the truth to be told does not affect whether it was the truth. Did those things happen? All bullshit aside, you and I both know that My Lai was not an isolated incident.
I am NOT suggesting that John Kerry is the third coming of Christ, nor am I suggesting that he's the corporeal form of Gozer the Destructor (if anyone, Clinton looked more like the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man than Kerry does). What I'm saying is that you haven't described anything bad that he did. What you've said is that you don't like him, that you wish he hadn't told what we now know to be a fairly accurate account of American soldiers' behavior in Vietnam, and that he shouldn't be president because he told the truth when it was difficult to do so. I have yet to see any quote in which he implied or stated that all US soldiers were monsters, or that all US citizens condoned such awful behavior. Your suggestion that he did so is (according to what I'M aware of) an exaggeration and a twisting of the truth, an emotionally-loaded way of describing his statements.
Honestly, I still can't follow your logic. Why shouldn't Kerry be President?
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
"The success of negative campaigning isn't just the public's fault, either; it's partly because both candidates this time really do suck."
The success of negative campaigning is due in large part to the press being pathetically unwilling to do their job. Instead of determining and reporting the truth, they take the easier route of "he said/she said" reporting where they accurately repeat whatever people say, no matter how absurd. This rewards people who are willing to lie with great authority, because the general public never hears an informed, objective perspective, only two opposing partisans presented as equals.
For example:
"You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." -- George Bush, quoted in the Washingon Post, May 31, 2003
What the US press did not do is investigate the claims, and provide some context. Specifically, they accurately reported what Bush said, but they didn't bother to do the research to determine that, in fact, Bush's statement was not at all representative of what the intelligence community thought of the trailers.
In the UK, where there's some competition in the press (so they have to actually do real work), they did the (trivial) research of actually asking intelligence people whether the claim was true, and determined that:
*At the time of this statement, the U.S. position was that some analysts thought that the trailers could possibly have been used for menufacturing weapons. --Politex, 06.09.03
Note that in the UK, the press researched the issue and reported their results, while in the US the press only reported what Bush said.
So, because the US press is lazy (and/or fearful of being accused of being "unpatriotic" for pointing out when government representatives lie) the result was that the people in the US believed that biological weapons labs had been found in Iraq, when in fact all that was found were helium production trucks used to fill balloons.
Personally, I really like the idea of he said/she said/we said. That is, after reporting accurately what everyone says, they should do their jobs and tell us what's really going on.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
The movie showed network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia. Why was he doing that, aside from the fact that men sometimes hold hands in Saudi Arabia? Why are they so warm with each other that they hold hands in public? One clue: I think we can rule out any idea that Prince Bandar actually likes George W. Bush; that would be very much against Saudi culture.
I was hoping for better than the Fifteen Hundredth Post to make this suggestion, but it goes with your comment. Plus, I need to make my crystal-ball prediction before it comes true.
I've believed, and have since early this summer (when I almost had to pay $2.00 a gallon for regular unleaded in Texas), that the Saudis are planning to play an active role in George Dubya's re-election. How can they do that, when election laws expressly forbid foreign contributions? Simple: adjust the price of oil.
Right now, I see $1.719 and think "wow, what a bargain!" But the night of 9/11, when gas lines were around the block at every station, the same price was absolutely absurd. It's only a bargain compared to the $1.80 I was paying two weeks ago, and the $1.90 I was paying earlier this year.
Now the price is dropping. Here's my prediction: prices will continue to drop right through the election, regardless of world events (short of a 9/11-style cataclysm). When Biff drives his H2 to the polls in Highland Park, he'll be thinking of how nice it is to have cheap gas again, not the 1000+ troops sent to die in Biff's name for that cheap gas.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Indeed, and many of us have seen that website. Do you believe that its claims would stand up to the same level of scrutiny that we're applying to the original film? Every single person who references that website refers to it as "59 utter lies exposed", yet you can go through the list and see Dave Kopel admit time after time that the film was truthful and then object to changes of subject, or things he thinks should have been included, or alternative conclusions he thinks should have been reached.
That page represents the sum total of your evidence???
So... obvious propoganda is bad?
No that's not true. F451 might be like the Rodney King video, but the "misleading" part is not that the officers don't beat up negros every night, rather that the media never showed the parts of that video where Rodney lunged at and tried to attack the officers. By only showing the part where twenty white officers kicked a downed black man, the media took away the context of the beating. Now, most people would nevertheless say that beating a man senseless is not the appropriate response to a suspect hitting an officer, but that is the context of the entire event, and context is important.
Likewise, Mr. Moore may show you some detail of Bush's presidency, but by leaving out the context he robs you of the ability to make an informed judgement. Actually, Moore often does even worse by not only removing the original context, but by implying a totally different, often contradictory context.
It comes down to this: context is everything. Without context, it's next to impossible to apply critical thought.
And if everyone chose "correctly"? Then what? What would that even look like, do you think?
If you have kids, you'll know that it's better to let a child fall over a couple of times while learning to walk than to prevent them from walking at all. That is an example of a best-choice, which I dub "correct," which does cause pain.
How are you so sure? Have you ever prevented one of your children from learning to walk? Do you think you could- or maybe he'd learn to walk anyhow? Or let's get less hypothetical- there must have been times where you caught your child, and there must have been times that you've let him fall. Were each of these individual choices "correct"? If you say yes, I'm going to be very confused on how you can be sure for any given fall. Your kids aren't teenagers yet, are they?
There are shades, but there is always a "most correct," and sometimes there are a couple of them.
Well, then. What is the "most correct" college for me to go to? What's the "correct" job? Is it "correct" to get married? Who is the "correct" woman for me to marry? If she's dating someone else, is it more or less "correct" to try to woo her anyway? What if he's all wrong for her? What if some people think I'm all wrong for her? Could that be "correct"?
What is the "correct" age for me to get married? To start having kids? And their "correct" names? What is the "correct" question for me to ask you right now? Is it "correct" for me to be responding to you at all?
It's just, well, since I have an expert here, I figured I'd ask as many question as I can. What's the correct car for me to buy? What's the correct color? And the correct music to listen to? I have 5 CDs; which is the "correct" one to listen to today? What is the most correct place to buy my clothes? Pens, pencils, paper... what are the correct brands? Is it more correct to sleep on my back or my stomach? How much correct information do I need before I can make the most correct correct decision? If I think I've done the correct thing, and you think I haven't, who's correct?
Or do you think it possible that a lot of these decisions don't have correct answers? Sometimes it's not just what you do, but how you do it. Sometimes there isn't a correct way to do it- each of us must do it our own way.
Imagine yourself in a room with an infinite number of closed doors, and beyond each, a mystery. Each door has signs on it, but but signs that no mortal man can read fully. Behind each door, perhaps lies another room with an infinite number of closed doors- or perhaps nothing at all. Each room is different, but each is just another room, no more right than the others- can a room be more "right" than the other rooms, after all?
But perhaps some rooms make you happier. Perhaps your happy rooms make me sad. Which rooms you like best will even change as you go. Perhaps there are multiple paths to any given room, but perhaps not, and you'll never know, because you aren't permitted to backtrack, and you're not permitted to peek. Only one thing is certain, and that is, at every moment, you must step through a door, leaving one room, entering another.
Right now, right this moment, you are about to pass through a door, and you hardly have the full moment to decide which one- you certainly can't examine them all. Tell me quickly, which door is "correct"?
Michael Moore is the Rush Limbaugh of the left, he is sloppy and his politics are often infantile - he was a Naderite in 2000, he helped elect Bush.
If you want good journalism then don't go to Rush Limbaugh, Commander Taco or Michael Moore, they all have their axes to grind. Don't go to Fox News, best still avoid the US "news" altogether, try the UK press, the Economist, Guardian, Times, BBC, Independent, Financial Times will all give a much better view of US politics than pretty much any US journalism.
Moore is simply giving the right a taste of what Fox News has done for years and to a far lesser degree.
Moore is not good journalism, he is not even particularly great as a propagandist, but he does not practice the absolutely deliberate distortions that Fox, Limbaugh, Swift Boat Veterans for Bush, etc. peddle.
Sure it would be good if US citizens actually learned to think for themselves. Since they refuse to people lime Limbaugh, Moore and Murdoch will do their thinking for them.
That is why Bush is at arround 50% in the polls instead of 15% which isw where you would expect a President whose economic plan is an utter failure, who has increased federal govt. spending more than either Carter or Clinton, who has lost millions of jobs, has stopped trying to catch Bin Laden and has instead started a $200 billion plus 1000 dead war of choice.
Bush is not a conservative, he is a complete incompetent.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I want my party back from these right wing fanatics calling themselves conservative when they don't know the meaning of the word. Back before the right turned into the religious right. Back when being a Republican stood for lower taxes, smaller government and keeping Big Brother out of your damn business. That's not the Republican party of today. Government spending is out of control, there's no such thing as an unreasonable search under Ashcroft and the number of government employees has surged more than 22% under Bush.
And my friends wonder why I'm backing Kerry. Even if he's a democrat I can't see him doing any worse than dubya.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I don't really like Michael Moore. But why is it bad that he's biased? Why is it bad that he is presenting his point of view and interpretation of events?
I watched F9/11. I didn't particularly like it. I felt the only meaningful point made in the film was the 7 minute footage of Bush just sitting there when the towers were hit by planes.
Watching that, I can't imagine anybody being impressed, and yet I heard scores upon scores of people making the patently stupid statement, "Oh, but he didn't want to scare the children."
Christ, talk about bias.
On many occasions, in Moore's film, he is misleading and deceiving, even cut-'n-pasting audio clips, or leaving out important conext.
You've just described the entire GW Bush reelection campaign, right there. How many times have we heard John Kerry is a flip-flop based upon taking statements out of context?
If you're going to whine about bias, you better be willing to whine about everyone. Otherwise you're nothing more than a biased shill yourself.
"The fact of the matter is that, eventually, the United States WILL fall and we may very well refer to the means of that as 'terrorism'."
What-the-fuck-ever. If that's what you want to believe, that's your perogative.
"Now I'm not saying that we're going to overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy in its place, but it is totally and intrinsically inaccurate to say that "Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA"."
Again, what-the-fuck-ever. Do you believe the terrorists will EVER overthrow our government and install THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT in its place?
I don't. And until they can do that, they are NOT a threat to the USofA.
"Even the terrorist act on 9/11 is stirring the pot and, if you can't see that, well..I don't know..I guess I wouldn't be surprised. Seems like most people don't anyhow.."
The problem is that YOU see EVERYTHING that happens as being the result of "terrorism".
It isn't.
"Terrorism" is the EXCUSE given to justify those actions. Most of the new laws we have to deal with were proposed BEFORE the WTC attack. But they didn't have any hope of passage.
Once there was a significant FOREIGN terrorist attack in the US, it was used to justify the passage of those laws.
Terrorism isn't the cause or the reason.
Power is the reason.
Terrorism is the excuse.
Osama will never take D.C. nor will he ever be elected President of the USofA. He and all the other terrorists will NEVER overthrow the USofA.
Only we can do that.
What would *you* have done? Just sat there?
Not being president, I really don't know. What I do know is that hindsight is a hell of a lot clearer than foresight. But let me tell you what I did. I heard about the first tower and said "holy shit!" Then I went took a shower, brushed my teeth, and went off to work. It wasn't until I got to work that I heard about the strikes.
But even though I was not the president, I can imagine some common rationales for his actions without having to dredge the deep end of the paranoia pool. Bush was reading to children with the press in attendence. He probably had only the barest of information. So do you A) immediately hold a press conference with your only comments being "no comment" (simply because you don't have sufficient information); or B) tell your aide to get more information while you continue reading to children, because you don't want to start a panic in full view of the televising press? After all, it was only seven minutes.
no, you're not a Bush supporter at all
I am not a Bush supporter, but I will not apologize for my failure to fit into your preconceptions. I am getting extemely weary of this black/white polarity people like you are insisting for this nation. It's a bigger problem then Bush or Kerry or Moore. Heck, it might even be bigger than Iraq for the damage it can ultimately do.
How dare you insinuate which of two discrete political positions I must hold merely because I'm not a Moore fan! Get your mind out of that tiny little container and see the world for what it is! It doesn't matter if Moore is right or wrong, what really matters is that this is rapidly becoming a nation that cannot think outside of the pidgeonhole.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Well said. He is also doing spectacular work of making the people of the USA look like apathetic dimwits for electing him and putting up with it.
He is embarrassing your country on the world stage.
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
The Bush regime also gave $43 million to the Taliban just a few months before 9/11 (see CNN) with the full knowledge they were harbouring bin Laden.
Gee, so according to your argument, I guess that means Bush had links to al Qaeda...
Links, please, and facts in context, too...
--- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
Paraphrase:
"It has always amazed me that the people at the bottom of American society are the ones most willing to serve in the military. They serve, so we don't have to. And all they ask in return is that we never, ever send them into war without a good reason."
Any discussion of the film that misses this point, missed the point.
--Tom
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."
Editorial Note.
You can't look at it from one side like this.
People are trying to stop the airing of it because it might effect voting.
What do you think all the current media events in favour of the government are on the air for???
What do you think we have campaines for?
To sway votes... So its fine to air media in favoure of the government but anything against we should be warey of. Can't you see how wrong this is, it's called having bias media which stops democracy from working. How can people make fair judgements if they only see one side?
There is a reason why we hear both sides in law to make fair judgements. The same needs to be in the media.
You see those commercials about what happens if you don't get enough art in school - well, listen to people tearing apart this movie and about how this thing or that thing is incorrect.
Who cares? That's not the point. I was very, very, very, and I mean VERY sceptical before I saw the movie. I read all of the websites that are critical of Moore. You could say that I had a pretty good idea about what was in the movie, and what was wrong with what was in the movie, before I ever watched it.
But then I said OK - I am going to watch this movie. And it's a cool movie. I like it. I think that if you want to tear apart the movie because it's supposed to be a "documentary" and it's "factually inacurrate" or WHATEVER is irrelevant, that's not really the way it was presented.
You have to use your imagination to understand the larger concepts and the abstract things that make the movie what it is, and similarly, you have to use your imagination to try to believe that tearing those larger, abstract concepts apart has any relevance or merit.
The movie may or may not be this or that, but one thing we need in America is a greater appreciation for art and abstract concepts.
-------------------
I think that what happened with the oil crisis, the Iran hostage crisis - which lead to the Reagan era is a natural sort of balancing out of the excesses that America still represents. Getting fundamental, conservative, and thumping bibles isn't going to stop the natural balancing acts that nature performs on superpowers, or those that try to be and/or become superpowers.
Look at Russia. They were once trying to be a superpower. Look at how now they are completely unable to prevent terrorism. The theatre, and now the school. This is what happens to superpowers. It's not good.
So while fighting against the natural balancing acts that the global environment is presenting to America might be one numb-sculled approach, the end result, the lesson that we should all learn is that it's not good to be a superpower. If you want to drive fast and not get pulled over, don't put sporty stripes and fancy spoilers on your car.
More art, less neo-con philosophy, and a greater ability to defend (that's DEFEND - not preempt). Even peace-loving hippy folks take marital arts self-defence courses from time to time. The neo-con philosophy has its own dictionary entry for defense - what most normal folks would call offense. Micheal Moore, appropriately, has his own dictionary entry for documentary - and if you don't get enough art, you won't "get" that.
Bushsupporter or not, you did avoid all the other remarks made by the original poster.
I avoided them because they didn't address my original remark about the book reading "incident". But since you bring up the Bin Laden family the third time this thread, let me answer briefly:
Yes, Bush supplied the Bin Laden family with favors. If I were president I would have done the same thing. This is, to use a very localized vernacular, a "nothingburger". Having ties to the Bin Laden family is completely immaterial. You do not condemn an entire family for the actions of someone they disowned years ago. Moore didn't bring up this topic because he was concerned about the president's ties to wealthy individuals in other nations. He brought it up solely because of the name "Bin Laden".
M.Moore just made it plain obvious Bush was and is a complete idiot without any real character
If he would have kept it at that, I probably would not have had much of a problem. Lobbing charges of lack of character and intelligence is an old and worn tactic by all sides. I ignore it when I hear it. But Moore went beyond this. His thesis wasn't "look how stupid this guy is", but rather "look how evil and conspiratorial this guy is."
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the 80se gime.change/rumsfeld.80s.jpg
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.r
America's WMD: Air Force tests "mother of all bombs"3 0311.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/2020/iraq_moab0
"In a flashy debut for its biggest non-nuclear bomb, the Air Force today dropped a 21,000-pound behemoth onto a test range in Florida"
"Anthrax sent to U.S. senate matches Army strain"n thrax.investigation/
http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/conditions/12/18/a
CNN: Army confirms anthrax production in Utah
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/12/army.anthrax/
BUSH SPURNS BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS BAN7 ,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,49425
"a 1972 treaty banning biological weapons has been added to the list of international protocols Bush has decided to ignore"
U.S. accused of trying to derail anti-torture pact
http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/torture.html
"The United States on Tuesday was accused of trying to derail a new draft international treaty against torture that has taken a decade to negotiate."
"The treaty, which is to be debated in the U.N. Economic and Social Council beginning on Wednesday, would set up an international system of inspections for all sites where prisoners were held, to insure that torture was not taking place. "
and this:
Document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key U.N. Security Council members, 905936,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239
I don't think Moore's film is the cause of "controversy". I think the hawkish Bush administration and previous republican ones are the cause of controversy. Don't shoot the messenger.
"He was a Naderite in 2000, he helped elect Bush. " If everyone in the USA voted with their hearts instead of "rationally" fearing that the wrong lizard may win, there might actually be real change. Blaming a guy for doing the right thing instead of the "smart" thing, that stinks.
Switch to Condorcet voting today!
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
"Even if everything he said was true, that doesn't make it a good idea to associate with radical anti-war groups and testify in Congress with poorly-checked facts"
I'll certainly agree with the part about poorly-checked facts. I'm not sure that associating with radical anti-war groups is a bad thing. It certainly seems to have chuffed off a lot of people around here, though!
Thanks for the rationality in your response, BTW.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
Then why does business seem as shitty as it did in January of 2002?
Not sure, our business is up. Unit volume is up, dollar volume is up, and gross margins up a few points to boot. Personal income is almost double, from '02 numbers. Most of my friends are in the same position. A few are even from 02. Fewer are worse off. Perhaps your problems are not related to the President.
And why are we supposed to be enamoured of the conservative fiscal policy of the President if it makes no difference?
I am not enamoured by any Presidents policies. I don't think that the ONE person in office is the most important factor in my personal success. I have always believed the person who has the most control over my personal success is ME. Granted, its not very convenient for laying blame, but since I take personal responsibility, I find I don't need to blame anyone anyway.
I prefer a fiscal conservative, but unfortunately, there isn't one running for President this year. W is the closest thing to a fiscal conservative, so he gets my vote. The last fiscal conservative we had as President was Reagan. It will be a while until we see someone like him again.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!