Michael Moore Posts Julian Assange's Bail

digitaldc quotes Michael Moore in a story running on the Huffington Post where he says "Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail. Furthermore, I (Michael Moore) am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars."

Comments

Re:Empty theatrics

[Pojut]

um...

"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is back in court today, and has been granted bail by a British judge. He has been in a British prison for a week after being denied bail last week. Assange is wanted for questioning for alleged sex crimes involving two women in Sweden. It is thought that one of the women, Anna Ardin, may no longer be cooperating with prosecutors."

It's good to have allies

[Animats]

Having a successful Hollywood producer with a track record of successfully embarrassing big companies and governments as a supporter can't hurt.

Re:It's good to have allies

[mckinnsb]

It looks like Assange may have found a way to generate the capital he so desperately needs to continue his fight against conspiracy in government. He would have lost completely without someone in big media with serious cash on his side. Now it looks like he might actually have a fighting chance of having some success with his goals, and staying out of prison.

Re:It's good to have allies

[BobMcD]

unless of course, you are on the receiving end of said embarrassment

So Moore might wind up doing a movie about Assange?

Re:It's good to have allies

[LWATCDR]

Except that his movies made at least one completely false statement that I know of for sure. He said that factory that was making the Titan IV was making ballistic missiles. It is not and has never been a ballistic missile. It was based on the Titan II which was ballistic missile but was retired from service long ago.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Opportunist]

You might be joking, but I can well see that, it fits Moore's style well. A "little guy" taking up and fighting the big, evil government, big evil corporations, big evil $whatever... being hunted down, being arrested, gets support from "the cloud"...

C'mon, that's a Moore movie already written.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Marcika]

It looks like Assange may have found a way to generate the capital he so desperately needs to continue his fight against conspiracy in government. He would have lost completely without someone in big media with serious cash on his side. Now it looks like he might actually have a fighting chance of having some success with his goals, and staying out of prison.

$20,000 from Moore will not pay for much -- public donations are a far bigger source of funds... Wikileaks already received $1 million in donations collected by the German Wau-Holland-Foundation. (And it needs them - given that Wikileaks needs to finance half of Manning's $100k defense costs, and Assanges UK bail of $378k...)

Re:It's good to have allies

[Joe Jay Bee]

One can be successful without being good or honest. By most standards, Mr Moore is very, very successful.

Re:It's good to have allies

[mdmkolbe]

One? Try 59 in a single film. (Ok, some of those are not complete lies, just misleading half-truths.)

Re:It's good to have allies

[LWATCDR]

I said that it was one that I knew for sure and could verify from personal knowledge.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Americano]

When he purports to be creating "documentaries," yes, it kind of does.

You see, documentaries are generally held to be factual representations of some aspect of life that the filmmaker wants to... document. Now, if Mr. Moore titled his movies with such names as "The Conspiracy that I, Michael Moore, am sure is behind the 9/11 attacks!" then you could say that they are documentaries: documenting his views and opinions.

But he represents these opinions and views and interpretations as objective, factual depictions of a situation, and they are demonstrably not in many cases. How much trust can you give to the work of a documentary filmmaker who is known to be distorting the truth, or even deliberately lying, in order to bolster his own viewpoint?

Would you trust the Discovery Channel to tell you the truth if they released a documentary purporting to show the reality of how lions and other animals interact in the wild, and that movie turned out to be Disney's The Lion King, complete with musical numbers?

Re:It's good to have allies

[Anonymous Coward]

So why did Bush allow Bin-Ladin's family fly from the country when all flights except military were grounded?

Re:It's good to have allies

[Vancorps]

So your saying one statement about a factory making missiles is false because he stated the wrong type of missile? That seems pretty disingenuous there. You could definitely call it inaccurate but saying it's completely false?

Re:It's good to have allies

[LWATCDR]

No but it erases all trust. The US has not made any new ICBMs since the MX in the late 80s. All the production lines have been closed for a while. Our current ICBMs are Minutemen which where produced in the 60s and maybe early 70s. We have updated the electronics of course. The MX was retired to meet treaty obligations.
The Trident is an SLBM and those are also out of production but we are making spare parts for them too keep them in service.
Other sites list many other errors in his movies but that was the one I knew was a total fabrication.
But since you are an AC I will explain it to you. Whenever someone presents data to me and I find some that is completely false I believe it is wise to cast all the data as false until proven other wise. If they lied about that then what else are they lying about? When a persons agenda means more then the truth they are a danger to all and should never be trusted. I am not talking about errors since we all make them but this was a claiming to be a documentary. And his point was that we where making ICBMs just like we where claiming that Iraq was.
That statement was 100% false and any fact checking effort would have proven that. He picked a factory that made ULVs that was near him and lied. If he had looked up the Titan IV he would have seen that it was not a ballistic missile but a launch vehicle.
In theory you could use it as a ballistic missile just as you could use a Learjet as a nuclear bomber but that is just more justification of a lie.

Re:It's good to have allies

[blair1q]

This is the same guy who has insinuated that George W. Bush is pals with Osama Bin Laden and specifically sent too few troops into Afghanistan to make sure Bin Laden escaped and wanted to keep his Taliban friends safe.

The first part of that is unknowable without getting W to admit it. The second is borne out by the evidence. Bush's plans for that war were not to win it but to create a reason to start a bigger war that would be profitable for his cronies for a century.

Re:It's good to have allies

[blair1q]

I started reading that, but the first "lie" was merely dramatic license. I've seen lists like this before and they're all like that.

Moore's use of dramatic methods to tell the story are not lying, not in the way that the right wing's diversions, obfuscations, and blatant lies are lying.

In the end, Moore tells you the truth, and the GOP and its corporate masters and its gibbering minions take your money and move on to their next lie.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Enderandrew]

I shouldn't be baited by AC-conspiracy-trolls, but let me just say this.

It isn't fair to say Bush is an idiot, because he was well educated. But he was naive in many ways and made Jimmy Carter look like a great speaker. He was very simple in many ways.

He was old fashioned, he saw everythin in black and white, and he drew lines in the sand. He was a hardcore conservative and he rubbed foreign leaders the wrong way because he never understood diplomacy, politics or subtlety.

I won't claim he was a great President (though perhaps history is harsher on him than it should be) but the moment you claim he was this clever, lying mastermind that took part in a conspiracy to murder thousands of innocent American civilians, you've dived off the deep end.

As for your specific question, I haven't investigaed the veracity of your claim. But given Moore's track records of bold face lies, I haven't given it much thought. Lets say for a moment that it is true.

Logically lets examine it. Bush did have some ties with oil companies. The Bin Laden family is actually a very wealthy family of legitimate business associates that have disowned their nutjob son. Parents and kids aren't automatically working together or on the same page. Lord knows I'm very different from my parents. They have criminal records for instance. Does that make me a criminal?

However, it doesn't matter given that the question is based on pure lies. The Bin Laden family wasn't allowed to fly until September 13th, when they eased the lockdown and started to allow others to fly.

In summary:

http://xkcd.com/258/

Re:It's good to have allies

[Enderandrew]

You're suggesting the first is impossible to know because we can't know his motivations. But then you claim his motivations are known.

Bush wasn't this clever mastermind you made him out to be.

Wired actually had a great article on the early failings in Iraq and Afghanistan. It came down to over-confidence that our amazing technology would solve every issue. In the end, we've had to rely more on social engineering and diplomacy on the ground, which is why we ended up needing more troops.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Cederic]

My understanding is that it's a collection of public and private individuals funding Assange's bail, not Wikileaks.

I wouldn't expect Wikileaks to seek to defend criminal charges on staff members that are entirely unrelated to their operations, although I could probably argue why they should :)

Re:It's good to have allies

[Enderandrew]

Ignore 99% of the argument (that the whole conspiracy is ludacris) and focus on the fact that I knowingly admit I haven't bothered to heavily research the specific claim.

I explain my reasoning. Moore has a track record of flat out lying about everything under the sun. I don't waste my time assuming his claim is the truth until I can find proof otherwise, especially when logic dictates it is fucking ludacris.

Show me some definitive proof the claim is valid and then I'll entertain the rest of the discussion.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Enderandrew]

I'm neither on the left or right. I prefer to stand with the facts. I hate Moore because the dude is a flat-out liar. Lies don't provide anyone a service other than propagandists whose positions are so weak that facts can't support them.

And I didn't say Moore should be discredited because people are CRITICAL of him. I said Moore should be discreditted because he routinely lies about easily verifiable facts.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Marcika]

My understanding is that it's a collection of public and private individuals funding Assange's bail, not Wikileaks.

I wouldn't expect Wikileaks to seek to defend criminal charges on staff members that are entirely unrelated to their operations, although I could probably argue why they should :)

Yes, you're quite right -- I didn't even think of the possibility that the other Wikileaks boardmembers might deny to post bail from WL funds...

Re:It's good to have allies

[Enderandrew]

He later insinuates that Bush specifically sent too few troops to Afghanistan to protect Bin Laden aad the Taliban.

I don't read anyone on the far left or far right.

And I shouldn't have to try and defend that I'm not on the far-right just because I'm calling Moore a liar.

You might want to note that no major Democrat politician will associate closely with Moore. That should be more telling than anything.

Or you could do something crazy like take two seconds and see for yourself that he lies about clear verifiable facts.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Johnny5000]

I'm neither on the left or right. I prefer to stand with the facts. I hate Moore because the dude is a flat-out liar.

Moore and I have pretty similar political views in a lot of ways, and I can't stand him either for the same reasons. I like some of the work he does, but he goes and ruins it all with sloppy journalism and outright lies, and in doing so tarnishes the rest of us who share his political ideology.

Re:It's good to have allies

[blair1q]

So you're saying W has admitted he pulled his punches in going for bin Laden? Because it's the first I've heard of it.

Or are you saying that they blamed the technology?

Re:It's good to have allies

[segedunum]

This is the same guy who has insinuated that George W. Bush is pals with Osama Bin Laden

Well, we can only go on what we know and we know that Bush and Bin Laden, certainly through his family, have invested in a lot of companies together. The Bin Ladens are very well known, wealthy and extremely well connected in Saudi Arabia. The notion that Bush knows nothing about him is just plain fishy.

...and specifically sent too few troops into Afghanistan to make sure Bin Laden escaped and wanted to keep his Taliban friends safe.

Well, all we know is that not a trace of Osama Bin Laden has ever been found. Not a single lead. Not a sausage. Nothing. This is from a guy and his supporters who are supposed to be propping up a worldwide terrorism network who are well connected and well funded. Oh, and there's a lot of companies with directors who are friends of George Bush who are making quite a bit of money from the 'rebuilding' of Afghanistan. Basically, it's in their interests to keep the whole thing going.

I think people are more then entitled to ask what the hell is going on. The trouble with this stuff is that you almost get a kind of 'reverse conspiracy theory' effect and governments have learned to use this phenomenon, especially when they do something bare faced and obvious. Basically, it's so unbelievable for most people that no amount of evidence will convince them that there is even the smallest thing wrong. Note, we're not talking about grand conspiracy theories here, we're just talking about admitting that something is wrong. The notion that there is something wrong and the consequences would rock their cosy little world too much, and so, they will go into denial and even defend the status quo in order to protect their own bubble of perceived security.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Enderandrew]

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/15-12/ff_futurewar

Re:It's good to have allies

[Enderandrew]

Actually, we've had a fairly good idea where Bin Laden is for years and years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/18/osama-bin-laden-pakistan-nato

The problem is that getting him means rolling into Pakistan. And while the conspiracy nuts love to suggest the US wants to invade every country it can, the US in reality has chosen not to go after Bin Laden because it means rolling into Pakistan.

Re:It's good to have allies

[blair1q]

What sort of "evil genius" does it take to say "let bin Laden get out of the country, then we'll start looking at Iraq like Wolfiwoot wants."?

Re:It's good to have allies

[blair1q]

So you're saying they blamed the technology.

Makes sense. The GOP isn't big on blaming the soldiers or themselves.

Re:It's good to have allies

[segedunum]

The Bin Laden family is actually a very wealthy family of [legitimate] business associates....

Yes, they certainly are.

.....that have disowned their nutjob son.

Have they really? Do we have any evidence for that? I knew there was going to be some kind of great punchline to wave this away, because even the Bin Laden's family status is just far, far too undeniable for anyone. I love the word 'legitimate' by the way, just to give it all some credibility and a nice flourish to try and emphasise a differentiation that you have no idea exists.

The Bin Laden family wasn't allowed to fly until September 13th, when they eased the lockdown and started to allow others to fly.

That's perfectly OK then, if true. It still doesn't answer the question of why, however.

Re:It's good to have allies

[segedunum]

I don't waste my time assuming his claim is the truth until I can find proof otherwise, especially when logic dictates it is fucking ludacris.

I believe the word you're looking for is ludicrous - or in this case it means "It's so fucking unbelievable that I don't want to even contemplate it, so I'll defend against it".

I'll throw you a piece of logic. Why would the family of a terrorist responsible for a massive attack and loss of life be allowed to fly out of the country two days (by your admission, anyway) after said attack? I'm sure the efficient intelligence service found out that the Bin Laden family, minus Osama of course, rescues orphaned kittens and so couldn't be a threat but that still doesn't mean that he wouldn't try and contact them or try and obtain money.

Re:It's good to have allies

[segedunum]

Nevertheless, companies where Bush's friends are directors (Halliburton, most notably) have profited handsomely.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Anonymous Coward]

"I wouldn't trust a single thing he says, even this."

With all due respect :

who the fuck are YOU ?

Re:It's good to have allies

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

"I wouldn't trust a single thing he says, even this."

With all due respect :

who the fuck are YOU ?

In fairness, he's oodaloop. It says so at the top of his post.

I'm IrrepressibleMonkey. You're posting anonymously. I'd ask; "who the fuck are you?" But frankly I don't care.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Enderandrew]

War is almost always profitable from contractors.

I'm not personally aware of Bush having strong ties to Halliburton, but it wouldn't surprise me. I know Cheney used to work for them, but he famously challenged people to look on fact-check.org to verify that he never received money from Halliburton since leaving their employ.

Halliburton profited more from reconstruction in Iraq than going after the Taliban in Afghanistan. I'm not sure how Halliburton profiting proves that Bush was part of a conspiracy on 9/11.

I'd like to go back to my above point. Bush wasn't a clever mastermind. He was simple and transparent. And while most people don't like the guy, you're going to have a hard time selling me on the notion that he signed off on murdering thousands of American civilians.

Re:It's good to have allies

[bussdriver]

I've seen people debate obvious stuff; you can argue anything - I've seen it and you can even be cogent and logical and still be completely off the deep end - no tricks are needed, just some skipping of facts or misinterpretation. I've seen people trying and believing themselves to be honest come up with some stupid BS and not realize what they are skipping or misunderstanding. Its hard not to do on something emotional let alone people purposely twisting things just slightly which is equally difficult to prove-- intent is hard to prove.

Moore can be completely honest but can get pretty close to somebody intentionally trying to fool people. Look up: Cognitive Dissonance. No, read a book on it, you can't "get it" just looking it up on wikipedia.

I knew a philosophy prof who argued extremely well that the moon landings were fake and to this day I don't know what he really thinks but he can raise a ton of good questions on multiple levels on something so obvious-- in fact he can do a really good number on science itself since its almost entirely based upon inductive reasoning and observation. Anyhow the point is, that there are lies debunking truths Moore tells or misleading things Moore does that are blown up that shouldn't be or fail to change the point being made that are not worth consideration and then there are things where he is outside of reasonable fair play (like dramatizing) that may or may not be dishonest about. Its also possible he is just wrong sometimes... you know, like most Americans were suckered into stupid things for YEARS after 9/11 (I wasn't and all I get is being smug; no t-shirt.)

Documentaries have bias; being boring and overtly factual does not change anything - if you think his documentaries are merely commentaries than you have a LOT to learn.... you'd probably not object to Texas school books either...

Re:It's good to have allies

[slick7]

Having a successful Hollywood producer with a track record of successfully embarrassing big companies and governments as a supporter can't hurt.

Also a front row seat for another political assassination, definite Oscar material.

Re:It's good to have allies

[bussdriver]

Fox News had a documentary on how the moon landings were faked by JFK. It was done in a more traditional styling.

As far as Moore, he could be so solid he is untouchable to any reasonable person-- but I don't think as many people would watch his films and regardless, the powerful groups he upsets have so much P.R. dishonestly defending them its disingenuous to claim they are being unfairly slandered -- which the P.R. firms would claim REGARDLESS, and spend millions to smear Moore as they have been. Moore isn't perfect, but my point is that millions of dollars of expert smearing and next to nothing on his side to counter puts him in a worse situation than a modern presidential candidate-- it doesn't matter what the truth is because propaganda creates its own "truths" and he'd be in no better shape if he was 100% factual just like the moon landing "hoax." (Which has almost no money promoting it; just an experiment in propaganda fox news tried a decade ago.)

Parent's lion king comparison is over the top but I'm not going to call him a liar for his misinterpretations.

FYI: I am a Moore customer but I'm not a "fan" - if you have heroes / profits you need to grow up.

Re:It's good to have allies

[slick7]

Nutjob and liar. What a great combination. It is a shame because he tackles issues that do deserve some attention, and then he invalidates the discussion his his bullshit.

These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Maintenance Goof]

You are correct entirely! The factory in Littleton now makes components for such things and for stuff that is top secret. Just because the factory makes components that can be used for making such weapons and does other stuff that is classified, does not mean they make anything at all. This is just like the damned liberals trying to say that selling a 'model' of a machine gun is almost the same as selling the machine gun. Just because the same mail order company sells parts and tools that could be used to make the model functional is no reason to say they are essentially selling machine guns. Did I mention that they also have instructions for the conversion available? Decent hard working business men make components that can be used on ICBM's because that is what they love to do. It is a blessing that they are so well rewarded by our military while they do what they love to do so well. Moore is so full of it. Wiki leaks proves that messengers deserve to be shot while important decision makers need to be rewarded for making tough and merciless decisions. I don't trust Michael Moore any more that I would trust George Bailey, both of them are mean and have anger issues. Mr. Potter is someone we can depend on however. Michael Moore clearly has issues, and often shows compassion. If there is one thing we all know, it is the fact that compassion is a code word for communism. Oh, and did I forget to mention that I am not a crank? Sorry, my bad.

Re:It's good to have allies

[TheTurtlesMoves]

You mean something in the media is misleading or misrepresented? Seriously, get a clue. All media is like this. Hell /. is like this.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Hatta]

59 lies in 122 minutes? That's just about 1 lie every 2 minutes. How many times do you think a White House Press Secretary lies in a 2 minute Q/A period?

Re:It's good to have allies

[h4rr4r]

Actually, someone else in the White House let them go after the FBI investigated them for 2 weeks

So what you are saying is the white house let them leave after 9/11.

The white house is home and office space for more than one person you know.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Americano]

Let's be clear: I'm not defending FOX by criticizing Moore. I dislike the lies-masquerading-as-truth tactic when it's used by anybody. Moore just happens to be the person under discussion, if you'd prefer to substitute "Glenn Beck" or "Rush Limbaugh" anywhere you read Moore's name, I'd have no objection to that.

Yes, the Lion King comparison was an exaggeration-for-effect. But the principle stands: If you are going to claim to be a documentary film-maker, you can't just make up your own set of facts that suit the conclusion you're trying to draw, and then call that a documentary. You *can* show certain sets of facts and paint a picture that supports your conclusions, but Moore even goes beyond that at times.

The difference that I'm getting at is this: if the Discovery Channel chose to create a documentary about the "social" structure and cub-rearing behaviors of groups of lions, and deliberately avoided showing or focusing on the violent nature of lions hunting, that would still be a documentary. Would it provide a slanted view of lions, taken by itself? Absolutely - it might give people the impression that lions are just big kitties with pleasant dispositions who eat sunshine and fairy farts.

Likewise, you could produce a documentary about lions showing the violence of a pride of lions hunting down and killing a gazelle. Taken by itself, that might also give people a slanted view of lions as killing machines, with no social interaction, no focus or interest in life beyond the hunt and killing things in as bloody a way as possible.

Both of those would, however, still be documentaries - both present a LIMITED but FACTUAL aspect of a particular topic. The Lion King, however, is straight-up fiction. If somebody presented the Lion King to me as a documentary, that person would not be trustworthy to me, because they have shown at least once that they have no concept of what factual information consists of, which calls into doubt all of their past and future assertions of fact.

Re:It's good to have allies

[oodaloop]

Tell that to the people who watched it. Everyone I know who watched it without looking up the evidence said that Bush let them go. The way it was presented made it seem like Bush did it. The scene takes place at the airport on the day flights are starting up again after 9/11 with the bin Ladens waiting to fly. They didn't actually fly for another 2 weeks, once they were cleared by the FBI. But again, Moore made it seem they flew that day. It was all deliberately misleading and left out crucial facts. The whole movie is that way.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Attila Dimedici]

Up until now, I have been ambivalent about Assange. He has said some things that indicate he views himself as being at war with the U.S. with the goal of destroying the U.S. government (not causing it to be reformed, but actually destroying it). On the other hand, he has released documents that indicate that Iraq did indeed have WMDs at the time of the invasion and that Iraq had a plan to work on obtaining nuclear weapons.
Now with Michael Moore strongly in his corner declaring him a "journalist" (or is that "journolist") it is clear that he is a completely unreliable source and I have to question the reliability of the documents he has released.

Re:It's good to have allies

[LWATCDR]

Actually the factory didn't make any parts used in ICBMs. Just the Titan IV. Just let go of the fanboi worship and face facts that Moore at best did zero fact checking or at worst flat out lied.
The rest was just dumb.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Americano]

Considering 4 of his movies are included in this list of the "highest grossing documentaries, 1982-Present" I suspect he'd be just fine with the fact that people call them documentaries.

The Bush family and the bin Ladens are friends; did little George have play dates with Osama? I don't know but the family ties are significant.

the "families" have business ties, certainly; is that enough to support his claims that Pres. Bush is somehow protecting Osama Bin Laden from capture by sending too few troops, and diluting the mission so that we forget about him? That's a pretty humongous stretch.

As far as the difference between the Titan II and the Titan IV - if you don't know the difference, isn't it important to find out before you swallow everything he says about the purpose, use, and manufacture of them?

What you've basically said is, "I don't care if he's actually right, I agree with his agenda, so I'm glad he's successful in getting his message out, even if he has to lie and distort the truth in order to do so."

Re:It's good to have allies

[Americano]

No, maybe you should read what I wrote.

Misleading and misrepresenting facts to support an agenda is a problem, and it undermines any sense of trust in anything the person who is lying says, or has said: when that trust is broken, it calls into question *everything* that person tells you.

That's as true for Fox News as it is for Mr. Moore.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Americano]

Where exactly did I defend Fox and say that they were totally factual, whereas Michael Moore wasn't?

If you want to make some easy points at Fox News' expense, fine, but please don't paint my criticism of Mr. Moore as somehow also being a tacit defense or endorsement of the "news" perpetrated by Fox.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Americano]

I'm sorry you're so angry. I'll pray for you, that you'll find Jesus' love. I'll also write in to Sean Hannity and ask him to do the same. He's a good man, that Sean Hannity, doing the Lord's work.

Re:It's good to have allies

[anyGould]

Yes, you're quite right -- I didn't even think of the possibility that the other Wikileaks boardmembers might deny to post bail from WL funds...

Actually, I'd be very disappointed if Wikileaks used their money to pay his bail - those donations are intended to keep the work going. And considering the amount of bouncing they've had to do recently to stay online, I think they'll need the cash...

Re:It's good to have allies

[LWATCDR]

Nope because it wasn't a missile at all.
The Titan IVs only function is to life satellites into orbit.
It is as different as a bomber from an airliner or a tank from a truck.
The Titan IV didn't even have the correct type of guidance system to be a deliver a warhead. It didn't fit in any silos, and the only two places that can launch it are above ground pads at Cape Canaveral and VAFB. It was as much of an ICBM as the Falcon 9 is.

Re:It's good to have allies

[anyGould]

I think Moore is a necessary evil. Evil because he does tend to overstate his case, and (more annoyingly to me) he forgoes the quiet "show the truth" for showboating (i.e. showing how the Canadian medical system works as a comparison to US = useful. Parking off Cuba yelling for medical care = stupid).

But he is necessary, if only as the counterpoint to the O'Reillys and Limbaughs of the world - liberals get screwed too often by being the only ones compromising in politics. They need Moore anchoring the far left.

Re:It's good to have allies

[LWATCDR]

"Moore's use of dramatic methods to tell the story are not lying, not in the way that the right wing's diversions, obfuscations, and blatant lies are lying."
So his movies are works of fiction?
You can not have it both ways. It is a drama or it is documentary. And his point was that the US was making ICBMs which the US has not done in years. We signed an arms control agreement and because of that we retired our newest ICBM the MX because it was too big and are using older Minutemen missiles. PER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
So no you are saying that it is okay for him to state something clearly false to get his point across.
You maybe okay with that but I am not. Don't call it a documentary and then take that level of dramatic license.

Re:It's good to have allies

[hey!]

Well, I'm ambivalent about the guy.

On one hand, I'd prefer for people to engage in a fair, honest and open debate, scrutinizing the arguments and supporting evidence for all sides, condemning sensational, propagandistic methods no matter in whose favor those methods are employed.

On the other hand, that preference makes me a lonely, lonely man.

What most people seem to want is to force people who disagree with them to put down the tools of propaganda without being required do so themselves. They want ideas they don't like to be easy to refute. They want the reassurance of only hearing opinions that confirm what they already believe. They want to be patted on the back for thinking the way everyone else does, but expressing it in a slightly different way. In other words, they're more than delighted to be mental sheep in wolves' clothing.

Let me tell you, being the one who points out the irrationality of believing in and dishonesty of promoting your side's urban legend du jour does not earn you gratitude or popularity.

Now I think to actually earn the label "honest",it's not enough to stick to the truth. You have to speak the whole truth without distortion or distraction. That kind of honesty exists, but it is exclusively a private virtue. If honesty were a commodity, it would have no market value.

Under the circumstances, I'd say Mr. Moore at least serves a useful function. He provides at least a *kind* of balance to right wing and commercial propaganda. It makes no sense to demand he be scrupulous and fair because that is not a standard to which we as a society hold our information sources.

Short of developing a replacement for humanity as we know it, dueling propaganda is as close to balance as we're ever likely to get.

Re:It's good to have allies

[losfromla]

... especially when logic dictates it is fucking ludacris.

When exactly did Ludacris become involved? Do you have proof that he did it? Why if your proof is so solid is Ludacris still a free man? Nothing here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludacris indicates involvement with terrorist organizations.

P.S. I believe he prefers that you capitalize his name, even if it is a stage name and even if you think he's a terrorist.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, all we know is that not a trace of Osama Bin Laden has ever been found."

Except for the ONE time when Spec-Ops in Afghanistan had him zeroed in (visual sight) and passed that info up the chain of command, which fell on deaf ears, and they never received the order for Air-Strike. Or, was it the State Department that stepped in and specifically stated to said Spec-Ops team to not kill him. I forget which it is. Killing your bogeyman so early in the game would have had too many positive repercussions...

Citation? Try 60 Minutes.

Re:It's good to have allies

[MichaelSmith]

But also the Judge has to be convinced that Assange won't just write off the bail money. So it is best if it comes from friends.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Khyber]

"This is the same guy who has insinuated that George W. Bush is pals with Osama Bin Laden"

This is actually a well-known fact.

Oil barons collude with each other all the time, this is how OPEC formed.

"specifically sent too few troops into Afghanistan to make sure Bin Laden escaped and wanted to keep his Taliban friends safe."

Someone forget we were the ones that armed and trained the Taliban? OF COURSE WE LET THEM GO, DUH!

You know absolutely nothing about covert operations or coups.

Re:It's good to have allies

[misexistentialist]

Moore is rather amateurish, but where was the professional coverage of the flight? Even if Moore got it mostly wrong, letting bin Laden's relatives go days/weeks after 9/11 is outrageous when the government is willing to play dirty tricks on American citizens in the name of "anti-terrorism". Bin Laden's family should have been wiped out way before the first American child was felt up at an airport.

Re:It's good to have allies

[TheP4st]

I won't claim he was a great President (though perhaps history is harsher on him than it should be) but the moment you claim he was this clever, lying mastermind that took part in a conspiracy to murder thousands of innocent American civilians, you've dived off the deep end.

And if one were to suggest that he may have been an useful idiot for the real powers to be?

Re:It's good to have allies

[operagost]

Too bad Michael Moore only likes to expose the huge corporations he doesn't have stock in. He's also not very good at actual fact checking. Assange could give him supposed state secrets written with crayon on a piece of construction paper and as long as it agreed with his world view, he'd buy it.

Re:It's good to have allies

[operagost]

He was a hardcore conservative

"No child left behind" and the Medicare prescription benefit are not conservative policies.

Re:It's good to have allies

[oodaloop]

Bin Laden has something like 55 siblings. His family outcast him years before 9/11 and he hasn't been in contact since. There was no reason to hold his family, so the FBI let them go after duly investigating them. That had nothing to do with the current TSA regulations.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Thelasko]

Except that his movies made at least one completely false statement that I know of for sure.

One* completely false statement put him on the slippery slope to becoming another member** of the 9/11 Truth Movement., discrediting him completely.

*Probably more than one false statement, and quite a few misleading ones.
**I can find no evidence of him being a part of the "9/11 Truth Movement", but many people tried very hard to make it seem like he was/is.

Re:It's good to have allies

[LWATCDR]

So you need your own liar to match O'Reilly and Limbaugh?....
Hummmm so you are fine with O'Reilly and Limbaugh since they are no worse than than Moore who you think is a necessary evil?
Sorry I hate them all for being evil.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Daimaou]

Anybody who uses the terms "right wing," "left wing," "Republicans," or "Democrats," prior to unleashing some political invective instantly loses all credibility with me. Considering the current state of the U.S. government, attributing negative tendencies or blame for our myriad problems on one political stance or party (especially when that attribute is lying) tells me that you are an ideologue who is either blinded by devotion, or simply not paying attention.

Re:It's good to have allies

[wondafucka]

Having a successful Hollywood producer with a track record of successfully embarrassing big companies and governments as a supporter can't hurt.

Yes it can hurt. 100% of the right wing people I talk to dismiss anything Mr Moore has to say or any of his causes automatically. Of course these same people would dismiss any change in the social order or method of communication, such as a wiki in general, and whistleblowing in specific.

(Full disclosure: There is a laundry list of people I dismiss whenever I hear anything, _they_ say).

Re:It's good to have allies

[dbIII]

This is the same guy who has insinuated that George W. Bush is pals with Osama Bin Laden and specifically sent too few troops into Afghanistan to make sure Bin Laden escaped and wanted to keep his Taliban friends safe.

That's one extreme view to get out of the total cockup where the professional military were pulled out to let the CIA come in and take the credit, but I can see where it would come from. If you assume the CIA are competent it would be easy to come to the conclusion that they just let him go instead of the major stuffup that actually happened. Some clown had the idea of telling locals with mixed loyalties what the plan was, Bin Laden heard about it and walked away. It's so stupid it sounds deliberate but the history of the CIA is full of plenty of mistakes like that so I should be put down to mere incompetence.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Falconhell]

Education is no barrier to being an idiot, (Look in the mirror)Bush being a classic example too.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Cl1mh4224rd]

This is the same guy who has insinuated that George W. Bush is pals with Osama Bin Laden

[...] The notion that Bush knows nothing about him is just plain fishy.

Wait, what? So simply knowing about a person makes them your "pal"?

Re:It's good to have allies

[moortak]

It could very well hurt. Michael Moore is a politically polarizing figure. The last thing Wikileaks needs is a new reason for half of the US to hate them.

Re:It's good to have allies

[misexistentialist]

Rich people don't speak out against their feudal government--at least not until they're ready to go into the mountains. But the US government's special protection of the bin Ladens from the "angry American mob" not only reinforced Osama's contempt for the US support of Saudia Arabia, but also made it easier for him to play the "prodigal son", since even as he gives up everything, he knows that his large family is comfortable and secure. He would have to wait almost 2 years to feel the warmth of such satisfaction again

Re:It's good to have allies

[MrKaos]

Whenever someone presents data to me and I find some that is completely false I believe it is wise to cast all the data as false until proven other wise. If they lied about that then what else are they lying about?

Out of curiosity, do you apply the same logic to governments?

Re:It's good to have allies

[sjames]

So, if Stephen Hawking should ever make a single factual error however small or unrelated to his primary point, we should burn his books and drum him out of Cambridge?

Pretty much any documentary is going to include interpretation which may prove unfounded later. Much like we were presented with hunched over knuckle dragging cavemen for years before they figured out that the particular skeleton they based that on was a result of arthritis.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Americano]

Let me frame it in a different manner for you, since it's obvious that your personal admiration for Mr. Moore is interfering with your ability to process criticism of his methods:

Do you believe Fox News will tell you the truth? If not, why not? And if not, what's your immediate reaction to this opening phrase: "I heard on Fox that nobody likes Congress' plan to..."

Are you really going to argue that lying, twisting the facts, and outright fabrication while claiming you are factually reporting a story doesn't diminish the trustworthiness of a person or news organization?

Really?

Re:It's good to have allies

[Americano]

Completely lame response.

Guess we're even.

Re:It's good to have allies

[sjames]

If you look up a bit, the conversation was about a single particular error, identifying the Titan IV as a ballistic missile. If you had some other examples in mind or believed the issue was larger than that, you should have said so! This is /., not the psychic friends network.

Perhaps your personal disgust for Moore is so strong you can't imagine anyone not retching at the very hint of his name?

So, howsabout a cite or even a ferinstance of something more serious than thinking the Titan IV is a ballistic missiles?

You should note that I take what Moore says with a grain of salt. I take what most people say with a grain of salt. Fox news and CNN call for a good bit more salt than that. I place more trust in Moore to at least get the upshot right, but that trust is far from absolute.

Even Fox news can provide some information. In your example, I can trust that Congress plans something to do with X, but I'll need more sources to determine what that something really is. I can trust, however, that there are people upset about it, that's a given these days. If they said everyone likes the plan, I would doubt it.

Re:It's good to have allies

[therealkevinkretz]

And did so under Clinton as well, when they were handed some of the same types of no-bid contracts that, when granted under W, are bleated about frequently.

Re:It's good to have allies

[LWATCDR]

You put this down to a simple factual error. The thing is that he wanted to show that the US was making ICBM which he could not. The US hasn't produced any ICBMs for years. We signed an international agreement on that subject and have been following. In fact we destroyed our newest ICBMs the MX, We have destroyed all our IRBMs "the Pershing II", we destroyed all or SRBMs "Pershing Is and Lancer missiles" long before the movie was shot. So he wanted to show that the US was building missiles just like we where accusing Iraq of but he couldn't.
So he made it up to prove a point that wasn't true.
I have heard of many other lies but this one is one that I can verify completely from my own knowledge without having to "trust" other sources. To me this one was just so blatant that it makes my head hurt. If he has asked anybody that worked their if it was an ICBM they could have told him know. If he had looked it up in any book on Space flight he could have found out. If he had asked the Air Force and or NASA they could have told him.
I am sure that you can find many more errors and if you research them you can find people as knowledgeable as I am in those subject areas that can verify them for you.
BTW the MLRS in service that that time is not counted as a SRBM because it was unguided and unguided short range rockets are not counted. The newer guided MLRS and ATACMs had be talked about with Russia and are forbidden to carry nuclear weapons and their are restrictions on their range and payload. Of course chemical and biological warheads are forbidden completely.
Just in case you find sites that try and contradict me miss using the MLRS and ATACMs.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Enderandrew]

In many ways he was the exact opposite of what I would want from a President, which is funny that I find myself defending him from time to time. I think there are a lot of lies and BS about him. The media crucified the guy about shit that largely wasn't true.

But you're right in that he wasn't fiscally conservative. He spent and spent and spent and spent. People said he hated the little guy, but I don't believe that is true.

He was socially conservative however.

Me, I'm all for being socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Americano]

You should note that I take what Moore says with a grain of salt.

So you're saying we're in agreement, that a history of inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and bald-faced lies undermine the trustworthiness of a news source, whether it's Mr. Moore, or Fox News.

Good, I'm glad we're on the same page. If you look back up, the specific comment I responded to was "I'm sure that single incorrect statement completely invalidates the rest of his work."

And when "the rest of his work" claims to be documentaries, his claims that are shown to be inaccuracies or lies certainly call the rest of his assertions into question. If someone gives you bad information, you don't keep trusting everything they say as if it's obviously true. I have very little trust for a "documentary" as an information source if it's going to require me to spend months researching and verifying all the claims made in it.

Re:It's good to have allies

[sjames]

Going back a bit though, the thrust of his point was that the plant made military hardware. While it is true that some Titan IVs were used for launching weather sats, they were USAF rockets and they did carry military satellites that have, in fact, been used to target missiles on ground targets.

I do think he overstated things there, but to claim there was no truth at all to his primary point is also overstating things. It is fair to say that the plant in question had a primarily military mission.

Re:It's good to have allies

[sjames]

Honestly it sounds like you doubt him far more than I do, but you knew that.

To say we are on the same page would be an inaccuracy and a misrepresentation. We may be in the same book though so I won't place you in the morons and liars category just yet.

Re:It's good to have allies

[LWATCDR]

The Titan IV was also used for space probes and comsats. Every booster including the Falcon 9 has been used to loft military payloads The only exception I can think of is the Saturn Family. And he said it was being used to build missiles. So no at this point we are making excuses.
The Titan IV is not a weapon of mass destruction which Moore claimed it was. Even to say that it launches the satellites that target missiles is a big stretch in the term. Does that make the semi-truck that carries the satellite to launch site a weapon of mass destruction? What about the computers that download the images?
Of course those same satellites are also used to monitor weapons limitations agreements and have even been used to monitor ceasefires.
Under NO international agreement of definition is a an imaging satellite considered a weapon of mass destruction! Over stated? Yes it was over stated to the point that it was a complete fiction. Or are you going to claim that Japan, Germany, and Brazil all count as having weapons of mass destruction since all of them have imaging satellites in orbit.
As to it having a primary military mission. Maybe but so do many facilities in like military hospitals, airports, training centers, and even infantry units but none of them have anything to do with weapons of mass destruction.
Moore literally said that the Titan IV factory was building weapons of mass destruction. Not that it was a building a rocket that is used by the military as well as civilians but weapons of mass destruction.
It is simple as that. Is the Titan IV a weapon of mass destruction or a satellite launcher. Since it cares no nuclear warhead I say the answer is clear and Moore flat out lied.
In this case it is completely black and white.

Re:It's good to have allies

[sjames]

It is indeed black and white. You see only the white, Moore sees only the black. The rest of us see that from a step or two back it looks gray.

Re:It's good to have allies

[LWATCDR]

You see grey because you want too. I will simply ask you one question.
Is a satellite launch vehicle a weapon of mass destruction? Because under no international law or agreement is the Titan IV listed as a weapon system.
If you know of any I would love to see a reference.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Relyx]

He was granted bail on appeal today, just in the last few hours.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11989216

Re:Doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

Even many people on the left hate Moore. Not help I would want.

But a lot of people in the middle and somewhat on the left think he makes some brilliant points.

I applaud Mr. Moore for doing this.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Kiralan]

Looks like it is in the works: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_wikileaks_assange LONDON – A British judge granted bail to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday, but he remained in custody pending a possible appeal.

So basically..

[Anrego]

Michael Moore style drama, sensationalism, and bias meets wikileaks style cold hard data. This should be interesting

I do agree that _all_ governments seem to have gotten a little too used to being able to work in secret.. and wikileaks might just curb some of the insanity by making the question “what if this gets out” a little more real. That said I do think they go a bit far.

Re:So basically..

[aztracker1]

First off, I can't stand Michael Moore, mainly because he distorts and outright makes up "facts" in his pseudo documentaries. As for wikileaks, my main issue with them is they "sit" on their data, and seem to be releasing as a media push, instead of as-available.

Re:So basically..

[harkabeeparolyn]

You ought to love Michael Moore because he lies in his documentaries. Lies and distortion wouldn't be so prevalent in our political discourse if they were not effective. Sticking to the truth is just a noble way to lose. The truth will never be enough to get the overfed, undereducated and terminally distracted illiterati to act. As long as the mob is moving in the right direction, I don't really care why anymore.

Re:So basically..

[aztracker1]

Except, I don't agree with the direction the Mob(s) are moving, which is tending to be more government (in scope, size and scale) along with more government intrusion into my life.

Posts it where??

[OzPeter]

Someone tell me the IP address of the website where I see Assange's bail.

Re:Posts it where??

[oDDmON oUT]

Don't have an IP handy, but this might do:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/14/julian-assange-bail-grant_n_796421.html

Re:Posts it where??

[JamesP]

It's 127.0.0.1

But don't hack it please!!

Re:Association with Michael Moore

[shentino]

In the court of public opinion perhaps.

I still have an unreasonably optimistic belief that british crown court will be less easily swayed.

Re:Doomed

[Pojut]

I despise Moore as a person. I enthusiastically applaud his work in pulling off the lamb outfit from world governments and corporations.

It's kind of like Mel Gibson...sure, he may be a dick, but he makes awesome movies.

DailyKos

[Frankie70]

He has crossposted it to DailyKos also -> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/14/928855/-Why-Im-Posting-Bail-Money-for-Julian-Assange

Re:Association with Michael Moore

[slimshady945]

Two douches in one box.

I think I saw that video...

Re:Alternative headline

[Austerity Empowers]

Which for those of us on the fence about Mr. Assange's activities, may have helped us see him as more villain than hero.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Duradin]

I can't wait until Moore doesn't do enough to keep the rabid Anonymous horde at bay.

"He's not helping Wikileaks enough! Burn him!"

Re:Some concert in North Korea

[Motard]

Worse was that Sarkozy chased a rabbit in his office.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Stooshie]

They have 2 hours to appeal. What can have changed in two hours that another judge would reverse the decision?

War Economy

[digitaldc]

'They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!'

I don't see anything changing, really.

Inaccurate summary

[Geoffrey.landis]

How does that help Assange when he was denied bail?

He was granted bail.

The article says that "a number of Assage's wealthy friends" pledged the $317,000 bail-- the summary is vastly inaccurate saying "Michael Moore" posted the bail.

Re:Inaccurate summary

[6031769]

Quite so, especially seeing that one of those contributing was John Pilger. Nowhere near as contentious as Moore - one might even say "respected".

ummmm....

[BigBadBus]

Moore has only posted SOME of the bail money; the title of the article needs changing.

Re:ummmm....

[caluml]

Yep. Quite a few other non-US famous people have stepped up to put up bail money, and let him stay in their 600 acre mansion.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[BobMcD]

So, since he's fat, he's lazy? Piercing insight, that.

I don't care much for Moore, but he's doing the right thing here, so maybe store the venom up for a day when he's not?

uhhhh, thanks, but...

[HeckRuler]

That's probably going to hurt Julian in the long run. Michael Moore is kind of the Rush Limbaugh of the Liberals, and as odd as it is, it seems that the two-party system here has decided that Wikileaks is on the liberal side. So this will only re-enforce that.

I'm still confused why the people that are supposed to be for a smaller government would be nay saying evidence that big government is doing horrible things behind our backs.

Re:uhhhh, thanks, but...

[Opportunist]

Uh... because they got their fingers in the pot and don't want to be caught red handed?

Re:uhhhh, thanks, but...

[CyprusBlue113]

Just a minor point, it makes them a lot of money, the tough and powerful feeling is just a bonus.

Re:uhhhh, thanks, but...

[Saint Stephen]

What are these "horrible" things?

Re:uhhhh, thanks, but...

[horza]

It's much the same as when some old fart posts "You Linux fan-bois are only putting people off Linux". At the end of the day you can't pick and choose which people decide to publicly like you. You just keep your head down and get on with doing the best job possible, not what-ever will make you the most popular with the 'right' people.

Phillip.

Re:uhhhh, thanks, but...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I'd say it's a mix, and you shouldn't discount machismo as a motivation. Almost all the Republican leadership projects this extreme wimpiness and desperate need to prove how tough they are, and they do it whether or not there's a clear financial motivation.

Re:uhhhh, thanks, but...

[Ihmhi]

If I needed almost $400,000 for bail I wouldn't give a shit if it came from a South American dictator. The sooner my ass gets out of whatever shithole, overcrowded prison I'm crammed in, the better.

Re:uhhhh, thanks, but...

[crispytwo]

I'm still confused why the people that are supposed to be for a smaller government would be nay saying evidence that big government is doing horrible things behind our backs.

I think you missed the subtext of the smaller government => bigger military.

FTFY

Good stuff..

[NuKe_MoNgOoSe]

I love Michael Moore he is a voice of logic and even thinking in a world full of people who hang off the flag and are lead by the nose by a government who doesnt give two shits about its people against expanding its power and influence over the rest of the world. Sure, he is looking to get shot but it isnt the first time Michael has struck a blow against the establishment and I dont imagine it will be the last.

Re:Good stuff..

[frankxcid]

In line with your logic, I have the brooklyn bridge for sale for you cheap!

Re:Good stuff..

[RazorSharp]

I like Moore's passion as well, we could do with more people who were passionate about their values. But the man is definitely no logical mastermind. He consistently lets his emotions get the best of him and most of his arguments are appeals to emotion. I like his documentaries, where everything is well thought out, researched, and critiqued; but I wish he would stay away from the media. He has Joe Biden foot-in-mouth syndrome. Plus, he's downright polarizing. You can make a point without calling your opponents malicious idiots.

Re:Good stuff..

[BeanThere]

Yeah, Michael Moore is one of the last people I'd call a "voice of logic" (unless "logic" has suddenly become a relative term measurable against an 'even worse standard of thinking'), but looking at the "Funny" mod perhaps Nuke Mongoose was taking the piss (meaning, joking).

Re:Good stuff..

[NuKe_MoNgOoSe]

Well a lot of his commentary a symmetrical to how I feel on a lot of issues. All I really mean is despite how he may execute or demonstrate his position or how emotionally involved he may get he pulls the black bags, or attempts to anyway off the common mans head who sadly swallows whatever they are fed (not all). I do enjoy his documentaries, i enjoy his humor and his sarcasm, i enjoy that he backs up a lot of his points with facts and figures but statistics are lies that can be manipulated in ways to prove or disprove just about anything. SO primarily I suppose Moores appeal is because he thinks a lot like i do about things that matter.

Re:Just Leave

[BobMcD]

Why doesn't Michael Moore just move to a country more to his liking since he clearly hates the one he is a citizen of? Cuba, perhaps?

A lot of people here like this country just the way it is and don't want anyone, Moore, Obama, or anyone else changing it in to something else.

Leave, Michael! You'd be happier, and we'd be happier.

If you think that allowing a government to flat out lie to us is 'loving your country', then I'd personally rather YOU leave. I don't care for Moore, but I care even less for all the sheep begging to be shorn!

Your distaste for Michael Moore is causing you to lobby against THE TRUTH for crying out loud. And I'm sorry, but that's just morally bankrupt.

Re:Doomed

[patjhal]

I do not understand comments like these. I have no reason to dislike him as a person from what I know of his personal life, but lets face it, I do not really know the guy. Hes not my neighbor. I love the professional work he does. There does seem to be allot of FUD attached to his person mainly due to people wanting to discredit him. I find people who believe it do not look deeply into whatever issue is involved.

Re:Doomed

[Pojut]

My problem with him on a personal level is he doesn't let the evidence speak for itself...he seems to find it imperitive to make sure that you know that he's the one saying it.

Like I said, I absolutely support and love the work he does, but the man's need for attention pisses me off.

Re:Alternative headline

[commodore64_love]

Although I don't like Michael Moore (he's comparable to a propagandist) he sometimes does the right thing. His mid-90s movie about manufacturing an excuse to declare war (and give the president a boost in popularity) was very good. And this act to bail a Reporter out of jail and protect the Right to a Free Press is also very good.

Without wikileaks we wouldn't know that US Soldiers were killing innocent journalists and children (the Pentagon denied the event happened). That Hillary Clinton was stealing credit card numbers from foreign diplomats. The content of the ACTA treaty to make backing-up your CDs or DVDs or MP3s and illegal act. And on and on and on.

Democracy can not work when the people are kept in the dark about what their public servants are doing.

Not a Michael Moore Fan

[diskofish]

I am not a Michael Moore fan, but he should be lauded for the action. Hopefully others will follow Mr. Moore's lead and take a stand for freedom of speech.

Re:Not a Michael Moore Fan

[Darinbob]

Did he post the bail, or just offer to post the bail? Other people have already offered to post bail but were refused due to the high flight risk.

Re:Not a Michael Moore Fan

[PPalmgren]

I disagree. As a moderate with some libertarian-leaning views of government, he's taking Wikileaks and putting it firmly on one side of the fence in politics. This is almost as bad as politicizing AGW.

Sure Wikileaks has dug its own left-leaning hole with its choice of document releases, but being associated with a figure as polarizing as Michael Moore takes it 10 steps farther and solidifies the organization on one side of the fence in the minds of the idiots who see everything in black and white. Yes, they probably don't like Wikileaks already, but they listen to it and don't dismiss it as liberal propaganda. When the listening stops, thats when it gets out of hand. The smartest thing Assange could do in this situation is refuse the bail money (if thats even possible).

Re:Not a Michael Moore Fan

[Kittenman]

Agree. I'd kick in some of my own if a) my credit card details were safe and b) I wasn't associated with Michael Moore in doing so.

Re:Not a Michael Moore Fan

[diskofish]

What part exactly do you disagree with, that he shouldn't be lauded for his action or that people shouldn't take a stand for freedom of speech?

Re:Not a Michael Moore Fan

[PPalmgren]

I disagree with Michael Moore, as a political figure of controversy, trumpeting his donation to a party that is supposed to remain as neutral as possible. If he was really supportive and understood the situation, he would donate anonymously or at least not boast about it. When you do this, you get a "friend of the enemy" effect and damage Wikileak's ability to reach out to people who contain a substandard ability to think rationally. He couldn't give a fuck about the relevance of Wikileaks among people who don't agree with him, he only cares about using it to grandstand for the topic at hand.

It would be in the best interest of Wikileaks to refuse donations from people who incite controversy, unless they do it anonymously. Freedom of speech should have no political leaning, creating a situation where irrational people or a political party equate freedom of speech = liberal is incredibly dangerous.

Re:Doomed

[NevarMore]

Theres a lot of FUD associated with his work because thats what his work IS.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Anonymous Coward]

It is thought that one of the women, Anna Ardin, may no longer be cooperating with prosecutors."

It should be mentioned that this statement stems from the fact that she is currently on a three month stay in Israel with an ecumenical Christian group. She has been blogging how excited she is about this trip for months.

Re:Blah Lame

[Scorch_Mechanic]

Of course it's a publicity stunt. Michael Moore rarely does anything else these days. Regardless, I hope it works. The courts and police systems of the enlightened (hah!) world are predisposed for a very good reason to take all allegations of rape seriously. It's a shame that certain unscrupulous people take advantage of this, but that's how it works. The way I figure, the longer Assange can stay in the global spotlight, the more people are going to read up on "all this wikileaks stuff" and realize exactly what shenanigans their gov'ts are up to. In other words: Yes it's a publicity stunt, but it will help the word get out. As such, I'm for it.

Re:Empty theatrics

[NevarMore]

What can have changed in two hours that another judge would reverse the decision?

The judge.

Re:Moore Claims Credit!

[Bemopolis]

FTFA:

I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail. [emphasis to aid jackasses who can't fucking read]

But hey, look at me quoting what a person actually says he did instead of trusting the headline written by a Slashdot editor.

Re:Just Leave

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people here like this country just the way it is and don't want anyone, Moore, Obama, or anyone else changing it in to something else.

Yes, bigotry, corruption, protectionism, job loss due to globalization, financial fraud on a international scale, inequity, war-crimes as a result of getting into wars in countries that had nothing to do with 9/11, oligarchy, and xenophobia.

Go Team USA. You've got something to be proud about there.

Hell, the founding fathers knew that government should be watched over and made to be accountable instead of becoming despots. But, if you like the George W. Bush model of secrecy, lies, and suspension of constitutional rights, vote Palin.

A democracy which can't survive criticism and scrutiny isn't a democracy. Of course, "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" no longer applies in America, so maybe that's what you're in favor of.

Re:Moore Claims Credit!

[nick357]

In the linked article he says "...I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail...". Whoever wrote the slashdot headline is the one who said "Michael Moore Posts Julian Assange's Bail"

No money actually required

[maroberts]

You do not have to post any actual money when you provide a surety in the UK. You only have to show that you have the sum available and are liable for the sum in the event the (alleged) offender breaches bail conditions in some significant manner. See http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-defendants/bail.html for a further explanation.

Re:No money actually required

[RockDoctor]

You do not have to post any actual money when you provide a surety in the UK. You only have to show that you have the sum available and are liable for the sum in the event the (alleged) offender breaches bail conditions in some significant manner. See http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-defendants/bail.html for a further explanation.

True, but irrelevant (well, only partly relevant) as the court are requiring both sureties AND securities (which it seems have to be paid in cash at the court).

Re:No money actually required

[maroberts]

Correct, but I think Mr Moore provided one of the sureties, not part of the 200k security

Re:No money actually required

[RockDoctor]

Well, that's him earned another bullet in the back of the head from a myriad more rednecks. It'll be getting hard to find room for all the entry and exit wounds.

I'm a tad surprised that Tuesday evening (?) wasn't marked by every second passing nerd in the London area wandering down to Westminster court to pay their loose change in cold hard cash into the court. And to get a receipt. After the first couple of dozen, someone, somewhere in the court would have cottoned on to the fact that there was a problem building up here.

Would have been fun. Flash-mobbing the "justice system".

There's something really, really fishy about the whole case. And I don't mean what the various governments are up to.

Re:Doomed

[Feyshtey]

I enthusiastically applaud his work in pulling off the lamb outfit from world governments and corporations.

What purpose is served in releasing the fact that Hilary Clinton worries about the mental health of other world leaders? How does that aid in our international relations?

That's just one of 1000's of items that were released that are not crimes, are not important for the American people to know, and still undermine our government's ability to operate on the world stage.

Releasing those kinds of documents doesn't serve a greater good. It doesnt expose any wrong-doings. It doesn't help create stability, ensure -anyone's- safety, or promote any kind of cooperation between nations. It was released to embarrass the US government and garner sensationlistic attention from a little weasle.

Not to mention that this guy released the names of confidential informants in the middle east. In doing so he signed the death warrants of those people. What greater purpose was served by releasing their names? What good will come of that? What crime did they commit? What evil are they responsible for? Where are your indignant tears for them and their families who will almost assuredly be slaughtered?

Re:Moore Claims Credit!

[BaronHethorSamedi]

I'm no fan of Mr. Moore, but even the summary quotes him as saying: "I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail" (emphasis mine). I don't see where he claims he single-handedly liberated Assange. Blame the headline on the Slashdot editors.

Re:Just Leave

[Opportunist]

I guess he's much like me. I love the US. I love the country, I love the people.

I just hate the government and the way it's run.

Re:Why does Moore use the word "our"?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Politicians and demagogues are fond of using words like "we" and "our" as if they had the right to assume that they represented anybody but themselves.

Re:Some concert in North Korea

[mangamuscle]

So he is also into bestiality?

only if

[unity100]

youre an american maybe. from the outside, we see moore a hero. maybe its possible that the endless propaganda perpetrated by corporate owned mass media have twisted you american people's views about moore, just as it twisted your views about wikileaks.

Re:only if

[bluefoxlucid]

Moore went on to talk about how Cuba's health care system is amazing. He took a trip to cuba and documented their health care, pristine offices, amazing clinics, etc.

Turns out that's all for show. Cuban citizens REALLY get healthcare in dirty shacks full of maggots and flies. The rich get the pristine hospitals.

Moore is most famous for releasing a film called Farenheit 9/11, a "documentary" about Bush and 9/11 or something... it was 10 years ago, I stopped caring before he released it. Anyway, it was full of hyperbole, misrepresentation, and sensationalism. One fact that got a large amount of attention was that the President was informed of the first attack on his way to a grade school; and that he told the CIA to keep him informed. He spent 7 minutes reading a kid's book to first graders during the attack. This was covered in the film... as if the appropriate response would be to announce to a bunch of first graders that the nation has come under attack, or something; more to the point, canceling the president's visit can be done cleanly, but at that point in time there wasn't much of a nuclear imperative to mobilize the president immediately. No world leaders were calling. Nothing seriously needing George W. Bush's attention was actually happening.

Other such shit in that film was commentary on the Iraqi war. Seriously? Moore showed the world that the Iraqis were quite happy and carefree under Saddam, and that deposing him destroyed their lives. If you believe that, I've got a brook in bridgeland to sell you....

Moore is a flaming psycho with a warped view of reality and a strong desire to push his views regardless of facts. He doesn't want people to think; he wants people to side with him like sheep. We have enough bullshit artists in the media; we don't need more.

Re:only if

[Graff]

from the outside, we see moore a hero. maybe its possible that the endless propaganda perpetrated by corporate owned mass media have twisted you american people's views about moore

The problem is that most of Moore's "facts" which he presents in his movies turn out to be no more than elaborate fabrications. He routinely takes quotes out of context, overlays a speech over video from another event, re-arranges video and audio, creates set-up interviews where he asks the guy one question and then re-shoots himself asking another question so the answer is presented in the manner which Moore wants, and many more methods of turning real events into fictional ones.

There are plenty of websites out there that take Moore's movies and show, "fact" by "fact", just how badly Moore manipulates reality. Now this doesn't mean that Moore's topics aren't worth investigating, it just means that you can't take anything he says as the truth. Do your own investigation into the truth and you'll be far better off than relying on Moore to do the job for you.

Re:only if

[Myopic]

Mmm hmmm. Or maybe it twisted yours.

Re:only if

[kellyb9]

youre an american maybe. from the outside, we see moore a hero. maybe its possible that the endless propaganda perpetrated by corporate owned mass media have twisted you american people's views about moore, just as it twisted your views about wikileaks.

Because clearly only Americans are subject to propaganda, Wikileaks is (likely) supported a lot less in the United States because its spilling American secrets (at least most recently). In which case, it would likely enjoy much broader support elsewhere. As for Moore, the majority of his documentaries focus on American politics which polarizing by its very nature.

Re:only if

[vegiVamp]

Isn't that pretty much the modus operandi of most American "news" sources, not to mention government institutions and politicians ?

Re:only if

[blair1q]

The problem is that most of Moore's "facts" which he presents in his movies turn out to be no more than elaborate fabrications.

Wow. You jumped up and demonstrated exactly the corporate-puppet faculties he was pointing out.

Re:only if

[kaiser423]

Nothing seriously needing George W. Bush's attention was actually happening.

What the fuck? No, seriously, what the fuck?!?! Fucking A, do you really believe this?

9/11 just happened, and it wasn't anything seriously enough happening to require our President's attention?!? God damn man, seriously?!?!?

Like, maybe getting informed as to what was happening beyond shit whispered in his ear? Calling up National Guard, declaring disaster areas, etc? He's not supossed to do any of that? What is this England, and he's royalty, some figurehead?

Seriously, I am just mouth agape at this point. My god.

Re:only if

[Xelios]

I take a bit of a different view on the guy. I wouldn't call his films documentaries, and I wouldn't call them propaganda either. Honestly, it looks like he's just trying to get people to care. He could certainly go about it more honestly, but the sad truth is if it doesn't generate a lot of controversy the public simply doesn't care enough to take notice. And if there's one thing his films have done it's bring the issues they're about into the public spotlight.

What's that old adage? "Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see". It's no different just because it's Michael Moore doing the talking.

Re:only if

[bluefoxlucid]

What the fuck? No, seriously, what the fuck?!?! Fucking A, do you really believe this?

Yeah, there wasn't much he could do at the current time. There was no source of attack known and he can't personally gather intelligence on this. Someone will tell his secretary if Russia calls, and the CIA will be informed, and he will get a notification immediately.

Like, maybe getting informed as to what was happening beyond shit whispered in his ear?

Already happening, that's what the intelligence community does. If they know it, he'll know it.

Calling up National Guard, declaring disaster areas, etc?

Well, generally the state of new york and the locality of new york city are going to respond first. Nobody claimed an attack yet, so we're not automatically at war. Plane crashes are considered a "disaster," not an "attack." So the governor of New York State or the mayor of New York City would be calling in the New York National Guard, fire department, etc, and setting disaster areas.

At this point, it's the President's job to either run around going "what what I'm confused did somebody blow shit up what's happening?!" or kick his feet up on his desk smoking a cigar telling "the boys" to keep him informed. There's no cigars allowed in first grade classrooms.

Re:only if

[Anonymous Coward]

"Turns out that's all for show. Cuban citizens REALLY get healthcare in dirty shacks full of maggots and flies. The rich get the pristine hospitals. "

Really?

That doesn't bode well for US healthcare then seeing as independent healthcare rankings such as that provided by the WHO list the US and Cuba as pretty close, some even put the US ahead of Cuba. I guess your poor get treated in dirty shacks full of maggots and flies too right? Besides, who are these mystical rich you're on about in Cuba? It's not like it has a significant population of wealthy people, you realise the whole reason your country has been ignoring it for the last few decades is because it's communist right? You do know what communism means yes? As someone whose been to Cuba on holiday, because I come from a country that doesn't have a stupid embargo on it, I can assure you, there are far more proper hospitals with far more space than could possibly just cater to what little elite does exist in Cuba such as it's leadership. One of Cuba's strengths is that it has the highest ratio of doctors to population in the world. Other metrics demonstrate that even if your claims that Cubans mostly get treated in dirty shacks was true, it's irrelevant, as the fact is that Cubans have a higher life expectancy than Americans, and lower infant mortality than the US. Dirty shacks or not, Cuba is clearly doing something better than you to keep it's citizens healthy, which was after all, Moore's core point.

"No world leaders were calling. Nothing seriously needing George W. Bush's attention was actually happening."

Yes, because it's not like there's any level of urgency when your country has suffered it's worst terrorist attack in history, and the worst attack against it since the last World War is there. It's not like he needed to go somewhere where he could be properly updated on the situation minute by minute, it's not like he'd need to take the initiative, and you know, actually lead the country, and contact other world leaders himself.

"Moore showed the world that the Iraqis were quite happy and carefree under Saddam, and that deposing him destroyed their lives. If you believe that, I've got a brook in bridgeland to sell you...."

If you believe that it just means you've got a poor understanding of pre-war Iraq. Whilst there's no doubt that Saddam was guilty of some rather heinous crimes, particularly against some groups, such as the Kurds, there were large groups that were in fact supportive of him, largely because his brutality was what kept the country stable, and what kept Iraq able to stand toe to toe against countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia as one of, perhaps the strongest power in the region.

I don't disagree that Moore is far from neutral, one thing that made me chuckle was when he suggested the only countries that supported the Iraq invasion were minor countries like Carribean nations. He kind of missed the elephant in the room- Britain, you know, that country, that at the time, was the 2nd/3rd biggest military power in the world- something that is rather an omission on his behalf. That doesn't mean he's wrong about all of it though, and frankly I'd rather listen to him, than someone like you who sounds like they've been watching too much Fox News and probably consider Sarah Palin the greatest politician in history.

It's quite ironic that you'd come out with comments such as "Moore is a flaming psycho with a warped view of reality and a strong desire to push his views regardless of facts." and then yourself make entirely unfounded remarks such as "Cuban citizens REALLY get healthcare in dirty shacks full of maggots and flies. The rich get the pristine hospitals.". Hypocrite much? It's rhetoric like yours that makes Moore sound like a completely objective moderate to those outside the US, because at least when he does try and twist opinion, he limits the extent to which he does give half truths, whereas people like you and Sarah Palin just outright make shit up and lie to the point people can see right through it and just assume you're stupid as a result.

Re:only if

[tophermeyer]

Like, maybe getting informed as to what was happening beyond shit whispered in his ear? Calling up National Guard, declaring disaster areas, etc? He's not supossed to do any of that?.

No.... He wasn't really supposed to do any of that. Seriously.

Intelligence activity takes time to come up from analysts through the various levels of filters until it gets to the President. We have entire agencies of analysts whose job it is to figure out what is going on and inform him. At that point him doing his job is saying "keep me informed".

And more importantly, the rest of those responsibilities mostly fall under the State and local government. Specifically the National Guard would have had to have been called up by then Governor Pataki. Local emergency response was handled at the municipal level by Giuliani (quite aggressively I might add, he had to be evacuated from several command posts during the course of the day because buildings were falling down around him).

Unless and until a State Governor officially requests federal assistance, the President literally has no authority to send federal troops or resources. Given the number of times this came up during GWB's Presidency, I am shocked that more people don't understand this.

Re:only if

[Graff]

Wow. You jumped up and demonstrated exactly the corporate-puppet faculties he was pointing out.

And how, exactly, did I do that? All I said was to do your own investigation and check Moore's facts. There was nothing corporate in what I said. I'm not pointing at this company's website or spoon-feeding anyone my own viewpoints on the topics that Moore has made movies about.

It only takes a bit of research to realize that, in many cases, the version of reality presented in Michael Moore's documentaries greatly differs from what many other people have observed - including many nonpartisan, non-corporate sources.

My post applies equally to any source of information. Be critical of it all, whether it's a documentary producer, corporate news source, or a political pundit

Re:only if

[blair1q]

most of Moore's "facts" which he presents in his movies turn out to be no more than elaborate fabrications.

that's false

Re:only if

[MobyDisk]

I'm finally glad to meet the person who speaks for all of the world (except America of course). Good thing they all have the same opinions!

Re:only if

[Graff]

Unless and until a State Governor officially requests federal assistance, the President literally has no authority to send federal troops or resources. Given the number of times this came up during GWB's Presidency, I am shocked that more people don't understand this.

The sad truth is that most people don't actually understand how the system of government in the United States works. Most people seem to assume that the President of the United States is some kind of king or supreme dictator who can move mountains at will and reports to no one. The reality is that, while the President does have some serious powers he is also severely held in check by the other two branches of the government, the constitution, the states themselves, and international treaties, relations, and laws.

I fear that we all need to go back to school and be taught exactly how this representative republic works before we should be allowed to participate in the political process in any manner.

Re:only if

[definate]

Yeah, I know a few people who've been to Cuba (we're not restricted from holidaying there), and Moore's representation was FAR from accurate.

A story I remember from a friend of mine who stayed with a doctor was that, their doctors were quite well trained, they had man power. In fact, they'd often send their doctors over seas to help out, as that was their easiest method of support in times of disaster. However, despite all that, they had a hard time getting things as simple as bandages. Let alone more relevant machinery. So you might get a doctor with good knowledge, but he likely won't have the tools needed to treat you.

He came back with so many amazing stories, that are so foreign to here.

Re:only if

[the_one(2)]

That doesn't make it better, unfortunately.

Re:only if

[xnpu]

it just means that you can't take anything he says as the truth.

How's that different from any other US based media? At least Moore is honest enough to pursue his own agenda and not that of invisible corporate/government parties.

Re:only if

[xnpu]

Although I would expect the president to get up and act immediately, I don't actually see how any of your suggestions would have improved the outcome of the situation.

Re:only if

[bstender]

one small comment on your mostly fact-free rant:

Other such shit in that film was commentary on the Iraqi war. Seriously? Moore showed the world that the Iraqis were quite happy and carefree under Saddam, and that deposing him destroyed their lives.

Life in Iraq was in fact peaceful and happy for the vast majority, invading and deposing Saddam did indeed destroy their lives. (and that's referring to the Iraqi's still living) Iraq continues to be a living hell far worse off than prior. It was a crime against humanity and continues to be horrible beyond belief.

(at least you seem qualified to pass judgement on what is and isn't biased screed)

Re:only if

[_Sprocket_]

9/11 just happened, and it wasn't anything seriously enough happening to require our President's attention?!? God damn man, seriously?!?!?

The United States is not a micro-manage Real Time Strategy game.

Re:only if

[bluefoxlucid]

The sad truth is that most people don't actually understand [anything] in the United States

Fixed that for you. I'm sure somebody will be along with the next iteration soon.

Re:only if

[bluefoxlucid]

Although you would expect the president to get up and act immediately, you can't for the life of you think of anything he could actually do except piss himself and request a new pair of pants?

Re:only if

[tophermeyer]

It took him what, like 7 minutes to finish up what he was doing with those kids and move on to responding to the attack? It takes me that long to take a satisfying dump, but you expect him to magically be up to speed on the situation and already be engaged in a response?

I would rather have a President that understands his role in domestic emergency management, and doesn't jump the gun by rashly responding to threats he doesn't fully understand. Unlike some other emergencies during his Presidency, 9/11 was a pretty damn fine example of emergency responders doing their jobs without anybody butting in. Are you really proposing that the nation would have been better served by him terrifying a bunch of schoolchildren to take charge of a response that he was unqualified to personally handle.

For God's sake, AC, think of the children!

Re:only if

[bluefoxlucid]

Terrorists were attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the government was evacuating the White House and the Congress for fear they would be the next targets, and "nothing seriously needing George W. Bush's attention was actually happening."

Yep, sounds like the situation is under control to me. Apparently Bush didn't order the evacuations; he did order the CIA to do some stuff but that was basically a murmured "keep me informed." That's their job anyway, he could have just nodded and ignored them... they would have been back as soon as something else interesting happened. Which basically means what Bush actually DID do did nothing; the whole machine runs pretty well as-is.

What Moore was actually criticizing was the fact that the president just sat there, staring, for seven minutes without interacting with anyone in any way while events were unfolding which he should have stayed on top of, just in case it was an even broader state-funded attack that might have required, say, presidential authority to shoot down commercial passenger planes.

He WAS staying on top of events. The CIA was right there, with radios plugged into their ears. They were instructed (pointlessly, as this is their job) to alert him the moment something interesting was known-- a plane hitting a building is not a terrorist attack, it is a weather problem or a pilot asleep or something stupid. Or a terrorist attack. This is the same as saying that a foil-wrapped log is a discarded hotdog... or a bomb. (Google it) We've had plenty of planes hit shit and fall out of the sky since then, and none of them were terrorist attacks; some of them hit the news because ditching a plane in the Hudson river and not killing anyone is fucking hard, and somebody did it because he is fucking awesome.

What the president DIDN'T do is get up in front of a bunch of first graders, excuse himself, and march out while a bunch of secret agents were whispering secret agent stuff in his ear. He really had nowhere to be anyway.

Re:only if

[bluefoxlucid]

The explanation for Cuba's healthcare system that I've always heard is it's a tourist attraction. http://articles.latimes.com/1996-11-29/news/mn-4098_1_health-care

If Cuba is so poor, then who do you think the rich are? If you go to Cuba for treatment, you will get excellent healthcare; but the reports I've seen have documented that this isn't the same healthcare a poor useless Cuban gets. This is healthcare for people who can bring hard currency into the country. It's an export.

Re:only if

[bluefoxlucid]

How is this possible with Cuba's medical tourism? You go to Cuba, you're not from Cuba, they want to show you Cuba's excellent health care system so you spend money getting treated in Cuba and tell your friends to fly to Cuba to spend money for good medical care.

Re:only if

[BeanThere]

"Yeah, there wasn't much he could do at the current time. There was no source of attack known and he can't personally gather intelligence on this."

So you think he should've done what -- just say "oh well, nothing we can do really - *shrug*"

Re:only if

[clong83]

Okay... But seven minutes might make a difference if you don't really know what is going on. And would it be too much to ask for him to stand up and say, "Excuse me kids, I have to go do President stuff now," and then go actually get briefed on all the details available? Nobodies asking him to jump up and scream "Nuke IRAN!!" at a whim, just go start the process ASAP in an emergency. That's what an emergency is

Re:only if

[CrazyDuke]

It's also not a cron'd shell script. What's your point?

Re:only if

[dbIII]

It appears that he thought his job was to run away and hide.
This is not a Republican vs Democrat thing because I think Reagan, Daddy Bush, Nixon, Ford or any past President you can name would have handled it much better than that Playboy Prince. The only thing he was good for is to remind us how bad an idea a hereditary Monarchy is.

Re:only if

[Graff]

The sad truth is that most people don't actually understand [anything] in the United States

Fixed that for you. I'm sure somebody will be along with the next iteration soon

I wouldn't be the person to cast that stone if I were you. I visited your blog and saw plenty of evidence of ignorance there. For example, there's this gem:

Nuclear power is fossil fuel based. Do you really think uranium comes from anywhere different than coal? It's a shiny rock we find in the ground, that eventually replenishes from meteors or volcanic activity drawing it out of the center of the earth; tons and tons of this shit isn't popping up all over the planet all the time, it takes something major to make more. To make matters worse, we can only derive 5% of the energy potential from nuclear fuel without breeding it into weapons grade nuclear material (and then summarily using said weapons grade nuclear material for the non-weapons purpose of generating 20 times the electricity we normally could), which of course violates a treaty or two.

There are so many things wrong with what you have written on that blog but I'll just address a few things from this quote.

• Fossil fuels come from...fossils! They are produced from carbon, hydrogen, and other trace elements that came from decaying organic matter.
• Nuclear power, or more precisely nuclear fission, is performed through the use of much heavier elements, generally isotopes with a higher atomic mass than iron. The most common materials are uranium, plutonium, and thorium - none of which are present in great quantities in organic material.
• There are vast reserves of fissile materials, far greater than the reserves of fossil fuels. For example here is a report on uranium. Note that with fast breeder reactors there is enough uranium for approximately 2,500 years of energy production. The situation is even better with thorium which is three to four times as abundant than uranium.
• The thorium cycle is very proliferation-resistant due to the fact that the products of the reaction are very undesirable for making weapons and are difficult to separate out. Thus the boogieman of nuclear proliferation can be dealt with by using technologies which do not promote using reactors and fuels which are readily used in weapons.

I could go on but I think I've made my point. Ignorance abounds in many places and you shouldn't have the hubris to paint an entire nation with a broad brush when you exhibit a heady measure of it yourself.

Re:only if

[HiMorons]

No, what happened was 2 planes hit the towers. Yeah, you may have jumped up like a maniac running out the room as the President or sent a message that the executive branch of the government are subject to the whim of terrorists by immediately getting up on National TV and walking out. Bush didn't do a great job of communicating and made a lot of questionable choices but this one was bang on. You really think the President is required for the entire executive branch to move? As of the whole government is paralyzed while he sleeps? Do you even know how your government operates? My mouth is agape too, just for a different reason.

Re:only if

[definate]

Probably because its comparatively cheap, you likely pay good money to be there (unlike locals) andthis probably affords you the same treatment the better off Cubans would get. For tourists, he did say he was treated like a king.

Remember, in countries which are poor/communist, tend to have 2 very different levels of quality. One which the ruling generals/party members get access to, and the one for everyone else. You'll also find that being someone from another country, you get as good a treatment as they can give you. Have a look at Vice Guide to North Korea. Though that's a far more extreme country, it gives you an idea.

Re:only if

[datsa]

Wow. Where to start. First of all, it was already at the point where they felt the need to inform the president. They walked in to the classroom and told him the country is under attack. So it was already well past the local "filters" point. And at that point, he should have put down "My Pet Goat" and gotten his ass in gear.

#2 it wasn't a regional New York attack (as if that mattered). They attacked the Pentagon as well, if you'll recall, and a fourth plane went down in PA. So it was a national attack, well beyond National Guard etc. Maybe if the government had acted more quickly at the Federal level, they could gotten fighters up to intercept the second WTC plane or the plane that hit the Pentagon.

Given the number of times this came up during GWB's Presidency...

Indeed. Bush's indifferent, laissez-faire attitude towards disaster in our nation resurfaced in his bungling of the Katrina disaster, where once again he sat back waiting for the "system" work. Or not.

Re:only if

[MrKaos]

Moore is a flaming psycho with a warped view of reality and a strong desire to push his views regardless of facts. He doesn't want people to think; he wants people to side with him like sheep. We have enough bullshit artists in the media; we don't need more.

80% of them are right wing bullshit artists and 20% are left wing bullshit artists. Though the pun is hard to avoid, perhaps we do need Moore.

Re:only if

[datsa]

It took him what, like 7 minutes to finish up what he was doing with those kids and move on to responding to the attack? It takes me that long to take a satisfying dump, but you expect him to magically be up to speed on the situation and already be engaged in a response?

I would rather have a President that understands his role in domestic emergency management, and doesn't jump the gun by rashly responding to threats he doesn't fully understand. Unlike some other emergencies during his Presidency, 9/11 was a pretty damn fine example of emergency responders doing their jobs without anybody butting in. Are you really proposing that the nation would have been better served by him terrifying a bunch of schoolchildren to take charge of a response that he was unqualified to personally handle.

Then he's not qualified to be president. What's the point of even having a president if they can't take charge during a national emergency? You're talking like he's from the movie "Dave", some dude playing the part of president, in way over his head, instead of someone who campaigned for months to be Commander in Chief.

Re:only if

[bluefoxlucid]

First off, I lean more toward the body of the scientific community that proposes oil comes from something other than dead dinosaurs. It's a minority consensus, but it's also well-accepted that the "fossil fuel" model may be wrong.

Second, abuses of technical terms get the point across pretty well. Every argument I've heard for "renewable energy" contrasts it with "fossil fuels" ... if it's not a "fossil fuel," it's "renewable energy." People have tended to talk about nuclear power like it's some sort of infinite resource: Nuclear fissile power will last forever, while nuclear fusion power will produce ungodly amounts of power--enough to power the whole world from two or three reactors. These views are ridiculous; nuclear power is not a renewable resource.

The life of nuclear fuel can be extended; if you are some sort of nuclear engineer then start making it happen, because most of us can just talk about it. That said, pessimistic estimates of world-wide peak uranium point at 2035, while optimistic estimates don't even span 100 years "on known resources" (and somehow claim about 300 years on "yet undiscovered resources"). However, utilizing breeder reactors to extend the life of uranium fuel, estimates go from 8000+ years to well over 5 billion years (by then the sun will explode).

Given our technology and mindset, we will run out of uranium, and maybe then extend the remaining 20 year supply for 2000 years (more like 5 year supply for 100 years, given mankind's track record). If we get nuclear fusion, we'll learn in 50 years tops that "peak water is coming." We are really bad at this.

Re:only if

[bluefoxlucid]

He was informed a plane hit the WTC, not the pentagon. If I remember right, a plane hit the WTC first, that was number one. Nobody was going, "Mr. President, 3 planes came down all over the country targeting large civilian and military installations, something is wrong." And even if it did, his response would have been correct: "Find out what the hell happened and get back to me; you're in the 'intelligence' community for a reason." Seriously, the president has the intelligence community to keep him informed so he doesn't do something retarded.

Re:only if

[Graff]

My first few years in college were focused on a degree in nuclear physics, I later changed to chemistry and have a bachelors of science in chemistry so I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about on this topic.

There's no doubt that some fraction of the hydrocarbon soup that makes up a "fossil" fuel does come from non-living sources. However it is extremely difficult (from an entropy standpoint) to build complex hydrocarbons through non-living (abiogenic) processes so it's extremely likely that the vast majority of "fossil" fuels are produced from formerly-living sources.

There is no such thing as a "renewable" energy source. Every energy source is the result of something being consumed. For most "renewable" sources this means the sun is consuming hydrogen to produce energy that is driving the source. The sun evaporates water, drives the winds, allows plant growth, among other effects. We can tap the results of this energy but in doing so we upset other things. Water power and wind power disrupt natural flow patterns, plant growth ends up trapping heat due to decreased surface albedo, and so on. Yes, this will continue for some time but it's not infinite either. Even more troubling is that we ignore the side effects of tapping these sources because they seem to be free of consequence.

Nuclear power is not an infinite resource either. Fission is certainly more limited than fusion but there is no doubt that there is enough fissile material to last at least a couple of hundred years if a modicum of care is used. Between breeding new fuel and the thorium cycle we should have no problem transitioning from fossil fuels to fusion fuels and having it sustain us until we achieve better technology such as fusion power sources. Once we have mastered fusion we will be using the most abundant element in the universe to power us: hydrogen.

In any event there is no point in summarily dismissing fissile fuels simply because they have a near-term limited supply. Yes, in the grand scheme of things our uranium and thorium stores will not last anywhere as long as the sun burns but they really don't have to! They just have to last until our next alternative, fusion, which is already past its breakthrough point and is on the edge of being able to be scaled to industrial levels.

Re:only if

[bluefoxlucid]

My first few years in college were focused on a degree in nuclear physics, I later changed to chemistry and have a bachelors of science in chemistry so I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about on this topic.

Not good enough, sonny jim! While you may be right about the potential to extend nuclear fuel life span thousands or billions of years, you're completely ignoring the fact that we'll run well out of nuclear material before people go, "Oh, shit, should we have done that?" We know how to now, and have acknowledged the need; but foresight is blurry and focused on the horizon, and hindsight is 20/20. Yeah, we know, but we don't quite see the point just yet.

You're not in the position to take up a project lead role and lobby to improve the state of nuclear technology. Like telling China that they're developing and thus exempt from Kyoto, but that they really should tone down their emissions for public health reasons, and also because retro-fitting "clean technology" is harder and more expensive than a ground-up approach... they'll notice the public health disaster in 10 years, and the economic costs of retrofitting, and go, "... oh, you mean we really should have?" They're doing some of that "clean-up" now, granted; but they did take the exemption, and took a laxed approach. I think Olympics Beijing really got them some negative publicity and they are currently doing a mating dance ....

There's no doubt that some fraction of the hydrocarbon soup that makes up a "fossil" fuel does come from non-living sources. However it is extremely difficult (from an entropy [avogadro.co.uk] standpoint) to build complex hydrocarbons through non-living (abiogenic) processes so it's extremely likely that the vast majority of "fossil" fuels are produced from formerly-living sources.

The sun evaporates water, drives the winds, allows plant growth, among other effects. We can tap the results of this energy but in doing so we upset other things. Water power and wind power disrupt natural flow patterns, plant growth ends up trapping heat due to decreased surface albedo, and so on. Yes, this will continue for some time but it's not infinite either. Even more troubling is that we ignore the side effects of tapping these sources because they seem to be free of consequence.

This is exactly the subject of the 2 year old blog post you quoted (which was my first thought on the subject). Everything we do draws heat. Solar power collects heat (rather than reflecting it) and then uses it to drive things (which emits heat as waste), heating up the planet. I don't think back then I had considered wind and hydro; although when I was like 5 I asked questions about hydro-electric dams pertaining to ... well you drop a fucking concrete wall in a river, my first thought was how do the fish get through; my second was what about the water level rise? Wind power ... people bitch about chopping pigeons but you're right, you get energy from SOMEWHERE and the argument I hear is "it'll never be significant" (stupid).

Re:only if

[tophermeyer]

Given the number of times this came up during GWB's Presidency...

Indeed. Bush's indifferent, laissez-faire attitude towards disaster in our nation resurfaced in his bungling of the Katrina disaster, where once again he sat back waiting for the "system" work. Or not.

Someone else already responded to your other points, so I'll just hit on this one. Becuase it is in fact the point I was trying to make.

Katrina was the same issue, Bush had no legal authority to send Federal people or resources into Louisiana until requested and authorized by the state Governer. Then Governer Blanco repeatedly refused requests from the Bush administration and FEMA to allow FEMA take control of relief efforts.

To her credit, Blanco did accept relief provisions and emergency shelters, but refused to relinquish control of the evacuation. She preferred to attempt to handle it internally with local police, National Guard MP's, and some school buses.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Pojut]

Interesting, thanks!

Re:Moore Claims Credit!

[RealGrouchy]

You must be new here.

Moore's claims were accurate. He helped bail out Assange. He posted his on money towards bail.

It is the /. submitter/editor who suggested Moore posted the entire bail.

- RG>

Re:some kind of greasy douche singularity

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Last time I checked, Julian Assange wasn't a fat neckbeard who didn't have the saving grace of being able to tell a compiler from a Cuisinart.

Re:Doomed

[Nethemas the Great]

Agree with or not, it does help him stay in business...

Goose Gander

[Zero__Kelvin]

"It is thought that one of the women, Anna Ardin, may no longer be cooperating with prosecutors."

It should be mentioned that this statement stems from the fact that she is currently on a three month stay in Israel with an ecumenical Christian group. She has been blogging how excited she is about this trip for months."

Assange was excited about posting the documents for quite some time, but when he was busy doing so rather than reporting to those same police he was "not cooperating with police." Why is this any different?

Re:Goose Gander

[moogied]

Because it is NOT his burden. He is NOT guilty as of right now, he has no requirement to submit to this crap until they released there warrant. Once they released it he took about a week or so to turn himself in. Thats a very standard delay period in international cases like this, it takes a few days for paper work to travel around for lawyers to review and make sure everything is in order. Then people need a day or two to set there personal stuff in place, THEN he can go submit himself for questioning.. which generally means a stay in Jail.

Re:Goose Gander

[Zero__Kelvin]

You totally missed my point. The GP was implying that she wasn't really "not cooperating with police" just because she wasn't making herself available. In other words, I was saying the same thing you are saying essentially.

Re:Goose Gander

[luther349]

first rule of getting off charges. never corporate with police.hell its the only rule. never talk to them without your attorney. 90% of all people in jail are because they talked.

Re:Goose Gander

[Guspaz]

90% of all people are in jail because they talked. What percentage of those people are there because they talked about how they're guilty of the crime they were accused of?

Re:Goose Gander

[Low Ranked Craig]

first rule of getting off charges. never corporate with police.hell its the only rule. never talk to them without your attorney. 90% of all people in jail are because they talked.

Root cause is ignorance / lack or funds for attorney.

Re:Goose Gander

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Doesn't matter. They talked. As soon as you say anything to a cop beyond name/rank/serial number and "I want a lawyer", the police will find a charge to hang on you based on what you tell them.

Re:Goose Gander

[Beardo the Bearded]

Go watch the Youtube videos "Never talk to the police" and then come back to the thread.

"I have nothing to say"

"My lawyer's name is [their name here]"

Re:Goose Gander

[Afell001]

Keep in mind that a police officer isn't necessarily after the truth. If they end up with the truth, then it is a happy coincidence. No, what they want is an open and shut investigation that will result in a conviction. These are the results that get them better performance reviews, promotions and pay raises, and gets the case closed so they can go on to other, more important work. In some nations, it is legal for a police officer to use any and every means at his or her disposal to get the information that will bring a case to a close. This can include, in many cases, methods that can be described as torture. In some countries, a coerced confession carries legal weight.

If it is your option, remain silent. If it is your right, exercise this right and bring any questioning to an end as quickly as possible. If officers continue to question you after you have exercised your right, then request that it be noted for the record that you requested to remain silent, and do your best to remain silent. If you are an American visiting a foreign nation, you can request a representative from the embassy who is familiar with local laws and customs. And if the crime is substantial, get a lawyer. Do not rely on the fact that you know you are innocent; get a lawyer even if you know you are.

Re:Goose Gander

[Moryath]

The problem with that is, most cops in the US are corrupt dickheads who will beat you down or arrest you on the "fuck it we'll find something to charge you with later" principle if they don't think you are being properly "respectful" to them.

And yes, this includes telling them "no, I don't consent to any searches." Their actual response isn't "well then I can't search you", it's "well fuck that, I'll beat you up, throw you in my car in cuffs, and while you spend 48 hours in jail we'll break your window and search your car anyways."

Re:Goose Gander

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Root cause *might* also be something trivial, like ... having been proven guilty of a crime.

Re:Goose Gander

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

And, of course, you would not claim things like this unless you've (at least) experienced it yourself, right ?

My only experience with the legal system comes from being a juror in a couple of drug possession cases, having received a couple of speeding tickets, and from being the passenger of a coworker pulled over for driving while black. Make of that what you will, since you seem to enjoy pulling assumptions out of your ass.

Re:Goose Gander

[Skrapion]

Now, why on Earth would you let something as trivial as being guilty of a crime get in the way of having your charges dropped? It sounds to me like you need a better attorney!

Re:Goose Gander

[gknoy]

This is why you have the conversation recorded. Assuming it's legal, of course, and that you have a way to make sure that the evidence isn't lost.

I doubt that "most" cops in the US are corrupt, or dickheads. Some are, but I doubt most are. (Let's avoid the side-track of "well then why are they protecting those who are", because we've all heard it before.)

Re:Goose Gander

[Americano]

And in the US, you pay taxes and are given a court-appointed attorney to represent you if you can't afford to hire one of your own.

Or are you suggesting that in the UK, your taxes get you legal representation from lawyers on par with Alan Dershowitz and William Rehnquist?

Re:Goose Gander

[kermyt]

Not when about 90% of police stops include a camera in the police car that cannot be turned off as long as the police lights are flashing. Most recording equipment in police cars are only re-viewable by the officer (as opposed to erasable), The officer has no say in whether or not the equipment is actually running as long as the car is in any sort of emergency mode.

Re:Goose Gander

[Moryath]

Bullshit.

They all start out on the lowest rung, making ticket quota. They quickly learn every trick in the book to make it "my word vs yours" - pointing their car's nose wrong-way to block off dashcam, leaning into your car to muffle the audio recording, and so on.

By the time they graduate from traffic ticket quota days, there's no saving them - they're about number of arrests and convictions, not whether they actually did their job right, or followed the law, or got the real culprit. The goal of the police interrogator isn't to find out what you know and determine if your alibi checks out, it's to get you to say something that can be used to incriminate you, and to do so, they will pull any underhanded trick they need - drop a hint in the hallway, sit there "waiting for your lawyer" with the tape off for hours while bugging you about how "all you have to do is talk to us and you can go home", and on and on and on.

I never wanted to admit this growing up, but cops - at least, cops that come up through the corrupt US system - are slime. If not 100% of them, better than 90% of them, easily.

Re:Goose Gander

[Svartalf]

Heh...more the fool you.

Here's a gem that shoots down the premise you're trying to promulgate here...

Part 1
Part 2

These are videos of a lecture given by Professor Duane, an instructor at Regent Law School and a Experienced LEO that's moving into the Legal profession on just precisely WHY you don't do what you're talking about.

Pay particular attention to how fast someone can be deep-sixed in a courtroom on flimsy crap, stuff that a Jury would have some difficulty discounting.

Regardless of "if you don't have anything to hide"...anything can and WILL be used against you at any time.

Re:Goose Gander

[paiute]

So people in jail are all innocent ?

Not all people in jail are innocent, but all people who are not now in jail are potentially guilty.

Depends on how hard the cop who pulls you over wants you to be guilty.

Re:Goose Gander

[rhathar]

Yes, ignorance of the need to not talk to the cops.

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Re:Goose Gander

[puto]

Really? Though I do not doubt many cops are "crooked" in the US I have really never had a problem with them. Of course I have always yes sir, no sirred them and not run my mouth.(over the course of 27 years of driving). And I am brown and grew up in the south. However, I work in Colombia, Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Panama, and Mexico, and would love a good ol redneck police force in these countries. If you think US cops are corrupt, you have not lived, travelled in Latin America.

Re:Goose Gander

[TheTyrannyOfForcedRe]

And in the US, you pay taxes and are given a court-appointed attorney to represent you if you can't afford to hire one of your own.

Or are you suggesting that in the UK, your taxes get you legal representation from lawyers on par with Alan Dershowitz and William Rehnquist?

I used to think the same thing. A friend of mine was recently arrested in an airport for saying the wrong thing. (It turns out that the officer misheard what he had said but that's another story.) This friend makes $13K a year. He was denied access to a public defender. Apparently, in some jurisdictions the judge gets to decide who can afford a lawyer. The incident happened during a layover on an international flight so the charges were in a city 1000's of miles from my friend's home. He had to pay to fly himself 1/2 way across the country to appear at his court date. Travel costs alone were a huge fraction of his yearly income. Still, they denied him a public defender.

Re:Goose Gander

[mcgrew]

In the US if you're charged with a crime and can't afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. And (s)he will really, really suck at lawyering and you're going to be proven guilty of a crime whether or not you actually committed that crime.

Re:Goose Gander

[Penguinisto]

Err, what? How the frig does someone who only makes $13,000 a year get up the scratch to go on international flights? Even counting such things as living with parents, having his basics taken care of (food, etc), and not owning a car, etc?

This one really stretches the ol' plausibility meter beyond design limits, yanno?

Re:Goose Gander

[johnlcallaway]

Doesn't matter. They talked. As soon as you say anything to a cop beyond name/rank/serial number and "I want a lawyer", the police can find a charge to hang on you based on what you tell them if you piss them off.

There .. fixed that for you....

Re:Goose Gander

[Anonymous Coward]

(Let's avoid the side-track of "well then why are they protecting those who are", because we've all heard it before.)

Being so dismissive of "inconvenient facts" does not help your case a bit. Those who cover for the corrupt are themselves corrupt, perhaps even more so than the more "actively" corrupt, as it's the herd of "passively" corrupt people that really makes such widespread corruption possible. Therefore it is safer (as well as more accurate) to assume that all cops are bad.
--
DUH!

Re:Goose Gander

[Foobar of Borg]

If you think US cops are corrupt, you have not lived, travelled in Latin America.

Or Russia or Indonesia, for that matter. If you go there, always make sure to have some good bribe money on hand. You don't even have to be that subtle about it, either.

Re:Goose Gander

[BeanThere]

Um, international flights are not that expensive. You can get London - NY return tickets for less than $650. He could've stayed with friends or relatives overseas which keeps costs down. So if he was living with parents, it doesn't seem like such a stretch. Or he could've inherited a thousand bucks or so (I did, when I was 18, when one of my grandparents died), and spent that on a trip. Or a relative could've paid for the ticket, I know plenty of people whose parents have funded international plane tickets to get them across continents, especially if e.g. his friend is a first or second generation American he could have family in Europe or elsewhere. It's really not unrealistic.

Re:Goose Gander

[johnlcallaway]

So, I take it you have had a lot of dealings with police officers. And by 'dealings', I mean 'arrests'.

I, on the other hand, am over 50 and have never been arrested. Pulled over lots for traffic stops, given tickets, but never arrested. And never hassled, searched, slammed against a hood, had a police officer pull me over where his camera couldn't see me, or any of that other stuff you say.

But then again, I don't do drugs, steal, or a host of other things that could get me arrested. So, all in all, every cop I've ever met, both being pulled over and in social circumstances, has been pretty decent. Because they have no reason to think I'm a bad guy.

Maybe the only common denominator in your experiences is ... you....

All these 'oh the cops are all bad' people will be the first one to call the cops because someone is breaking in or holding their wife in another room, begging for them to come and help them. Or to catch the bad guy that took your Star Wars collection. And can't understand why people break into their cars and steal their radios, the cops really need to do something about this.


Thanks to all the cops out there who put their lives on the line for our safety every day. I hope every traffic stop you make is a safe one, but if not, I hope you kill the bastard before he kills you.

Re:Goose Gander

[guruevi]

That's why they turn off their lights on most routine traffic stops (especially during the day). At least that's how it works over here in NYS.

Re:Goose Gander

[Rakarra]

So people in jail are all innocent ?

That's backwards. Granted, grandparent post is ambiguous. I'll be generous to him and state that what he means is not that all the people in jail are innocent, just that it's not hard to put an innocent man in jail.

Of course, you'll be in jail while waiting for your lawyer to arrive as well.

Re:Goose Gander

[Rakarra]

In UK, you pay taxes so that people can *always* afford legal representation.

It's another one of those little "socialist" provisions you'll complain about until you need it.

The same is true in the US. We pay taxes so that anyone accused of any crime can have a lawyer representing them.

Re:Goose Gander

[freaq]

No, we have not heard it all before. In particular, noone has yet provided a reason for supposedly honest and disciplined officers to protect dishonest or dickhead officers.

Re:Goose Gander

[Lockejaw]

My first thought was "grad student." Income that just barely covers basic expenses, travels to conferences, etc....

Re:Goose Gander

[gmhowell]

Let me guess: you're a white male as well.

Re:Goose Gander

[GreyLurk]

Not quite true... Most cops in the U.S. are people who want to do the right thing, and want to do a good job keeping the people who pay their salaries safe. There are a few fucked up power trippers, but for the most part, they just want to finish their shift and go home like anyone else, preferably while leaving things work a little better than they were yesterday.

Most of the cases I've seen where police roughed someone up, it's because the person was yelling at them, or was doing something blatantly illegal and refused to stop. There are of course a few cases where officers have way over-reacted, but as long as you are polite but firm, know your rights and when and how to invoke them, 99% of police officers aren't going to randomly beat you up for refusing to let them search your car.

Re:Goose Gander

[Sark666]

sorry for this empty post, i want to watch this later. why is there no means of flagging a post?

Re:Goose Gander

[budgenator]

Well a Lawyer is appointed to represent you, which usually means he negotioates a deal with the prosecuter as fast as possible so he can get on to a cash client.

Re:Goose Gander

[Jafafa Hots]

Yep. I was illegally searched.
When you refuse a search, what they do is search you anyway, then file a police report lying, saying you were "disturbing the peace" and that they arrested you THEN searched you after that.

I was sitting cuffed locked in the back seat of the car refusing to answer questions, and as a result they threatened to add "resisting arrest" to the charges.

Cops are little authoritarian asshole boys who wanted to play with guns when they grew up.

And before you protest that you're a cop or you have cops as family, so do I. Uncle was a Dept. Sheriff. Officious asshole who tried to run his own siblings lives.

Re:Goose Gander

[phantomcircuit]

That's clearly unconstitutional, hello ACLU.

Re:Why does Moore use the word "our"?

[Opportunist]

(Un)fortunately the English language does not offer different words for "our" that includes speaker and audience and "our" that excludes the audience.

If you feel more like it, you can thusly decide to feel excluded.

Re:Doomed

[TheRaven64]

He makes some good points, but he makes them incredibly badly. He's the kind of person who could turn 'water is wet' into a controversial statement. Even when he says something that I agree with, he makes me want to argue.

Ron Paul supports Wikileaks

[pkbarbiedoll]

Last I checked, Ron Paul is not a liberal.

Re:Ron Paul supports Wikileaks

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Thomas Jefferson might call Ron Paul a liberal. The term is overloaded.

Re:Ron Paul supports Wikileaks

[bstender]

He is also not a cheap machine-cog Right v Left politician. He has lots of anachronistic features better described by Libertarianism cum Lunacy, god love 'im.

Re:Ron Paul supports Wikileaks

[gstoddart]

Last I checked, Ron Paul is not a liberal.

Shhh ... you're trying to use a rational argument. Nobody wants to hear that -- this has to fall on party lines or people will need to think for themselves.

Re:Moore Claims Credit!

[Mister Furious]

The article quotes Moore as saying he helped to post Assange's bail and he mentions others who also contributed. He doesn't appear to be claiming that he bailed out Assange himself.

Re:Alternative headline

[Barny]

Yeah, the guy has never seemed much more than a sensationalist to me, but ponying up like this raises him a few notches in my estimation.

ANY person or organisation could have done this, the journalists who gladly eat up the data wikileaks is releasing, countries opposed to the united states' policy in regard to silencing him.

Re:Doomed

[Pojut]

What purpose is served in releasing the fact that Hilary Clinton worries about the mental health of other world leaders? How does that aid in our international relations?

That's just one of 1000's of items that were released that are not crimes, are not important for the American people to know, and still undermine our government's ability to operate on the world stage.

Releasing those kinds of documents doesn't serve a greater good. It doesnt expose any wrong-doings. It doesn't help create stability, ensure -anyone's- safety, or promote any kind of cooperation between nations. It was released to embarrass the US government and garner sensationlistic attention from a little weasle.

If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about...right? I mean, that's what they told us with the Patriot Act and warrentless wiretapping, so...

Not to mention that this guy released the names of confidential informants in the middle east. In doing so he signed the death warrants of those people. What greater purpose was served by releasing their names? What good will come of that? What crime did they commit? What evil are they responsible for? Where are your indignant tears for them and their families who will almost assuredly be slaughtered?

Can you find me one single recorded instance of anyone over there being killed directly because of the Iraq/Afghanistan war docs?

Re:Empty theatrics

[Keruo]

> Assange is wanted for questioning for alleged sex crimes involving two women in Sweden.
What annoys me with media is that they twist the sentence above to say that he's wanted for rape charges.

Re:Alternative headline

[Zero__Kelvin]

If you were on the fence about his activities you are a moron anyway, so it really doesn't matter what you think.

Sweet, Sweet Irony

[dcigary]

If would be sweet, sweet irony if it turns out that Wikileaks has something on Michael Moore, like that's he a paid corporate shill, or that he has an account on iheart12yoldboys.com. /just sayin'

Re:Sweet, Sweet Irony

[greatgreygreengreasy]

Or that he's actually the same person as Rush Limbaugh, but really both are played by the greatest actor in the world, FRED SAVAGE!

Re:Sweet, Sweet Irony

[gtomorrow]

Easy, killer. If i'm not mistaken, under US law that could be considered libel.

You're not in a back room somewhere drinking beer with friends, you're posting on the Internet. /just sayin'

Re:Sweet, Sweet Irony

[Zomalaja]

Gee where have I heard that before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOX-y_Lady

Re:In an alternate reality...

[Sockatume]

Right, it's the worst atrocities, or nothing. Nobody's supposed to condemn any of the other stuff in between. Certainly they're not supposed to address the issues that they, personally, find important. What the hell would we have then? Freedom? The hell with that.

Re:Why does Moore use the word "our"?

[Aladrin]

Are you claiming that you aren't an American citizen, or that you don't pay taxes? Because otherwise, those statements are correct. He isn't saying you support his view, he was stating where those things came from. And they did, whether you think the government did right or wrong here.

Re:Moore Claims Credit!

[Sockatume]

Michael Moore did not write the Slashdot headline.

Re:Doomed

[gstoddart]

My problem with him on a personal level is he doesn't let the evidence speak for itself...he seems to find it imperitive to make sure that you know that he's the one saying it.

Moore is a counterpoint to places like Fox News and CNN which screech really loudly their views. They sure as hell aren't letting the evidence speak for itself -- they speak for it, and sometimes, in lieu of it.

I don't think Moore has ever denied that he has an agenda, and that he's telling the story his way.

Like I said, I absolutely support and love the work he does, but the man's need for attention pisses me off.

Well, Sarah Palin is no different, really ... just with a different set of biases. Same goes for most of the talking heads on CNN.

Heck, I remember watching some guy on CNN several years ago saying that the crash of 2008 was coming because of all of the crap credit out there. He basically got shouted down by a bunch of arch-conservative guys who believed that it could never happen.

Re:oh gee

[Pojut]

so this is different from fox news, all the corporate news channels, how ?

Moore works to expose corruption, while corporate media generally helps enable it. I'd say that's a pretty big difference.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[GodfatherofSoul]

Good point. There isn't really a health care crisis in this country and we weren't lied into the Iraq war. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[Sockatume]

In fact, while I'm at it, how about you get off your ass and start raising awareness of the issues you think he's forgotten?

Re:Doomed

[rainmouse]

I despise Moore as a person. .

Michael Moore went through a mass character assassination to similar to Julian Assange. Note that as the stream of negative publicity backfired as the ulterior motives were exposed and people stopped swallowing so much shit, the pictures attached to news articles changed from an seedy looking, sneering, oily Gollum lookalike into a reasonably normal looking guy. They could both be asshats or great guys, I have no idea but I certainly don't intend to allow two faced news rag peddlers dictate my opinions of anyone.

Lacking the opportunity to meet these people within my normal social circles, I prefer to form my own opinions based upon unedited and unbiased interviews of a reasonable enough length to prevent any contextual manipulation. Sadly that's not how the news will ever portray someone, it doesn't sell so well.

Re:Doomed

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

The cable leaks were one of the things that make me want to step away from what Wikileaks is doing.

There's a several gig file out there with really good stuff and they want to release what Condi Rice said about some diplomat?

Seriously?

Re:Moore Claims Credit!

[Marcika]

Actually: "The BBC says bail was set at 200,000 British pounds — about $317,000. A number of Assange's wealthy friends appeared in court today to pledge the funds."

So, Moore put up six percent of the bail-- but publically claims he "posted Julian Assage's Bail". Gosh.

Both Bloomberg and BBC say that it's £240k ($378k).

But your comment says more about you than about Moore... Compare the Slashdot headline to the HuffPo headline; and then tell me with a straight face that you'd have been just as enraged by your misinterpretation of Malda's rubbish headline if it would have been any other person -- say, Ron Paul...

Re:Doomed

[lysdexia]

Well said!

Re:Doomed

[zmollusc]

Well, what good purpose are you serving by revealing this? You should emulate the government secrecy and cover up any deaths of confidential informants. And deny having any data about it to cover up. And deny that wikileaks exists. And give Assange a fat consulting contract and a huge pension.

Re:Doomed

[IamTheRealMike]

That's just one of 1000's of items that were released that are not crimes, are not important for the American people to know

Not important for the American people ... but what about everyone else? BTW CNN found that slightly less than half of all Brits think the rape thing is a holding charge whilst the US secretly indicts Assange ....

Re:Or:

[gmuslera]

The damage of that info being known will be MORE damaging that what US did and keep doing as reported there and in previous leaks? Maybe leaking and giving US citizens a chance to be aware force a change in direction would be the lesser of two evils.

michaelmoore.com does`nt seem to work

[__aavqan3009]

http://michaelmoore.com/

Re:michaelmoore.com does`nt seem to work

[anonymousNR]

probably got slashdotted, its very much up now, I accessed it from US

Re:In an alternate reality...

[nicholas22]

Have you even RTFA? He says so himself that doing REAL investigative reporting is non-existent anymore. There is no money in it. On the other hand, if you're heading media companies, you get perks for NOT nuancing the government too much, e.g. slots in "embedding" journalists in war zones.

Re:Doomed

[magarity]

I don't think Moore has ever denied that he has an agenda, and that he's telling the story his way.

Then you've never seen any of Moore's work. His wildly skewed to the left shows, skewed to the point of being "creative edits" that completely misrepresent the truth, are presented as documentaries. Most people understand that term to mean factual and attempting to be unbiased. Ever watch Fahrenheit 9/11? That's the wildest piece of creative editing slant to the left ever and it won awards as a "documentary". You think calling that a documentary doesn't hide that he's pushing an agenda???

Re:In an alternate reality...

[phantomfive]

If he did that, would anyone watch? Everyone knows real crimes are carried out by unpleasant dictatorships. Michael Moore films play on outrage. People watch them because they like to feel outraged about something. Next time you see someone who is outraged, remember, although they may seem angry, they are probably actually having fun.

You just can't get happy about watching atrocities. It's not fun. So if Michael Moore ever did decide to do that, his audience would be small.

Re:Doomed

[bigstrat2003]

I got disgusted with him after watching a part of Bowling for Columbine where he went to the Shopko (or some other store) where the assailants bought bullets. He then proceeded to badger one of the cashiers at length, insinuating that they bore responsibility for those murders because they sold bullets. That was when I was done with Michael Moore forever. Even if I agreed with his point (which I don't), that's no excuse to badger someone.

Re:Doomed

[Teun]

What purpose is served in releasing the fact that Hilary Clinton worries about the mental health of other world leaders? How does that aid in our international relations?

What government makes such documents available to millions of it's employees and then acts surprised, even offended, when one of them releases it in the wild?

Re:Alternative headline

[jeffmeden]

Although I don't like Michael Moore (he's comparable to a propagandist) he sometimes does the right thing. His mid-90s movie about manufacturing an excuse to declare war (and give the president a boost in popularity) was very good.

You mean Canadian Bacon, right? That, uh, that wasn't a documentary.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[bstender]

amen.

Common sense wins

[horza]

Journalist John Pilger and socialite Jemima Khan are putting up $31,600 surety each, with bail set at $380,000. It looks like enough people like Michael Moore have guaranteed the bail money as he has been bailed pending appeal (the prosecutors have 2 hours to appeal). He should be released by the end of the day.

He has had his passport confiscated, been electronically tagged, is under curfew and house arrest during the evenings, and must report to the police station every day. This is fair enough, it is no different to any other offender afaik. Certainly not the Guantamo Bay scenario he has had the past week, with "absolutely no access to any electronic equipment, no access to the outside world, no access to outside media" and no correspondence allowed.

The fast tracking through political influence, and the imprisonment for an as yet unfounded allegation in a foreign country, is a blot on our country's record, but it's good to see our strong and mostly fair legal system reassert itself after a short delay.

Phillip.

Re:Common sense wins

[horza]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but things have changed. Sweden have now decided they want to appeal against the bail, but have declined to provide any evidence as to any crimes committed. It looks like a vindictive attack is in process to keep him in jail and incommunicado as long as possible. Also the courts aren't taking cheques as they take 7 days to clear, so $380,000 has to be found in used pound notes. Looks like restaurant designer Sarah Saunders, who is putting up $237,000 of bail money, is going to be making a large withdrawal.

In addition to conditions above, curfew from 10am-2pm and 10pm-2am according to the BBC. What a coincidence these are the hours that cover the prime-time news slots.

Phillip.

Re:Common sense wins

[Arccot]

In addition to conditions above, curfew from 10am-2pm and 10pm-2am according to the BBC. What a coincidence these are the hours that cover the prime-time news slots.

That part isn't really a concern, since he doesn't have to be in studio to do a live interview. And of course, a taped interview can be recorded anytime.

Re:Common sense wins

[Buelldozer]

They're doing a hatchet job on Mr. Assange to be sure but it's not going to be very effective in the end. His case is too public and too many people are paying attention now.

Re:Common sense wins

[iammani]

More updates: Assange has to remain in jail, till the appeal is heard (which may take upto 48 hours)

Re:Common sense wins

[RockDoctor]

curfew from 10am-2pm and 10pm-2am according to the BBC. What a coincidence these are the hours that cover the prime-time news slots

I did wonder what the details of mentioned curfew periods were. Sounds to me as if a number of news outlets are going to get familiar with a certain living room on Surrey somewhere.

Re:Alternative headline

[GooberToo]

Without wikileaks we wouldn't know that US Soldiers were killing innocent journalists and children

That's factually bullshit. Anyone who actually bothered to turn off American Idol and made an effort to follow the war, absolutely knew stuff like this was going on. What wasn't known was some specific details, and for good reason.

Crazies seem to imply that the government is a giant, nebulous, all knowing, conspiracy monster. The simple fact is, you absolutely can point a finger at idiot reporters for the death and kidnapping of additional reporters, contractors, and even soldiers. Furthermore, you can point a finger at them for a additional civil wars breaking out. The civil war is especially noteworthy because it happened as US troops were actively drawing down and handing over powers to Afghanis. Now keep in mind, I'm not strictly talking about Wikileaks here. In Afghanistan, all too often, weeks could have saved hundreds, if not thousands of lives.

I'm not saying people shouldn't know this stuff. But frequently timing is extremely important. Timing shows the immorality of the reporters involved which is extremely hypocritical given that time and time again people are using these same reports to shake a morality finger at the government while in exchange unethically furthering the reporters involved. All too often, reporters have as much blood on their hands as do the government, but hypocritically, no one seems to care. And that's the problem with Assange/Wikileaks, and the many, many reporters who were absolutely complicit, if not an knowing player, the days which led up to the war.

People are all in a hurry to shake their finger at the reports but are standing in line to turn a blind eye to the massive blood on those same reporters hands. Literally. Its hypocrisy and its disgusting.

Factually, it was well known civilians were dying. Factually, it was well known reporters were dying. Factually, it was well known US troops were frequently involved. But contrary to the crazies around here, it was not a conspiracy to murder them. Factually, this stuff has happened in EVERY war. I'm not aware of a single exception. Anyone who is the least bit surprised is completely disconnected from reality. And in exchange for the previously disconnected and now "enlighten", is additional blood on their hands.

Was propaganda in full swing here? Absolutely! Had it worked, would civilians been saved? Absolutely! Had it worked, would military and contractors had been saved? Absolutely? Was it deception to hide more innocent deaths? Absolutely!

Those who believe propaganda can't save lives or isn't important should not participate in this discussion as they are not the least bit equipped to participate. But to be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting carte blanche, rubber stamp, turn a blind eye. I am suggesting, timing is frequently quantifiable as morality.

Re:Doomed

[hairyfeet]

Did you ever think that is there for a reason? Being "the guy they love to hate" has been a part of modern theatrics since the days of Gorgeous George and by adding that little extra bit of smug he keeps people tuning in (hoping he'll screw himself up) and thus gives him a voice to hawk his movies, which even those that hate the man will admit he is passionate about his subjects. From the interviews I've seen when he is not hawking a movie he comes off as just another guy without the smug, so I personally think it is an act.

As for TFA it is nice to see someone stand up for the guy, considering our MSM tripped over themselves to kiss the corporate...errr I mean government booty and label this guy the most evil thing since Osama. And lets be honest folks, this arrest was a direct result of US government interference and nothing more. After all, do you think they would have sent Interpol all that way for a he saif/she said otherwise? And I love how they froze his personal assets as well as Wikileaks in the hopes the guy couldn't afford to defend himself.

Assange a douchebag, Moore an asshat

[unity100]

apparently ANYone who upsets american right in some way, end up either as douchebags, or asshats. or some other derogatory adjective. without fail.

im not wondering about general american public. they may be too under the influence of mass media to begin with and sheepish, like the public in many countries of the world.

but, im wondering why some of the people who use slashdot, which is a place for the i.t. related life and people, are not able to stop for a moment and think 'hey, im thinking that anyone who upsets the established order is an asshat. there is something wrong with this' ?

i.t. requires more cognitive power than other fields of life. its mandatory that you have some cause-effect perception and rationalization ability to even work in it. yet, i see some people constantly iterating the same behavior pattern here, over and over, without thinking that they have been conditioned to do so.

has cognition no effect on political views ?

Re:Assange a douchebag, Moore an asshat

[TheSpoom]

People with more extreme views are louder, and their supporters are more dedicated (since they tend to focus on their pet peeve while the rest of us have more important things to do), so we tend to see them more.

They're not the majority though. I'd be willing to bet that most Slashdotters don't hate Moore or Assange... they're just not posting about their moderate stance as much as the extremists are yelling about theirs.

Re:Assange a douchebag, Moore an asshat

[unity100]

your views on i.t. revolves around your narrow perspective about the tech support in your corporation.

Re:Assange a douchebag, Moore an asshat

[unity100]

they're just not posting about their moderate stance as much as the extremists are yelling about theirs.

well maybe they should ?! if good people shut up, evil has the day.

Re:Assange a douchebag, Moore an asshat

[spleendamage]

apparently ANYone who upsets american right in some way, end up either as douchebags, or asshats. or some other derogatory adjective. without fail. im not wondering about general american public. they may be too under the influence of mass media to begin with and sheepish, like the public in many countries of the world. but, im wondering why some of the people who use slashdot, which is a place for the i.t. related life and people, are not able to stop for a moment and think 'hey, im thinking that anyone who upsets the established order is an asshat. there is something wrong with this' ? i.t. requires more cognitive power than other fields of life. its mandatory that you have some cause-effect perception and rationalization ability to even work in it. yet, i see some people constantly iterating the same behavior pattern here, over and over, without thinking that they have been conditioned to do so. has cognition no effect on political views ?

Did you just post a completely unfounded and unsupported generalization while at the same time counting yourself among the slashdot intellectual elite for real?

Re:Assange a douchebag, Moore an asshat

[dogmatixpsych]

No, we might appreciate some of what Assange and Moore do but not how they do it (including the fact that they are egotistical attention-seekers, at least that is the impression I and a lot of other people have - but it could be wrong).

Anyway, while Moore focuses mainly on the American Right, Assange does not (unless Obama and Clinton count as the American Right). I've seen just as much support for WikiLeaks from the Right as from the Left (and maybe even more since there are a lot of Libertarians {who tend to be more Right than Left} who support WikiLeaks).

Re:Assange a douchebag, Moore an asshat

[AdmV0rl0n]

i.t. requires more cognitive power than other fields of life

I know I'm on slashdot, but seriously? IT people are smarter than Engineers, Doctors, Farmers, Teachers?

Hardly. You have one set of skills that you feel makes you superior to others. You can fix computers. This makes you the modern day equivalent of a car mechanic. And that is not to disparage the intelligence of a mechanic, just to show you that you aren't somehow better than everyone else.

In fact, unlike most car mechanics, I doubt you have a real understanding of the interior structure of the networks you administrate or the systems you repair. I used to work in IT, and it is full of the laziest group of people I've ever seen. Most mechanics at least like cars and know them inside and out, they can tell you a problem by listening. Most IT people open a work order, don't bother fixing the problem, close the order and blame the customer. When the customer actually demands service, they get bumped to a supervisor who finally might get an underling to actually do something.

Compounding all of this is your superiority complex. IT people hate doing the "mundane" tasks, like fixing printers or setting up programs, never realizing that their entire job is to do those tasks so that the rest of the company can actually do some damn work. I can fix a network printer, I can configure my own Citrix account. I'm not going bother since we are paying YOU to do it. I have my own job. (Though half the time I wind up doing yours too since IT can't even install an update without taking two days with an open order, by which time the client information I needed will be out of date...)

The IT people aren't the main focus of a company-- they are support staff and maintenance. Get used to it or do something else with your life.

I bet you do nice things for your sys ops on system admin day.

Re:Assange a douchebag, Moore an asshat

[three27]

It isn't that cognition doesn't have any effect on political views, but rather that politics has primarily become an emotional activity.

Re:Assange a douchebag, Moore an asshat

[ifiwereasculptor]

I found myself asking the same thing, as this is usually a place for, if not significantly more civilized, at least more enlightened conversation than what passes for discussion in the majority of the web (feel free to try and talk politics via Youtube comments if you disagree). Maybe some people actually depend on and/or trust the establishment or its idealization, thus perceiving an upsetter as someone who is either fucking up with a good thing or fucking up with a problematic thing that should entice nothing but support and a collective effort in order to improve.

Re:Assange a douchebag, Moore an asshat

[ifiwereasculptor]

Yeah, the problem lies in that truly good people will reason that good and bad are words so relative, so overused, so morally charged due to such overuse, so prone to demagoguery and political crowd control for being so morally charged, and so meaningless due to the fact that, for all those reasons, every bad guy ever flew a flag of what was perceived as goodness by either him or his supporters, that they will simply avoid trying to dominate what they perceive as evil, since such perception may actually be misguided. Therefore the less ethically concerned is almost always louder.

Re:Assange a douchebag, Moore an asshat

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

i.t. requires more cognitive power than other fields of life.

So much that there's none left for basic grammar, apparently.

Re:Assange a douchebag, Moore an asshat

[unity100]

ahaha. hahaha .ahahaha. ahahahahahaha !!!!! youre funny !

Re:Assange a douchebag, Moore an asshat

[Cowmonaut]

You're making the false assumption that because people are in IT and work with computers that they are logical, reasonable people. I applaud your faith in humanity, but my experience in IT, working with other IT people, has been vastly different.

When you're working with an IT director and manager or one of their underlings, you're supposed to expect them to understand what you're going on about when you're having systems show up on different subnets and not be able to talk to one another like they are supposed to be.

People are people everywhere. You have people that want to make "easy" money (everyone's value of easy varies). They're the same people as construction workers (of which while the majority tend to lean right in the US, there are those that lean left), as the burger flippers, as the lawyers... well maybe not the lawyers. That'd be assuming lawyers are people too.

The point is, there isn't a class of people that's "better" than any other. People will be people, and most people (of all archetypes and stereotypes) have political views based on how they were raised, with opinions varying based on what directly affected them as they grew up. At least in the US. But I imagine its similar elsewhere.

As I mentioned before, people are people everywhere....

Common mistake in ethical reasoning.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I agree with you, but most people won't for the same reason that they make this mistake in ethical reasoning in the first place. Most people don't see elections as an exercise in creating the illusion of legitimacy. They don't see elections as a charade put on by the ruling classes to sucker the ruled. Likewise, most people do not understand that politicians and bureaucrats are no better than street muggers or highwaymen. Most people don't understand that the only difference between the Mafia and the government is that the government spends much more on propaganda and indoctrination.

It should come as no surprise that most people identify with the politicians who rob and subjugate them, and refuse to understand that taxation is nothing but a socially-sanctioned form of robbery. Stockholm Syndrome is a bitch.

Re:Common mistake in ethical reasoning.

[Myopic]

Really? That's the only difference between the Mafia and the government?

Really? or not really?

Re:Common mistake in ethical reasoning.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

It's the only difference that matters once you realize that the government is a gargantuan protection racket.

Re:Common mistake in ethical reasoning.

[Johnny5000]

It's the only difference that matters once you realize that the government is a gargantuan protection racket.

Perhaps, but then aren't most descriptions of private police/security forces in an idealized anarcho-capitalist society basically protection rackets as well?

Re:Common mistake in ethical reasoning.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Yes, but in an anarcho-capitalist society you can always opt for a DIY solution.

Re:Common mistake in ethical reasoning.

[Johnny5000]

Yes, but in an anarcho-capitalist society you can always opt for a DIY solution.

So say there's a large company that handles private security. A representative of that company comes to your house and demands money. What's to stop them from doing that, and what distinguishes them from a government?

I guess what I'm getting at is- any sufficiently large and powerful group can potentially try to impose their will on you, regardless of the method of social organization, whether it calls itself government or a Mafia family, or say, a future anarcho-capitalist juggernaut Walmart. If you claim a DIY solution would exist against F.A-C.J.W, why is that a different situation than the present-day government? You can choose to align yourself with a better protection racket, but in the end you're only choosing who your master is, and you can pretty much do that now.

Back to present day- if two competing Mafia protection rackets are fighting over your business, you can align with one or the other, or try to DIY defend yourself against both, and they'll squash you.

Re:Or:

[rilister]

"However, Assange is NOT a journalist. Journalists are supposed to have a sense of responsibility."
That's an interesting distinction. How would you legislate for that? A "sense of responsibility test"? Only people who pass this can publish without fear of conviction?
I'd rather say that anyone publishing is protected as a journalist, and people who have secrets should learn to do a better job of keeping them.

Re:Alternative headline

[commodore64_love]

I have a better idea:

Let's bring the soldiers home so they can't accidentally kill children, journalists, or innocents. Or get killed themselves. And I don't mean two years from now ('bama's schedule) but immediately. Tomorrow. The Soviets wisely stopped fighting in Afghanistan when they realized it's hopeless to civilize that mountain country, and we should too. We'd save a LOT of lives.

>>>you didn't know that in war civilian sometimes get killed?

Of course. But that doesn't excuse the Pentagon lying about it and pretending war is as clean as a hospital room ("surgical precision to avoid civilian casualties" they claimed). It's good to have these videos exposed to reveal the lie.

Re:Or:

[nine932038]

The problem is, who defines right vs. wrong?

I haven't read the leaked material, so I can't speak to what happened in this particular case. However, it might be worth considering what the ideal scenario here would be.

In theory, the US government should be releasing as much information about their actions as possible, without compromising security. But if you want to ensure a transparent and democratic society, wouldn't you want to verify their decisions?

All in all... it makes me wonder. How can a stable democracy be built if the flow of information is restricted by unknown parties for the good of the people? If they aren't accountable, how do can anyone trust them? And if they can't be trusted, why are they making these decisions?

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

What the hell is it about Wikileaks that brings out the nutbag libertarians?

I have a better question

[melted]

Did YOU do anything useful in your life?

Re:I have a better question

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

My employer thinks so, which is why I'm sitting in a nice, warm office slashdotting on my lunch break.

Re:I have a better question

[KingOfBLASH]

"Usefulness" is such a relative thing.

Ask a workaholic who busts their ass all week for a buck, and doesn't have a family, if a guy in a mud hut is "useful"

Ask the guy in a mud hut with a giant family the same thing about the workaholic

Both will undoubtedly think the other is crazy. The guy in a mudhut obviously must be for choosing to live in a mud hut, and the workaholic because he would rather have little green pieces of paper then enjoy life.

In the end the only thing that matters is that YOUR life made YOU happy. Ranking your accomplishments based on how they are perceived by others is a waste of time

Re:I have a better question

[melted]

Michael's employer thinks so too, which is why he has $20K to blow on a cause like this.

Re:I have a better question

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

You've just admitted the utility is subjective, so who are you to give me shit for having an opinion contrary to yours? As far as I'm concerned, Michael Moore is a boorish demagogue who makes dull movies. I don't speak for anybody but myself when I say this.

Re:Doomed

[zeroshade]

Everyone believes they are in the middle.

Re:Doomed

[gstoddart]

Then you've never seen any of Moore's work.

In fact, I've seen almost all of them.

You think calling that a documentary doesn't hide that he's pushing an agenda???

No, as a matter of fact, I explicitly stated that "I don't think Moore has ever denied that he has an agenda, and that he's telling the story his way.". Quite the opposite of what you say.

Michael Moore has never said that he is presenting unbiased neutral facts. He has explicitly been on record as saying that other people get to have their agendas, and that he has his. He's highlighting the things he thinks are wrong or broken, not giving some dry academic presentation of neutral facts for people to decide as they see fit. He wants to persuade you, and freely admits it.

Sarah Palin has an agenda too -- it's hardly unbiased, or neutral (and in some cases, not even factual). Bush had an agenda, Rumsfeld had an agenda. McCarthy had an agenda. People on both sides of the climate change debate have an agenda. Hell, Obama and the Dalai Lama have agendas.

Very few sources of information say anything without having some form of agenda -- is this news to you? Or are you holding Moore to a different standard than every politician or corporate-shill "think tank" that releases studies and position papers to support their agenda?

Re:Doomed

[Vancorps]

Methinks you don't understand that the person who leaked the information and the person that published the information are different people. The governments ability on the world stage needed a wake up call as clearly they were not operating in a secure manner. This would never change as long no one leaked the information. The insecurity of the federal government has been known for a very long time and token theater has been the only reaction since.

How many informants were killed after the first wikidump? There are no articles about it leading me to believe that it is just government fear mongering as they did indeed say the same thing about the first release of information and that was quite a while ago now. I would like to see some follow-up on this before I condemn wikileaks on heresy as you have done. Keep in mind that Wikileaks extended offers even to the Pentagon to redact information, offers which were ignored, dozens of news outlets around the world have been given the same opportunities. All of that was before the leak went public. I think you're hard pressed to paint them as acting in bad faith. It's very embarrassing for the government so you'll have to keep in mind that what they say about the situation is far from the whole story.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Anonymous Coward]

What's "moore" interesting is this so-called speech that Michael gave in 2005 on YTMND.com.

Re:Why does Moore use the word "our"?

[gmuslera]

Unless you are not from US, in a democracy you elect the government to represent you. Is the implicit will of the citizens as a whole that they be there and do whatever they do. Even if you voted for an opposite party or didnt vote. If not, is not a democracy.

Regarding crimes, not sure about current batch of leaks so far, but in this decade were plenty of crimes that ultimately came from US government to choose from.

Re:Or:

[denobug]

As you have said, the information wikileaks released over the cables are more embarrassing than substantial accusation. I wonder if the organization has already filtered out some real critical information that can be detrimental to world/nation-state stability. Sure the State Department is going to have to work extra hard now because of the leak but none of the real top secret information (for the cables, not the war report) has be part of the release.

It's not I like Assange or approved of what he does. Come to think of it, however, he has not done real harm to our foreign services besides embarrassment and call to secure our communication better from being leaked.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[X.25]

..Micheal Moore actually exposes real crimes carried out by all the unpleasent dictatorships around the world. Though that might require him getting off his fat backside and doing some real investigative reporting and even putting himself in real danger , as opposed to the manufacturered danger he conjures up to keep up viewer interesr on his lame expose films.

So, you do not agree that he should try to clean up his own yard first, then go elsewhere?

You'd prefer him to clean Zimbabwe's yard, for example, while ignoring shit that is happening in his own?

Brilliant logic. I wish I had your brain for a week, so I can get a lifetime's rest...

What to say to police

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I'd mod you up if I hadn't already posted in this topic. Really, the only things you should say to a police officer are the following:

• Yes, officer.
• No, officer.
• Officer, I'm getting my wallet from my pocket now.
• Officer, I'm getting my registration/insurance documents from the glove compartment.
• I do not consent to any searches.
• Do you have a warrant, officer?
• I will not answer questions without a lawyer.

Re:What to say to police

[JustOK]

COP: Is that your penis in the drive-thru window?

• Yes, officer.

COP: Did someone force you to do that?

No, officer.

COP: Why is your hand in your ass cheeks?

Officer, I'm getting my wallet from my pocket now.

COP: Why are you bending over like that?

Officer, I'm getting my registration/insurance documents from the glove compartment.

COP: I think you lost your mind. Let's look for it.

I do not consent to any searches.

Do you have a warrant, officer?

COP: Did you ask me if I have a warrant?

I will not answer questions without a lawyer.

Re:What to say to police

[bberens]

I would suggest not offering any Yes or Nos. Simply politely provide the officer your license, registration, and potentially car insurance information if asked for it. The only thing you need to say is "Am I being detained?" and "Am I free to go?" If the answer to either of those questions is "No." Then your only response after that is that you need your lawyer.

Re:What to say to police

[KenSeymour]

At least in California, a gun in a glove compartment is considered concealed and requires a permit.

No concealed weapon permit = not legal.

YMMV (in other states).

Re:What to say to police

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

If I was in the UK, I'd ask for a solicitor instead of a lawyer. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. :)

Re:What to say to police

[gknoy]

Great point -- however, if one has a weapon of any variety (even one that might be in plain sight), it's wise to tell the officer that before making any moves that might possibly be construed as reaching for a weapon. Things like, "Officer, I am wearing a pistol on my hip, which is near my seatbelt" or "I have a pistol in my glove compartment" or "I have a hunting knife on my belt", followed by a question about how you can most safely comply with their directions might help their peace of mind (and your safety) a lot.

Re:What to say to police

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

You also have to be careful with "No, officer" if the question is, "Do you have an alibi".

Re:What to say to police

[nschubach]

Officer: "Were you out drinking tonight?"

You: "Yes, Officer."

Officer: "Please step out of the car."

You: "No, Officer." ... Damn, I messed something up.

Re:What to say to police

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

If you're too drunk to talk to Johnny Law, you're too drunk to drive.

Re:What to say to police

[JerkBoB]

Along those lines, since the context is a traffic stop, the following may also help to achieve a resolution of the situation in your favor:

Turn off your engine. Turn off your radio. If it is dark, turn on your overhead light. This will show the officer that you are not planning to flee, and that you're not attempting to conceal anything or anyone. He is already going to be shining his light around looking for empties or other problems, so making it easier for him to determine that there's nothing to see doesn't cost you anything and should be appreciated by the officer.

After you've turned on your lights, roll down your driver-side window halfway. Halfway because it is enough room for you to hand out the documents he will be asking for, but not enough room for you to easily reach out and grab him or his weapon.

Finally, while waiting for the officer to approach your window, put your hands up on the steering wheel, and ask any passengers to keep their hands plainly visible.

Some might say that this is all cowardly acquiescence to power, but the reality is that most cops (especially state troopers) just want to get their shift finished and go home without getting shot. Every traffic stop is a potentially deadly confrontation for them (just skim through traffic stops on youtube) because they don't know if you're just a regular citizen or a wanted violent felon. If you make the stop less stressful for them, they are more likely to let you go with a warning. Politeness and consideration are often reciprocated (it's worked for me on several occasions). Not always, though. Especially when you've been pulled over by local yokel Fife because he's trying to fill his quota for the month. Still, it never pays to be a dick to the cop who's holding your drivers' license and registration.

Note, however, that the advice regarding what one should SAY to a cop is the same. Don't admit to speeding or some other violation -- they will be obligated to cite you then. Don't allow them to search your car without a warrant. Basically, do assert your rights, but don't be an ass about it.

Re:What to say to police

[elrous0]

Really, the only things you should say to a police officer are the following:

And what are you going to say when they beating the shit out of you for not doing what they say?

Re:What to say to police

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

"There are four lights!"

Re:What to say to police

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Exactly. Cops are jumpy because getting shot is an occupational hazard for them. Giving them additional cause to be nervous around you is not in your best interest. Be firm in asserting your rights, but be polite and show a little consideration as well.

Re:What to say to police

[johnlcallaway]

Really...so a week or so ago when that police officer pulled me over to tell me my lights weren't on, I should have been far more confrontational instead of having that nice chat we had about how beautiful Pigeon Forge, Tennessee is during their Winter Festival.

It's been my experience that most police officers are nice people that have to deal with the occasional asshole who automatically assumes he is being hassled and wrongfully claims he has never done anything wrong in his entire life, or feels that the police officers should have something better to do than to pull them over for going 15 mph over the speed limit since he can drive safely at that speed.

Well .. the asshole is usually partially correct, police officers do have something better to do than traffic stops. And if said asshole would follow the speed limit or not run red lights or not do illegal lane changes that endanger other people, then the nice police officer could get right to those more important things.

Re:What to say to police

[conspirator57]

a solicitor's fine, but for criminal proceedings, i'd have the solicitor grab a barrister. since this is a politically charged case, i'd probably go for a Queen's Counsel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrister
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Counsel

Re:What to say to police

[PsychoSlashDot]

Never in recent memory have I so strongly wished I had mod points to throw you some Insightful. But no. I had them expire yesterday, with nothing I felt was appropriate to mod. Sigh.

Re:What to say to police

[dfenstrate]

Exactly. It's something you have to gauge as an intelligent adult.

If it's just a routine traffic stop, then your best bet is to treat him like a human being, and possibly 'confess' to whatever minor transgression you probably actually committed.

You might actually get away without a ticket. Following this strategy has resulted in me avoiding a ticket 85% of the time, when I've been pulled over in my 14 year driving history.

'Misjudging' the situation only ever resulted in a ticket I technically deserved anyway, and which the officer might have given me regardless.

Now if the stakes are higher, you bet your ass I'm going to clam up. But if it's low level stuff your best bet is to play nice.

At that level, it's not so much about your 'rights' as human interaction

Re:What to say to police

[GreyLurk]

Interestingly, there were more than twice as many retail store supervisors killed on the job in violent assaults in the United States last year than police officers, so I'm not sure "Occupational Hazard" is quite the right word. However, you're generally right. Answer their questions politely, be aware of your rights, and know when to invoke them and how. It's just common courtesy to another human being.

Re:What to say to police

[sumdumass]

It would likely depend on the context and whether it's loaded or not.

The requirement in most states if that the gun and ammunition are in separate compartments when transporting a firearm with the compartment the gun is in being locked or stripped open to easily show if it's loaded or unloaded and in plain sight. The concept is at least three deliberate, separate, and noticeable steps to arm the weapon for use. I doubt California is much different if you are just transporting the firearm for legal use.

Re:What to say to police

[toQDuj]

I got out of a ticket once, by being polite, but refusing to implicate myself. The officer was asking: "how fast do you think you were going", upon which my answer was: "exactly the speed limit".

Notice that there are always two officers, one asking the questions, and the second recording the response. If you admit you have been speeding, they do not have to prove a thing. If you do not admit it (granted, it has to be around borderline case), the burden of proof is on them.

Being polite helps, though, even in the Netherlands.

Re:What to say to police

[datsa]

No one said anything about being confrontational. It's my experience that most police officers are nice people as well. But maybe you lucked out ending up talking about Pigeon Forge because the officer was in a good mood, and liked the way you looked or whatever. Maybe the next officer who came around wouldn't have been so cool. As a general rule of thumb, I would go with the OP's advice and not risk it.

p.s. Was this in a big city? I'm guessing definitely not.

All that means is you don't fact check

[Sycraft-fu]

Moore is not making documentaries, he's making propaganda/entertainment pieces. His presentation is not factual, it is slanted to tell a story he wants. Now that's fine, nothing at all wrong with that, however if you see him as a hero, well that just says that you aren't well informed on the issues. Not surprising, the world is complex and most people, Americans or otherwise, don't care to spend time to learn about all the shades of gray involved in something but there you go.

If you buy in to his version of the healthcare situation or the Iraq war or any of that all that speaks to is your lack of information on the matter. The reality is far different, far more complex, than the story he wishes to tell.

Re:All that means is you don't fact check

[copponex]

His version of the Iraq War? That the United States

1) Manufactured intelligence about WMDs
2) Ignored all international inspectors who said there were no WMDs
3) Kicked the inspectors out so they could have their war
4) Lied to the American people about the cost and length of war, with Rumsfeld publicly stating that it won't last "much longer" than 5 months or cost more than 50 to 60 billion dollars
5) Ended up torturing Iraqis in the same prisons where Saddam did his dirty work
6) Pretended that we hadn't supported Saddam right through his worst atrocities in the 80s, including supplying him with "dual use" technology to wage a war with Iran that killed a million people and
7) Removing Iraq from the State sponsors of Terror list in 1982 so US firms could also sell him biological weapons to kill Kurds with

If you were born in Germany in 1920, you would have died wearing a belt buckle that read "GOTT MIT UNS." Blind fealty to the flag is fucking pathetic.

Re:All that means is you don't fact check

[MrKaos]

Murdoch is not making documentaries, he's making propaganda/entertainment pieces. His presentation is not factual, it is slanted to tell a story he wants. Now that's fine, nothing at all wrong with that, however if you see him as a hero, well that just says that you aren't well informed on the issues. Not surprising, the world is complex and most people, Americans or otherwise, don't care to spend time to learn about all the shades of gray involved in something but there you go.

If you buy in to his version of the healthcare situation or the Iraq war or any of that all that speaks to is your lack of information on the matter. The reality is far different, far more complex, than the story he wishes to tell.

fixed that for ya.

Re:All that means is you don't fact check

[sjames]

So what are these mysterious complexities that make either in any way acceptable?

Re:Doomed

[Rakshasa Taisab]

How does it aid your international relations?...

Fuck you and your country's international relations.

People in a lot of countries are getting a wakeup call on how the US really views them and their elected (or not elected) leaders, and while it has been 'known' by those in the know... Still to have it exposed to the public in such a manner means it's much harder to try hiding it from the people.

Much of it is just embarrassing and not really 'relevant' stuff, true. Yet being a 'crime' is not really the standard by which we should filter them... Cause in that case even talk of acts of torture would be considered not interesting considering what the US has been up to lately.

Remember; these leaks are not primarily for the American people. They are for the rest of the world.

Ulterior Motive?

[l0ungeb0y]

If Assange goes missing and Moore puts on another 90lbs, I think we can chalk this up as the most expensive Take-Out meal ever

Re:Ulterior Motive?

[EnsilZah]

Surely it's worth it, for only be feasting on his flesh may he gain his powers.

Re:Ulterior Motive?

[Arthur Grumbine]

Julian Assange: the other really white meat.

Re:Ulterior Motive?

[Joe Jay Bee]

Mod: +1 Acutely distressing

Re:Ulterior Motive?

[GameboyRMH]

I lol'd so hard XD

Re:Ulterior Motive?

[Securityemo]

And, sadly, hairstyle.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Myopic]

My understanding is he's wanted for some non-standard local law having to do with wearing a condom, and that that "crime" is specifically not rape. Having seen this in at least a couple dozen news articles, you'd have to show me quite a bit of alternative stories saying the charge is RAPE, in order to convince me.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Lashat]

Where are you getting information that says that he is NOT facing the rape charges? Forgive me for quoting a media source as unreliable as TIME. I don't have a personal copy of the Interpol warrant or the Swede charges.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2035032,00.html

It's definately NOT the violent Rapey-Rape-Rape with a knife to the throat. That is how lay-people generally define "rape". It is infact "rape" as defined by law.

Sex without a condom against the wishes of the women. = Non-consensual sex = rape.

Re:Just Leave

[X.25]

A lot of people here like this country just the way it is and don't want anyone, Moore, Obama, or anyone else changing it in to something else.

Leave, Michael! You'd be happier, and we'd be happier.

A lot of people here don't like this country the way it is, and want someone (Moore, Obama or anyone else) to try changing it into something else.

Leave, Anonymous Coward. You'd be happier, and we'd be happier.

Insult at low levels

[stimpleton]

Those that bag Michael Moore and Julian Assange have probably achieved nothing themselves, save lead mundane lives.
I note a post above referred to Mr Moore as a "fat demagogue".
Those that achieve must do something these posters will never do, they must stick their head up and speak their mind. There will always be some ready to scythe down the tall poppy.

Re:Insult at low levels

[Myopic]

Don't insult the mundane. Almost everything done by humanity is done by the mundane. And some tall poppies are jackasses.

Re:Insult at low levels

[Labcoat Samurai]

Ah, I see. So they are our betters and we should not question them. Perhaps they should govern.

This is absurd. A free society should respect the free exchange of ideas. If you don't like the ideas, then debate them. But don't attack the speaker in lieu of what is spoken. Would it make a difference if some guy cured cancer and *then* said that Moore was a "fat demagogue"? And if we want to talk about pure accomplishment, GW Bush achieved far more than Michael Moore. Most would agree this is not a good thing, but by your reasoning, none of us should have the right to say so (including Moore, of course), because we'll never be in that position.

Re:Doomed

[ciderbrew]

I'd hate to hear the racist crap Hitler's Grandfather came out with at the dinner table. How right wing must HE have been?

Re:Or:

[clong83]

I disagree that it is the government's job to make a list of private citizen detractors. Even less so that such a list should be kept secret. Even if it were, and we could agree on that point, is it not interesting in the slightest to see what the US thinks is critical?

If Two Media Whores...

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

Collide in the middle of the night, does anyone hear it?

Re:If Two Media Whores...

[kaptink]

If they don't then the story is changed so that they do hear it.

Re:If Two Media Whores...

[FatdogHaiku]

If Two Media Whores collide in the middle of the night, does anyone hear it?

It's more like, can anyone avoid hearing it...
Sadly the answer is not likely... You would have to be at some religious retreat in the middle of the desert to miss it...

Re:Doomed

[Myopic]

You didn't say anything that Magarity said you said. People can hate both Moore and Palin. None of what Mararity said makes sense. You are right. Magarity is wrong. You win. He loses.

Re:Alternative headline

[gtbritishskull]

Yes, in war civilians get killed. That does not make it OK to lie about how those people died. If it is only a few then the public will probably accept it as acceptable collateral damage. If not, then the public can put pressure on politicians to change how things are progressing. It is a check upon the workings of the government. But, if the government lies about it, then that check is circumvented. If you don't know the truth about what is going on, then how do you judge whether your government is acting in your best interests (as opposed to the best interests of the rich and powerful)?

Re:Empty theatrics

[oh_my_080980980]

Dude the women want him tested for STDs because they had unprotected sex with him. There is no sex crime.

Get a clue.

Re:Alternative headline

[frankxcid]

That's the point. The belief that war should be clean as a hospital room is what prolongs wars. this fear of not hurting civilians is very new and has never happened before. No other war has ever been fought without hurting civilians and some have been ended by hurting civilians. What is wrong with this accusation is that showing the videos and internal papers is that someone's feelings are hurt (i.e. next of kin, grieving civilians back home, etc.). It is naive to assume that this does not go on. Everyone who cares enough knows that this goes on. As for your suggestion, sorry, but wars are necessary and should be fought with no restraints so that the enemy will not fight them again. Ask the japanese how likely they are to start another war. What recruits the enemy is the likelyhood of winning, not hurting their feelings. The Soviet's stop fighting in Afghanistan? No! they lost the war. That is why there aren't any Soviets anymore.

Re:Doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

The greatest purpose that was served was to show you how fragile or even imaginative your freedom of speech really is. There seems to be a national will to get rid of Wikileaks by any means necessary. Nobody gives a shit he is not even US citizen and that even if he was, he broke no law. He is simply a reporter whom everybody is trying to shut down simply because he is embarrasing them. Sure, not all leaks server greater good per se, but you, USA citizens, really should ask yourselves what values you stand for. Cause it does not seem to be based on your constitution, the way your founding fathers planned.

Re:Alternative headline

[gtbritishskull]

I will give you that Michael Moore is a propagandist. How is Assange one? The only way I have seen him manipulate information is to protect himself against the smear campaign being mounted against him.

Re:Or:

[Myopic]

Assange is an ideologue for open societies. I reject all ideology. Sometimes secrets are reasonable, even if usually they are not. I bet you agree with that.

Re:oh gee

[Jerry Rivers]

Moore doesn't work to expose anything, he works to further his own pocket - both Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911 were driveling pieces of shit with huge gaping lies throughout.

I'm eagerly awaiting your own movie exposing these "lies" for all to see.

Re:Doomed

[h4rm0ny]

Yep - Michael Moore's support is more damaging to Julian Assange than any of the stunts the US government has pulled so far.

My enemy is not some political faction, but the methods they use. And anyone who uses those same methods is just as guilty. The correct response to lies and distortion and fallacious arguments is accuracy, truth and reason. Not just more of the same in the other direction. Michael Moore - not much better than those he affects to despise, merely less adept at evil.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[H0p313ss]

Mr. Moore falls prey to a common mistake in ethical reasoning. He says that the actions of certain states are "carried out in our name and with our tax dollars". Politicians are not anyone's agents in a legal or ethical sense, regardless of whether some of us choose to participate in the exercise in legitimacy-creation known as 'voting'. If they claim to act in "our" behalf, they are making the same mistake Moore makes, or (more likely) they are liars. Once my taxes are confiscated under threat of violence by the state, I have no ethical responsibility for how they are spent, and no standing to complain. If I am waylaid by a highwayman, and later monitor his spending habits and discover that he is using some of his funds to commit immoral acts, do I whine or hang my head over my imagined guilt? Hardly.

So the people are not responsible for the actions of the government that they elected? The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves.

Re:Empty theatrics

[heptapod]

Read this article about the charges.

In short it's only considered rape because they did not consent to sex without a condom and Assange didn't wear a condom or continued fucking them in the pooper like a boss after his condom broke.

Not so nasty after all since it's not Japanese anime-style rape.

Re:Association with Michael Moore

[Cajun Hell]

I can't see how being associated with Michael Moore is going to help him or Wikileaks.

Oh, I can explain that for ya. Easy.

It helps Assange by getting him out of jail. It helps Wikileaks by getting Assange out of jail.

HTH.

Also, I doubt this will cause Wikileaks to become "associated with" Moore, or at least not in a negative way, even after Moore makes a movie about how much he loves Wikileaks. Let's look at the three cases.

Right wingers infuriated by government abuses of power: Moore's a lefty, but he's also a stick-it-to-The-Man leftie. These people can agree to disagree with Moore about what to do after the government is punished or overthrown, but agree that they have much bigger fish to fry than some wackjob filmmaker.

Left wingers who think government needs to have lots of power: damn, what Wikileaks did was very bad, but wait, my fellow leftie Moore is on their side?

Undecided people: If you're undecided about Wikileaks, then the arrest wasn't about confirming your desire for justice by punishing Assange for Wikileaks, or confirming your conspiracy theory about how evil governments are. He was arrested because of an unrelated rape charge. So this is all about Moore's attitude about rape, or his attitude about people rotting in jail awaiting trials, or whatever, but the bail is about Moore, not Assange.

It's break-even or win, every way. Of course Assange will choose to take advantage of the bail and leave jail. Other than fear of assassination (whether legitimate or due to delusions of grandeur), what does he have to lose? They can get you in jail too.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't agree with taxes, you're free to move to a country without them.

Re:Empty theatrics

[c6gunner]

Ok, it's one propaganda artist trying to gain publicity by bailing out another. Wow, that, like, TOTALLY changes everything I was saying! Oh darns, I made a slight error based on da outdated informations! Whatever shall I do!

Only ideologues and fanatics fear having their mistakes exposed; rational people welcome the opportunity to correct their errors. So it feels fine, thanks for asking. How does your to-to feel?

Re:Doomed

[OldeTimeGeek]

Lacking the opportunity to meet these people within my normal social circles, I prefer to form my own opinions based upon unedited and unbiased interviews of a reasonable enough length to prevent any contextual manipulation. Sadly that's not how the news will ever portray someone, it doesn't sell so well.

Of course it doesn't sell well. Because people won't sit still for long-form investigative journalism. They want the salacious details - whether they're true or not - and they want them now. If they don't get them, they'll change the channel to someone who will give it to them.

Watergate-style investigative reporting won't ever happen again. Not because of any interference by government, but because nobody will be interested in spending the time and effort to gather all of the details and make sense of the big picture. The "best" we'll have in the future is a leak reporting the break-in, another one reporting some of the money deals, possibly another one reporting the "dirty tricks", but nothing to link them together. Without context, everyone will see what they want to see. People who hate government will point at the leaks as further indication of how corrupt government is. People who have more trust in government will ignore it. Which is exactly what we have now.

Re:Empty theatrics

[ChipMonk]

If what Assange did is considered "rape," then this must be, as well.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I'm a nutbag anarcho-capitalist, and I donate to Wikileaks.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

The founding fathers never got a chance to read Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent.

Re:Why does Moore use the word "our"?

[Cajun Hell]

Because if the acts were not crimes, then the wholly-justified not-crimes acts of goodness were even moreso carried out in your name, because surely you'd want some of the credit for all the wonderful things that are being done to help the world become a better place.

Re:Or:

[horza]

First of all what you are saying is not true. He offered the State department the chance to redact the documents, which they declined, then worked in conjunction with respectable papers such as the Guardian and New York Times to publish them.

Secondly, the job of a journalist is to find stories in the public interest and publish them. They aren't all caped crusaders. At least Wikileaks is only publishing information that is anonymously sent to them. In the UK journalists are quite happy to break the law, hack into people's private information, and do whatever it takes to get a story. News of The World in the UK hacked into the voicemail of celebrities, politicians and royal family to get stories (list of victims here).

I would trust Julian Assange to be more apolitical than Michael Moore.

Phillip.

Re:Doomed

[Programmer_In_Traini]

welcome in the world of he 10% of people trying to resist mass media manipulation. truth of the matter is that many people who just want to be kept up to date on whats going on in the world prefer to be spoonfed and be told what to believe, blindly thinking that media are impartial.

i manage to avoid most of the crap by simply stopping bearing credibility to medias such as pop radio and private tv channels like ABC for instance, i prefer (in my canadian case) sticking to CBC radio and television that have a much more impartial mandate.

Re:Doomed

[clong83]

Exactly this. For every movie of his I've watched, there has come at least two or three points in the film where I've thought to myself, "Okay, I see your point, but your methods and reasoning are just plain BAD. Furthermore, you've just given everybody who doesn't want to listen the perfect excuse to criticize you and ignore you. WHY?"

Re:In an alternate reality...

[aztektum]

You know, Michael Moore may resort to half-truths and tugging at the heart strings, but if you have a brain you can see beyond that while still finding a valid message.

If you're an idiot, I'd still rather have you following Michael Moore's rhetoric than Glenn Beck's.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

I hear this all the time, "He makes some good points but makes them badly." I don't understand this at all. You agree with him, but the way he says things makes you not want to agree? How does that work? What is it about his communication style that makes you want to disagree with things you actually agree with?

Are you sure you agree with what he is saying? Maybe you do agree with him, but you really don't want to agree with him? Maybe you don't want a fat hippie liberal slob to be right, because it sets a bad precedent and then other fat hippie liberal slobs might start speaking up? I don't know, I'm just guessing here. Maybe it is because he is a populist, and you are an elitist, and even when populists are correct, elitists have to put them down, to maintain their elite status? Maybe "He makes some good points but makes them badly." is some sort of code for "I really don't want to agree with him, but I have pretensions of intellectual honesty I am loath to give up, and I have to admit that he is telling the truth even though I don't want to."

Re:And you're surprised?

[Myopic]

He sure does. Sigh. I wish the truth were capable of changing the minds of most people, but it isn't. That's too bad, but until individual humans reject nontruths, at least the side of morality and reason has a liar to rely on. Moore is a rare liberal, the kind that would rather convince than tell the truth, and in that he does the world good. I bet you would agree with me that the optimal world would be one in which the truth is more convincing than a lie. Alas, we will have to long for that world, while we settle for this one.

Fallacious Title

[II Xion II]

I am not one usually to complain about titles or editors or any of the other Slashdot memes, but this title is a crock of shit. How misleading can it get? Not only did he not post Assange's bail, he didn't even offer the full amount!

Given the importance of the headline in advertising the story, I find it a piss poor and inane choice.

My two cents.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

Please point out where MM is lying. I hear this all the time, but his work has been fact checked left, right, up, down and sideways and no one can find the glaring lies that some people claim are there. Please, you seem quite upset by him, so I just know you have actual factual, verifiable examples of him lying.

Re:Doomed

[bickerdyke]

My problem with him on a personal level is he doesn't let the evidence speak for itself...he seems to find it imperitive to make sure that you know that he's the one saying it.

That's quite important, because what he says is a hyperbole you need to take with a ton of salt.

Even then he is still right, but at another level.

Re:Doomed

[bstender]

What purpose is served in releasing the fact that Hilary Clinton worries about the mental health of other world leaders? How does that aid in our international relations? That's just one of 1000's of items that were released that are not crimes, are not important for the American people to know, and still undermine our government's ability to operate on the world stage.

It is quite possible that the wikileaks editorial board has made a decision to NOT be the arbiter of what is good or bad for any gov in particular and is limiting their editing to names of persons who may be endangered. Releasing them in bulk is a neutral stance which lends them credibility.

You may be operating from the assumption that USGov diplomacy is by definition "good", but there is also the notion that allowing all the parties in question to have greater clarity about the truth will lead to superior results for all concerned.

as they say; "The truth cuts only to cure"

Re:Doomed

[spun]

I hear this complaint about him but don't understand it. You are upset because you think he is aggrandizing himself in his movies? How so I just don't see it. I've always thought critiques like this were mere cover for people who either don't like what he says, or don't like the fact that it is a fat working class slob and not an ivy league snob saying it.

Re:Vigilante nutjobs vs corporate nutjobs

[Enderandrew]

No, standing behind liars doesn't make you a hero and a paragon of truth. It makes you a hypocrite.

If you truly believe in the pursuit of truth, then you need to focus on the truth. I know that is a crazy concept in this partisan society of ours where we want to side with anyone who picks a fight with the other side.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Kijori]

But he was wanted for rape charges - there was a European arrest warrant in his name on charges of, among other things, rape.

Re:Doomed

[bigstrat2003]

What the hell? I never said the two were equivalent by any means. Your sense of reading comprehension needs work.

Re:Doomed

[Doomdark]

My problem with him on a personal level is he doesn't let the evidence speak for itself.

Minor nitpick: that would be your problem with his professional side, not personal, unless this bothers you when directly interacting with him. Maybe this confusion may stem from common but misguided use of "I personally believe" (instead of plain old "I believe").

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[vegiVamp]

It is not by your taxes that they are public servants working in your name, but by dint of your vote. If you did not vote, then I agree that they do not directly work "in your name", but you are still partly responsible simply because you didn't provide a vote to someone else.

If you *did* vote for one not elected, however, you can succesfully argue that they are not yours in any way. That doesn't mean that they're not acting in the name of "the people", though - just not you specifically.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[H0p313ss]

The founding fathers never got a chance to read Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent.

True. I weep for the American Dream.

Re:Doomed

[Beardo the Bearded]

People can hate both Moore and Palin.

No, you have to choose. You get to pick either Moore, abortion, gun control, gay marriage support; or Palin, destroying terrorists, bailouts and conservative values.

You can't pick and choose a la carte. This isn't a restaurant. This is America.

Re:Or:

[koreaman]

Please link to ONE document that was classified "Top Secret" in this leak.

Re:Alternative headline

[Minwee]

You mean Canadian Bacon, right? That, uh, that wasn't a documentary.

Maybe not, but everything he said about Canada was still true.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[Archangel Michael]

It is the nutjob Socialists commenting on Wikileaks that bring out the nutjob libertarians. ;)

Re:Doomed

[Beardo the Bearded]

That's not true.

Just the other day a guy here went to jail for 20 years for not having a bike light.

I'm wanted on a Canada-wide warrant for jaywalking and defacing currency. (I wrote "Happy Birthday" on a $20 with a Sharpie for a friend's birthday.)

Damn signature...

Re:Moore Claims Credit!

[blair1q]

If $20,000 isn't the full amount, it doesn't do the job. It helps do the job.

Re:Or:

[Daniel Dvorkin]

However, Assange is NOT a journalist. Journalists are supposed to have a sense of responsibility. All Assange does is release documents no matter what they are, without apparently trying to determine if they NEED to be leaked.

I don't think you know what the word "journalist" means. A journalist is anyone who reports the news as an occupation. That's it. No other qualification needed.

And journalists who worry about "sense of responsibility" are everywhere -- they're the folks writing bland, instantly forgettable wire service stories; they're the interchangeable talking heads on TV; they're the soothing voices on the radio that you couldn't put names to if your life depended on it. The very few journalists who dig deeper, who know there's always more muck to rake, who have the intelligence and dedication and raw courage to speak truth to power, are the ones whose names are remembered, and rightly so.

Woodward and Bernstein are still household names long after most of their contemporaries have been utterly forgotton. So will Assange be. And while people like you may continue to whine, those of us who want to live in a better world will remember why.

Re:Doomed

[Pojut]

It's hard for me to explain...I view him like the douchey stormchaser guys in that movie "Twister". They're doing awesome work, but they're being dicks about it.

I've always thought critiques like this were mere cover for people who either don't like what he says, or don't like the fact that it is a fat working class slob and not an ivy league snob saying it.

I can't speak for others, but in my case that isn't true at all. I've seen everything the man has released, and I truly appreciate the effort he puts into it all.

Re:Doomed

[bberens]

I don't believe I'm in the middle. I'm for incredibly small government interference both fiscally and socially. *shrug*

Re:Just Leave

[Doomdark]

A lot of people here like this country just the way it is and don't want anyone, Moore, Obama, or anyone else changing it in to something else.

And many, many more would like to change it in one way or another. Most of them fully disagreeing in actual changes.

If you are uncomfortable with such a state of things, where changes happen over time; and often in conflicting directions, you might want to considering moving yourself. There are still dictatorships where things change more slowly and in more predictable direction. Ironically enough Cuba has been such a country at least until recently.

Re:Empty theatrics

[bluie-]

What annoys me about the media, is everything.

Re:Alternative headline

[Capt_Morgan]

I find it hilarious that Americans say "yes, in war civilians get killed". If those civilians were HERE people wouldn't be so damn cavalier about it. People in Europe are much less likely to support wars because they actually know what the phrase "civilian casualities" really means

This is a good thing

[gurps_npc]

1. Assange is clearly innocent of any serious offense (read the 'rape' complaints against him - both women admit to agreeing to have sex with him - their complaints are based on rather esoteric nordic laws that typically are satisified by a FINE, not imprisonment.) He is not a US citizen (so can't be called a traitor), and did not steal or in any way compensate the thief that stole the info. He simply published the information - and attacking him for publishing true information is a violation of the Right of Free Speech and the Right to a Free Press - even if you don't like him, he is still an internet publisher.

2. Assange is also one of the douchey-est asswipes I have ever heard of. What he did to those women may not have been rape by any american legal definition of the word, but he is still the kind of loser I would warn my sister and niece away from (of course that doesn't say much about the two loose women that slept with him either.).

3. Moore is also a fairly douchey, even if he often supports moral causes, he tends to do so rather unethically. Moore and Asasange make a good pair and they should help each other out.

4. It releaves me of the nagging thought that I should help out Assange with cash. I mean, he may be a total douchey asswipe, but he shouldn't go to jail. The morons calling him a terrorist need to get a grip. Terrorists KILL people they hate. When all you do is print/publish/write crap about people you hate it is called being the "loyal opposition". If we could get Bin Laden to stop trying to kill us and only publish our nasty secrets, that would be a huge victory.

So I am pretty happy about this situation. One nasty person helping out another nasty person that was falsely accused, so that I don't have to do it myself.

Re:This is a good thing

[gurps_npc]

No I know exactly what I am talking about. They both agreed to have sex. They both had pleasant contact with the him after wards. The first girl through a party FOR HIM and then INTRODUCED him to the other after the incident she talked about.

The only definition of rape that that lets you get away with it would ALSO call every single ugly woman that has sex with a drunk man a rapists. (Re-read that sentence - You are claiming that women rape men). Just because you have second thoughts DAYS after you agreed to have sex with someone does not mean you were raped.

Re:What to say to police (what is costs)

[Anonymous Coward]

I learned something recently about this. If you don't talk to the police, they will try to coerce you. Remember, they can hold you for 72 hours without filing charges. So, if you don't talk to them, expect to be arrested, booked, spend 12 hours in holding cells, held in jail with convicted criminals until they finally choose not to file charges against and release you. Bail is so high its impossible for non-celebrities to pay. Even bail bonds cost you 10% and that's a fee. I spent 3 days in jail vs paying $5,000 bail bond (on $50k bail). It was an educational experience. I was exercising my civil rights and for that I was treated like an animal. Hand cuffed, strip searched, DNA scanned. Jail is so dehumanizing.

Re:Just Leave

[blair1q]

The truth is a good thing.

So are secrets, when their secrecy is legal.

Assange suborns treasons. That's fine when they're committed by Chinese dissidents, but it's not fine when they're committed by American soldiers.

That's not a double standard. American law is good. Chinese law is bad.

American law, in particular, contains language that makes hiding illegalities behind the cloak of Secrecy illegal in itself, and makes illegal retaliating against people who work to get those Secrets made un-secret. Through authorized means of declassification, not by throwing the secrets into the wind.

Manning is a criminal. Assange is a criminal. Moore is not a criminal, but he may not understand the law in this case. While it is good that some of the things revealed have been revealed, it is not legal that they have been revealed this way.

Which is aside from everything, because Moore bailed Assange out for Assange's douchebag sexual practices, not for anything to do with Wikileaks, though Assange himself tried to play that lie against the Swedish police.

Yes, American's are Duped by Corporate Media

[mathmathrevolution]

It's curious how Americans, particularly the American right-wing, describe Moore as a propagandist but still believe the American government, military, and corporate behemoths are creditworthy sources. Moore's portrayal of the Iraq War is much more accurate than the Bush administration's. For example, Americans eagerly swallowed bullshit claims about WMDs, aluminum tubes, Nigerian yellowcake. But when Moore points out these lies and the media's complicity in spreading them, the media calls Moore a propagandist. Unfortunately, most people (in America but also everywhere else) have neither the capacity or the inclination to critically examine the dominant media narratives.

It's the same thing with Wikileaks. People just don't want to hear the inconvenient truth. It's not comforting to know that one's government is lying to you and is, for example, engaging in a covert war in Yemen. They would rather have Assange prosecuted so they could maintain the myth of an honest, well-meaning, responsible American government that fights for freedom and human rights.

Re:Alternative headline

[Zumbs]

It is naive to assume that this does not go on. Everyone who cares enough knows that this goes on.

If everyone knows that war is equal to significant murder of civilians, then why is it that politicians and military do their utmost to make voters believe that the war is clinical? If everyone knows, it is wasted effort. They do so because they want to paint themselves as the heroes who are helping the poor Afghans/Iraqis/Vietnamese against some evil oppressor. Rampant killing of children, journalists and other civilians marks them as villains. So they try to hide it.

As for your suggestion, sorry, but wars are necessary and should be fought with no restraints so that the enemy will not fight them again.

Who gets to decide if a war is necessary? I certainly do not see the point in continuing a war that has been lost for the last 5-6 years. And no restraint? By that argument, NATO should withdraw and nuke Afghanistan to dust. I certainly do not hope that the US population will accept such an atrocity!

The Soviet's stop fighting in Afghanistan? No! they lost the war. That is why there aren't any Soviets anymore.

No, but only four years after the fall of the USSR, Russia launched a very bloody war against Chechnya. And even after a war against the Russians, the Afghans seem more than willing to fight for their soil.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Jeremy Erwin]

Obviously, you haven't spent enought time among the feminist community. I reccomend that you start with Femonade

Re:Or:

[pe1rxq]

No, most of them are NOT marked 'Top Secret'.
I find it rather ironic that you complain about 'grade school comments' when your own comment shows that you have no idea what you are talking about and use 'fuck' in halve of your sentences.

Re:Doomed

[Arccot]

What purpose is served in releasing the fact that Hilary Clinton worries about the mental health of other world leaders? How does that aid in our international relations?

Who is "our"? The USA? I think the people living in the countries with potentially unstable leaders would absolutely want to know if high-level world leaders think their local president/general/despot is nutters. They probably are not getting that information from the local propaganda/media.

That's just one of 1000's of items that were released that are not crimes, are not important for the American people to know, and still undermine our government's ability to operate on the world stage.

You're making the same mistake alot of people are that I've talked to about this. Wikileaks is not American. They operate on a worldwide scale. There are plenty of people worldwide who do want to know what is going on in the US and other governments.

Releasing those kinds of documents doesn't serve a greater good. It doesnt expose any wrong-doings. It doesn't help create stability, ensure -anyone's- safety, or promote any kind of cooperation between nations. It was released to embarrass the US government and garner sensationlistic attention from a little weasle.

Which documents are you referring to? Again, I've heard this complaint alot, but no one can point to which documents should not have been released. Even if some documents are mundane garbage, the whole philosophy of Wikileaks is that they do not make these sort of judgments as to what to release and what not to release. If someone leaks data to them, they release it in way that will get the most publicity. That's the deal, and that's why informants leak this data, because they can be sure whatever is sent to Wikileaks will get out.

Not to mention that this guy released the names of confidential informants in the middle east. In doing so he signed the death warrants of those people. What greater purpose was served by releasing their names? What good will come of that? What crime did they commit? What evil are they responsible for? Where are your indignant tears for them and their families who will almost assuredly be slaughtered?

Who are these people? What names? Again, these claims are commonly made without sourcing who specifically is being talked about. As to what crimes they committed, I can't speak to that without knowing who they are. As far as general policy, Wikileaks has on numerous occasions contacted the US government to try and get help with removing actually sensitive data, such as names and locations. The US government knew that Wikileaks was going to release these documents, and decided not to point out which names were sensitive. Why aren't you blaming them?

Re:Doomed

[Duradin]

Liking some aspects of a person while disliking others, a non-binary state, interesting concept. More people should try it, the world would probably be better for it.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

Huh. No accounting for taste, I guess. As for me, I like his style. I've always thought that people who "disliked his personality" did so because Fox News told them too. But I'm guessing that's not the case with you, just honest aesthetic distaste.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Was the "American Dream" ever anything other than a figment of some marketing pusbag's imagination?

Re:Vigilante nutjobs vs corporate nutjobs

[osgeek]

That's a really apt metaphor, since those with that attitude are burning everything down all around us with incendiary politics.

Congratulations. You win a burnt-out society that could have really been something great if you had applied reason to our problems instead of fire.

Re:Just Leave

[BobMcD]

You're not fit to judge which laws are valid and which are not unless you're likewise prepared to back that up with full strength of government.

So, yes, that is a double standard. It is the very definition of a double standard to say that China is not permitted to have secrets while we are. That's insane.

And just because the law has details within it does not mean that the secrets being exposed were worth keeping.

I believe in a government without any secrets. Governments aren't people, so they have no rights, including no right to privacy. All this 'treason' stuff is just laziness and deceit.

Re:Doomed

[Beardo the Bearded]

Valerie Plame.

Wikileaks worked with the Pentagon to make sure that field operatives were not put into danger. "Beardo is feeding us info" is different than "Oh man, this video from the Apache is embarrassing as FUCK."

Also, and this is the most important point and I'd like you to read it,

I AM THEIR BOSS.

I am not a taxpayer or a voter or a constituent. I'm a Citizen. So are you. The government exists at our whim. They don't get to hide their communications from us under the guise of it "being classified" because it DAMN WELL IS NOT. There are rules about what can be considered a Classified document, and personal opinions are NOT part of that package. In order to be Classified, there must be a clear and distinct danger to the nation if The Bad Guys get their hands on it. That's stuff like military radio frequencies for the [things], crypto waggles of the day, and other things. 95% of the drawings and plans for warships are unclassified. All the electrical wiring, the layout, etc, are all just available. So there's not a lot of stuff that's really and truly Classified.

It's not things like "Hilary Clinton doesn't like the German Chancellor's hairdo" or "Putin likes his muscles". You can't just slap a "Classified" stamp on something and hope that it never sees the light of day. That's an abuse of the system and it carries significant penalties.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[gtbritishskull]

OK... I will take your bait. So who is liable for the actions of a country? You say that politicians are not our agents. They are elected based upon promises they make and ideology they espouse during the election. They are in their position of power because the people that elected them decided to put them there. If they are elected to office, are these politicians not ethically bound to follow the ideologies that they espouse and follow up on the promises that they made? (whether or not they actually do is another question) If so, it would seem that they are ethically the agents of the people who elected them. Since they got elected based upon actions that they are expected to perform.

Also, "confiscated under threat of violence by the state"? How do you figure they are "confiscated"? If you lease a car, and then refuse to make payments, would you consider the court requiring that you pay them "confiscation" or just you being forced to make payments? The state is providing services; why should you not pay for them? Also, you don't elect a "highwayman". You have no effect on his ability to take your money. You do have an ability to affect whether a state can take your money. It is an invalid metaphor.

Re:Doomed

[Jeremy Erwin]

The release of information is filtered through four representatives of the mainstream media-- The Guardian, The New York Times (which leaches off the Guardian's access), Le Monde, and Der Spiegel. The full release of the documents won't be available until the Americans do something stupid.

Re:oh gee

[circletimessquare]

the man engages in ideological arguments that don't guarantee any financial return. he could take the money he earns and lead a much more lucrative life, not doing things like, for example, springing for assange's bail

look: you don't have to like michael moore, but you have to admit that he is a man of conscience, that what motivates him is belief, not greed. to say that someone like michael moore is really just motivated by money, when he clearly is a shining example of a person motivated by ideology, is just a lame weak ignorant smear on your part

Re:Doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's more like he lies and uses bad logic but often still comes to the right conclusions.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[Johnny5000]

You know, Michael Moore may resort to half-truths and tugging at the heart strings, but if you have a brain you can see beyond that while still finding a valid message.

The thing is, there IS a valid message, and he doesn't need to resort to half-truths to get that message across. The message should speak for itself. Embellishments and falsehoods are only going to cloud the validity of that message.

Re:Just Leave

[Archangel Michael]

My distaste for Mr Moore is that HE lies to prove that US lies. Lies begetting lies doesn't make for truth. Your support of Mr Moore doesn't support the truth anymore than blindly supporting our country does.

Our country is great, not because it lies, but rather because we realize that it is the best damn country (or at least was) in spite of all the warts, scars and problems.Mr Moore wants to toss the baby out with the bath water, because the baby caused the water to be dirty, instead of realizing the water is supposed to be dirty, and the baby is supposed to be clean. Baby's get dirty, need to change the water often. We don't need to kill the baby because it keeps getting dirty.

Of course, the dirty water ends up in the water table and pollution and so on, and the only way to fix that is to go to the Georgia Guidestones and bow down and worship at the Elitist agenda.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Nothing in common

[gtbritishskull]

So, Michael Moore is like Fox News. He IS a real journalist. Right? It is Assange who is a fake journalist.

Re:Doomed

[Duradin]

Car, is that what they're calling Multi-ton Murder Machines these days?

Re:Just Leave

[Archangel Michael]

We the People, get the government we deserve. It is the worst form of governance, except for all the others.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[skywire]

One need not be a libertarian to understand that voting does not create agency, and that a voter is not morally responsible for the actions of elected legislators. I debated omitting my dig at voting; it introduced an independent issue that is muddying the waters. Even the most ardent democrat must admit that the elected representative is not the agent of any particular voter. He has not obligated himself to act under the direction of the voter, or to carry out any particular promises. He can take actions that run directly counter to the wishes of the voter. How can the voter be held morally responsible for those actions? Once the tax money leaves the voter's pocket, it is utterly out of his control as well as fungible, so he cannot complain that "his" money is being spent contrary to his wishes, only that he disagrees with how it is being spent, and he has as much right to disagree whether he paid any taxes or not. Nor need he feel any guilt over its bad use.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

And I think your mother was a llama. What do I base that on? Absolutely nothing, which appears to be the standard of proof you are using.

Moore made his argument. Your rebuttal to his argument is "He lies and uses bad logic." which isn't really any kind of rebuttal or argument at all, it is just an unsupported opinion. Remember, that which can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. So, consider yourself and your opinions dismissed until you come back with some evidence.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Empty theatrics

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

You forget that it's not sexism when women do it to men, and that there's no such thing as "misandry".

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Doomed

[gclef]

People are emotional creatures, and logic does not rule us. This happens all the time in office politics, and *quite* often in national politics. How an argument is presented has a huge impact on its reception by a listener. If this person is saying that Michael Moore makes them not want to agree with him, is that the fault of the listener, or the fault of the presenter? If Michael Moore is trying to persuade, and is instead turning off his audience, that would seem to be Mr. Moore's fault for not being effective at persuasion.

In short, there's a reason why pretty people go farther, and why the skilled speakers tend to win arguments even when they're being illogical: presentation and emotion matters. Ignore that and you will always lose arguments.

Re:Empty theatrics

[horigath]

The charge in question is "sexual molestation". However, he is accused of this in addition to rape, not instead of. He is alleged to have had sex with a sleeping woman and to have lain forcefully on top of a woman to prevent her from ending it.

Re:Just Leave

[BobMcD]

My distaste for Mr Moore is that HE lies to prove that US lies. Lies begetting lies doesn't make for truth. Your support of Mr Moore doesn't support the truth anymore than blindly supporting our country does.

And you can stop right there. I'm not supporting Moore, I'm opposing asshattry. There's a difference, and it is salient.

We don't need to kill the baby because it keeps getting dirty.

Tell that to George, Thomas, Benjamin, and the bunch. Your only criteria is 'it is a baby', and that's not nearly good enough when applied to government.

Re:Just Leave

[blair1q]

No, it isn't a double standard. It's the paradox of sovereignty.

Either my law is the law I want everywhere, or I should accept your law. But accepting two different sets of law for the same species of human being is irrational.

And I am fit to judge. I vote.

I believe in a government without any secrets.

Then you will lose every war brought by every enemy.

Secrets are necessary to security. Same reason you have passwords on your online accounts and hide your PIN when you're at the ATM. Without secrecy, everything you have will be stolen by people who don't have any concern for your rights or feelings.

Not all things need to be secret, and, AS I SAID, the law spells out what is not to be made secret. And, AS I SAID, the fact that the released information included some things that shouldn't have been secret does not mitigate the crime of releasing all of the information, nor even the crime of improperly releasing the illegally classified information.

Don't confuse the principle of self-defense for a blanket vacation of the principle that two wrongs don't make a right. And don't confuse a rule against making crimes secret for a blanket vacation of the need to keep some things secret.

Re:Alternative headline

[genner]

Michael Moore finds way to stay relevant

Michael Moore was never relevant.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Per Wigren]

If what Assange did is considered "rape," then this must be, as well.

No, that's a fucking massacre!

Re:Doomed

[blair1q]

Cars aren't designed to kill. They're designed to prevent people from being killed in a very dangerous situation. When they aren't designed to prevent people from being killed in a very dangerous situation, we punish their designers, builders, and salesmen. What then should we do with a device that is designed specifically and with maximal facility to kill?

It's called Democracy

[mathmathrevolution]

"Michael Moore falls prey to a mistake in ethical reasoning by failing to expound that taxation is immoral as well as the rest of my trite ideological drivel."

Re:Or:

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Journalists are supposed to have a sense of responsibility.

A sense of responsibility to whom? And how do you know that Mr. Assange isn't acting in accordance with his sense of responsibility?

For my part, I support Wikileaks because I think that no government should ever be permitted to keep secrets. History suggests that secrecy is the root of tyranny.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please lay off the sophomore crack. There IS a difference between the government and a highwayman. If you don't like corrupt politicians, run for office. Start small like they all do. Run for city council or state legislature. Instead of sitting back and throwing stones, jump in and walk a mile in their shoes. Or are you one of those people who believe that even a government with YOU as an office holder is corrupt, because all government is corrupt? The word for this philosophical position is, of course, anarchist. According to people who have lived under anarchy; anarchy is not fun.

Re:So,

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Some of us (like me) actually paid attention when our public school social studies classes bothered to teach anything resembling civics.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[Your.Master]

He's arguing that government itself is the problem and electing a different leader of the government is therefore meaningless. Essentially, anarchism.

I don't agree with his position, just trying to clarify it on his behalf.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[dogmatixpsych]

Both points are debatable. You do not have to like the Iraq War to know that we really were not lied into the war. The ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda were never explicitly stated as reasons. WMDs was given as a reason but just about every government (there were a lot of U.N. declarations stating that) in the world believed Iraq had them. I know it's more complex than that but to say we were lied into the Iraq War is disingenuous.

As far as the health care crisis; do we have a health care crisis or a health insurance crisis? Health care != health insurance. Much of the rising health care costs stem from our insurance system (and while I'm not opposed to a nationalized health care plan, I know that will not fix anything. Almost all the other countries in the world with nationalized health care are starting to privatize more and more). We have to fix the health (obesity, etc.) of Americans before we can fix health care (and we probably won't fix the biggest {pun intended} problems of health through health care).

Re:Alternative headline

[geekymachoman]

[quote]
The Soviets wisely stopped fighting in Afghanistan when they realized it's hopeless to civilize that mountain country, and we should too. We'd save a LOT of lives.
[/quote]

Offtopic and possibly flame bait, but someones gotta say this.

As someone who had his country 'invaded' by US gov, I gotta say... we don't want you to 'civilize' us. And don't give me that bs crap about terrorism, what, are you so dumbed down that you really think we, less developed countries, suicide bomb or whatever you're country because we're jealous you live so good ? Yeah, right. We don't give a f about you, until you start meddling in our business, which you do because of you're gov own self interests, not because us gov is some kind of peace keepers or whatever propaganda they shove down you're throat so you support this kind of bs.

And regarding this wikileaks stuff, if you, the American people, don't do something about you're government (and no, electing so called 'democrats' won't help) nothing will happen. This will get buried eventually. And for all those deaths and all injustice you're gov did, using you're (taxpayers) money, no one will be judged - "because you aren't waging war, you're CIVILIZING us".

Now, get off my lawn.

Re:oh gee

[TheNinjaroach]

Bowling for Columbine was brilliant. Fahrenheit 911 was loony.

Re:Doomed

[gstoddart]

Wait, are they stories or documentaries?

I think you'll find there isn't a single definition of "documentary".

From wikipdia:

Grierson's principles of documentary were that cinema's potential for observing life could be exploited in a new art form; that the "original" actor and "original" scene are better guides than their fiction counterparts to interpreting the modern world; and that materials "thus taken from the raw" can be more real than the acted article. In this regard, Grierson's views align with Vertov's contempt for dramatic fiction as "bourgeois excess", though with considerably more subtlety. Grierson's definition of documentary as "creative treatment of actuality" has gained some acceptance, though it presents philosophical questions about documentaries containing stagings and reenactments.

In his essays, Dziga Vertov argued for presenting "life as it is" (that is, life filmed surreptitiously) and "life caught unawares" (life provoked or surprised by the camera).

Pare Lorentz defines a documentary film as "a factual film which is dramatic."[2] Others further state that a documentary stands out from the other types of non-fiction films for providing an opinion, and a specific message, along with the facts it presents.[3]

Michael Moore is unabashedly presenting a viewpoint, and providing political commentary.

There is no single definition of "documentary" that precludes what Moore does. Most forms of documentary provide an opinion.

Re:Doomed

[Jakester2K]

Car, is that what they're calling Multi-ton Murder Machines these days?

Hmmm...

Can you drive a bullet? Take the kids to the mall with one? Cruise Main Street? Move across town?

Can you use a bullet for anything - and I mean ANYTHING - other than being a projectile weapon?

Perhaps not against specific targets, and sure, you can glue them to cardboard like macaroni and make a pretty picture, but beyond that you're deliberately being obtuse.

The ONLY reason for a bullet's existence is to be a projectile weapon. Can you say the same about a car?

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[Johnny5000]

. He can take actions that run directly counter to the wishes of the voter. How can the voter be held morally responsible for those actions?

If you feel strongly enough, you have an ethical duty to resist paying taxes and stop supporting the state.

Who modded this idiot insightful?

[tekrat]

Really? Someone found insightful, his review of a film he never saw?

Really? Someone found insightful, his interpretation of 9/11 events that the president didn't need to be involved?

Really? Someone found insightful, that the 7 minutes he spent reading "my pet goat" he could have been giving executive decisions (assuming he had the cognitive capability of doing so), getting military aircraft airborne, and basically *actually running things* instead of looking like a deer caught in headlights?

Really? Someone found insightful that the poster hasn't offered a single fact, nor any material to back up *any* of his claims?

Moderators, please get your act together.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

And yet, Michael Moore continues to sell tickets to his movies. He motivates and inspires quite a few fans. He does not, in fact, "lose arguments." He wins them, if convincing people is any measure.

I suspect that nearly all of the people who dislike Micheal Moore dislike his message first, and him only as a consequence of disliking his message. I'm also convinced that, the human ability to self justify being what it is, those people will find a way to convince themselves that it is Micheal the man the dislike, and not his message. Finally, I suspect The Lord God Himself could present the message in the most eloquent and infinitely perfect manner possible, and some people would "dislike the way he said it." There's just no pleasing some people. And some people just do not like broccoli, no matter how well it is prepared, they wanted beef.

Missing the point

[Omniscientist]

While the assistance with the bail is neat, the real story here is that Michael Moore has said he will be lending support in regards to the online availability of the WikiLeaks content.

If he follows through on that promise, then I believe that will be very beneficial for WikiLeaks, as they're starting to need help in this area (given that their service is getting cut by all these different institutions).

Re:Doomed

[Feyshtey]

You find it quite easily plausible that the government covers up any number of crimes and lies, but assume that it will freely release information about how their inability to secure documents got confidential informants killed?

Re:Alternative headline

[rahvin112]

The pentagon isn't pretending war is as clean as a hospital room. They never have. From their viewpoint they are pointing out how little collateral damage there is today versus what it was even 10 years ago. Please understand, 20 years ago if they wanted to bomb a building full of people they probably would have had to carpet bomb the area to hit the building, and killed everyone within 300-600 yards as a result. In WWII and even Vietnam to take out a single target many many munitions would fall that would miss their target, hell in WWII we routinely dropped a several dozen bombs on a concentration camps by mistake, talk about innocent civilians.

So when the Pentagon is talking about surgical strikes, what they are talking about is in context with the past. The fact that we can drop a single bomb on an object and actually hit it IS an amazing advancement in precision and from the Pentagon perspective IS surgical. Whether that bomb kills dozens of innocent civilians isn't what they mean by surgical (as this isn't a discussion of quality of target but precision of strike), it's a discussion of the amount of munitions and sorties to hit a target and is entirely in the context of what they work towards. It never fails to amaze me that people think the military could even if they wanted to avoid killing innocent people in a warzone. They deal constantly with the fog of war and not fully understanding who or what is going on at any particular moment. Within that context decisions have to be made without full information and sometimes innocent people or even friendly troops are killed.

Collateral damage is a fact of war, something the pentagon IS trying to reduce as much as possible (they spend several billion in research every year on battlefield awareness) but it's fairly ignorant to accuse them of lying about precision when they are constantly trying to improve it and their press junkets are to point out how much they have improved. But people like you come in and without the context of history accuse them of lying. Frankly it's offensive.

Re:Doomed

[BuckaBooBob]

But seriously The Subject Needs to be changed for this story...

If It doesn't... I want to be the last Guy that Donates to Cancer research 1 second before the Cure is found so I can take all of the Credit of funding Cancer Research with no mention of pathetic amount that I gave compared to what the full cost was.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

Uh, wow. Just... wow. You saw this movie? You saw a movie named "Bowling for Columbine," and you watched the whole thing? Really?

I am reminded of a scene in A Fish Called Wanda and a line that goes "The central theme of Buddhism is NOT 'Every man for himself.'" You think the central theme of Bowling for Columbine is gun control?!? Really?!?

I just have to ask, what about the whole last half of the movie? What about Canada? Micheal discovers that gun control isn't the answer, because guns were never the problem in the first place, and he makes that very clear.

So, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop you right there and ask you to actually watch one of Micheal Moore's films before you critique him.

Re:Just Leave

[BobMcD]

Either my law is the law I want everywhere, or I should accept your law. But accepting two different sets of law for the same species of human being is irrational.

False. Denying separations between governments is like denying them between people themselves. If two governments cannot have differing jurisdictions and laws, then two people cannot have differing opinions either. Because that is the origin of such things.

I believe in a government without any secrets.

Then you will lose every war brought by every enemy.

Secrets are necessary to security.

Security by obscurity is fail. Things need to be secure DESPITE their being known. I'd think that someone on slashdot would be aware of this by now.

Same reason you have passwords on your online accounts and hide your PIN when you're at the ATM.

False. I have these things because the organizations operating them are lazy. They're trusting that the secrets will keep them safe, or that they'll fix it after the fact. Once those organizations catch up to the times, those features of 'security' will go away.

Not all things need to be secret, and, AS I SAID, the law spells out what is not to be made secret. And, AS I SAID, the fact that the released information included some things that shouldn't have been secret does not mitigate the crime of releasing all of the information, nor even the crime of improperly releasing the illegally classified information.

I apologize for giving you the impression that I have not heard what you're saying. I have heard 'WHAT YOU SAID' - I just 'DISAGREE'.

Besides, your view on a human's right to select his own laws is defective, so what would it matter what the laws say? The prince of everything could snap fingers in China, and being legal, suddenly we'd have to comply. Because there's no such thing is abuse of power in your world. There's no limit. There's one law that cannot be questioned and we're all happy sheeple.

In my world people are a constituency, and any laws they don't like can be changed and/or nullified. They're fluid things, and the fact that they exist doesn't have much bearing on the fundamental concepts of right and wrong. The fact that something is 'legal' does not mean that one is automatically in the right when they do it. Vis-a-vis 'illegal'. These are separate concepts, and sometimes it is very right, proper, and necessary to violate the law.

Don't confuse the principle of self-defense for a blanket vacation of the principle that two wrongs don't make a right. And don't confuse a rule against making crimes secret for a blanket vacation of the need to keep some things secret.

I'm not confusing these things, but your assertion that I am goes a LONG way towards illustrating the degree to which you're able to participate in a conversation about this topic.

Re:Doomed

[locallyunscene]

Calm down foamy. Michael Moore makes it his job to be controversial, it's how he makes money. In that way he's very similar to Glenn Beck. I wonder if you compared a Michael Moore movie to two hours of Glenn Beck's T.V. what the fact/exaggeration/falsehood ratio would be for each.

Ok, well here you go:

[HeckRuler]

-DynCorp, funded by USA taxpayers, bought young male sex slaves for Afghan cops in a "batca bazzi" party. It's a tradition over there apparently.
-They're moving prisoners out of Guantanamo to foreign prisons.
-Under reporting deaths in Afghanistan. It's not going nearly as well as they've said it has.
-Strong-arm tactics regarding the Copenhagen Accord. Spying, bribing, threats, and cutting off millions of dollars to Ecuador and Bolivia. Politics as usual, sure, but it's still corruption.
-Shoving US-style IP laws down Spain's throat.
-Diplomats know that the Saudi Arabians are the primary donors to Al-Queada. Aren't they an ally? Isn't our "strong military presence" in the area supposed to stop that sort of thing?
-The CIA pressured Spain into dropping investigations into the killing of José Couso, a Spanish journalist, in Iraq by American troops.

That's, you know, our government doing horrible things of various levels. There's a BOATLOAD of details about others doing horrible things. For example:

The Shell Oil Company claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to every movement of politicians. Ann Pickard, then Shell's vice-president for sub-Saharan Africa boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.

Re:Ok, well here you go:

[Saint Stephen]

What fucking planet do you live on where stiff like this is not completely normal and does not mean you live in a police state? Wake up dude. This ain't candland

Horrible things are different! Grow up

Re:Ok, well here you go:

[HeckRuler]

Buying youth sex slaves isn't a "horrible thing"? Wake up yourself. That ain't normal. Grow a fucking heart.

But your post brings up an important point. A lot to most of the information in these leaks was obvious to the people in the know. Usually reports about them would be waved away as being unsubstantiated and based on rumor. The leaks, however, provide EVIDENCE of wrong doing.
At least on the USA side. Everyone here should have known that it was the Chinese government behind the hacks on Google. Duh. And the leaks show that even the Feds think it was China. But that's USA saying that China is guilty, not China saying China is guilty.

You say that these sort of dirty underhanded backroom actions are "normal". Sadly, I'd have to agree with you. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't it strike you as bad anymore? Are you so jaded to the bullshit that you no longer care?
Well I still care about this country, and this shit needs to be fixed.

Re:Doomed

[TooMuchToDo]

The law isn't always used for justice. It's also used for revenge and control.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Hope Thelps]

Having seen this in at least a couple dozen news articles, you'd have to show me quite a bit of alternative stories saying the charge is RAPE, in order to convince me.

From the BBC:

"These alleged crimes comprise one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of rape."

Sounds very specific from an organisation I find pretty reliable. That's not to say that he's guilty, plus maybe what counts as rape in Sweden doesn't elsewhere, and it is possible that the BBC are wrong even about the charges but do you have a similarly reputable source saying explicitly that he is not charged with rape?

Re:Empty theatrics

[gknoy]

Does she have a glossary so that people who are not already "in the know" as far as her clique's lingo can understand what she means by things like "PIV"? I get that "pomo" is her abbreviation for post-modern, or something related, but she's speaking about all sorts of things which she has presumably already defined, or is working on a shared understanding of meaning, and I haven't a clue what she's talking about half the time. She asserts things like "PIV is dangerous to women", and I keep looking for tooltips or a glossary page.

I can't even tell if I disagree with her, because I have no idea what she's trying to say.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[MobyDisk]

AND that nutbag Michael Moore too!

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[grahamd0]

According to people who have lived under anarchy; anarchy is not fun.

Like whom, for example?

Who says I believe them?

[Sycraft-fu]

That is one of the things that annoy me. People presume if you don't believe what Moore has to say you believe what the government has to say. Ummm, no. Both have agendas, both are colouring the truth. The reality of the situation is far more complex than either wants you to believe. Disbelieving one does not mean believing the other. The world is not black/white, left/right, etc. It is complex shades of gray. I do not subscribe to the "You are on one side or the other, with us or against us!" mentality. However I also do not think Moore is making any useful contributions. His spin is no more useful than the government's.

Re:Who says I believe them?

[mathmathrevolution]

Give me a break. Americans who encounter facts that they don't like will always dismiss them as "spin". That is what Americans are programmed to do.

Moore was one of the few voices who pointed out how full of shit the Bush administration was during their push for the War in Iraq. People who rejected this criticism and the inconvenient facts therein, implicitly endorsed the claims of the Bush administration. And that's why America wasted billions of dollars and killed thousands of innocent people on a stupid war that dramatically reduced America's global and regional influence and credibility.

Re:Who says I believe them?

[Sycraft-fu]

Wow. Your post is just an amazing mass of ignorance. Hating on people for dismissing facts while simultaneously painting an entire nation as being 100% the same and uniform. That is one of the most ignorant, not to mention arrogant, things I've read in a long time. You have no room to accuse others of willful ignorance with an ignorant, and highly cultural supremest, position like that.

Re:Doomed

[Skuld-Chan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-8Iyvn7nKI - he never badgered some poor cashier - they badgered some pr executive at the corporate office - and guess what? They are paid well for that abuse.

I thought it was a good way to illustrate how rediculous it was that some kids (high school kids) managed to buy enough ammo for several 30+ round magazines for a Tek-9 semi-automatic handgun (which is a liberal description at best) at a freaking k-mart.

As someone who used to actually hunt (last time I ever went hunting was out in Langlois Oregon in some apple orchard) - I always found handguns an interesting dilemma. 9mm bullets and handguns in general are pretty useless for anything but assault and self defense.

Re:Doomed

[gknoy]

I think it's more a case where you listen to the argument presented, and say, "There's something not quite right about that, and I can't put my finger on it." Either he's missing some alternate explanation, or mis-presenting somethign as fact, or perhaps is assuming that A implies B when in reality they're coincidental. Perhaps he's omitting the counterargument completely and hand-waving that it doesn't matter, rather than addressing the issues. I would get that feeling whenever I'd listen to Rush, or a certain one of my high school teachers. The feeling that If I only had enough time with the internet and a frickin' library, I could lay out exactly the ways in which his argument is flawed. (This is then beaten down by time until I can't remember a specific incident of this, merely that it seemed to happen nearly every day when I listened to Rush.)

I think that's what they mean by "he makes his argument badly". It's infuriating, it gets great ratings, and makes them lots of money to do it that way.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[skywire]

You have stated a conclusion that would follow from my being wrong, but offered no argument.

Re:Doomed

[h4rr4r]

If you mean in the USA, then the alternative is insanity. There is no political left in the USA, there is only the moderate conservative ringht party(dems) and the fanactical right wing(republicans).

Re:Doomed

[spun]

Do you know what it means when you think "There's something not quite right about that, and I can't put my finger on it?"

It means you aren't thinking. You are feeling. And based on your feelings, you reach a conclusion that you then try to reason backwards from, to find evidence. Don't feel bad, that is exactly what most people are doing when they say they are 'thinking' about something.

Re:oh gee

[h4rr4r]

So he is just like all other news media?

Re:Doomed

[jayme0227]

The point is that even though these tools are obviously not designed for killing other people, they can be, and have been, misused to do so.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

The reason that I want specific examples, rather than a general fucking google search, is that I can rebut specific examples. Thanks for wasting everyone's time with your useless contribution to the discussion. Give me some specific examples of Micheal Moore lying so I can prove he isn't, or shut the hell up.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[Trailer Trash]

Um, parent is an anarchist, not a libertarian.

Re:Doomed

[jayme0227]

Yes, because, in a state that has such a large dependence on tourism based around nature, most bullets sold are primarily for the purpose of murder rather than hunting, wildlife management, or target shooting.

In 2009, there were 175 murders in Colorado. In 1981, the year with the greatest number of murders on record, there were 239. These are total counts for murder, they do not delineate gun murders from any other method. In 2008 approximately 41,000 pheasant roosters were harvested. That's just pheasants. I'm not even going to take the time to find out the bag totals of other animals/hunting seasons.

Nobody's "pretending" that the majority of bullets sold are for hunting.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Lashat]

Thanks for modding me down by the way. (insert sarcasm)

What does the "obivousness" of my personal associations have to do with the legal definition of "rape"? (insert more sarcasm)

Find me a feminist that says it's NOT a rape charge. (absolutely VOID of sarcasm)

Re:Doomed

[Ellis D. Tripp]

I didn't take "Bowling for Columbine" as anti-gun, really.

Moore made a point of showing how Canada has just as strong a gun culture (and just as many guns per capita, IIRC) as the USA. The difference was the level of gun VIOLENCE. He went on to explore some of the possible reasons for this disparity, including our history of racial tension and a media/government collusion to keep the populace scared of whatever the latest "enemy of the week" is, be it street crime, drugs, immigrants, terrorists, etc. The unlocked doors and friendly communities shown in Canada contrasted quite strongly with the USA, as well.

The point seemed to be that we have become a nation of paranoid, xenophobic sheep facing economic uncertainty, and who just HAPPEN to also be armed to the teeth. So we lash out at ourselves in frustration, frequently using firearms.

Re:Doomed

[hajus]

You can state true things with flawed logic. When he does so, it gives his opponents the opportunity to pick his arguments to argue against rather than stronger reasoning. Although it may not falsify the conclusion drawn, it is politically expedient to argue against certain broken arguments and seem like you win.

Re:Doomed

[Anachragnome]

"Like I said, I absolutely support and love the work he does, but the man's need for attention pisses me off."

One must sometimes shout to be heard above the din of a sea of disinformation and lies.

I don't mind. I'm almost deaf from hearing those lies for most of my life anyways.

Re:Doomed

[scot4875]

While I'm not one to go badgering low level employees, as I realize they're just doing their job and have no impact on policies like this...

What, honestly, would you expect him to do? It's not like anyone with any authority at ShopKo (Actually, I think it was K-Mart) would ever agree to an interview with him. The only way to get anything on film and effect change is to go in and harass some minimum wage employee who will just cite company policy. Eventually the movie comes out, the employee and the store look bad, and the faceless decision makers who make company policy respond with a PR piece about how they're no longer selling ammo. Mission accomplished.

--Jeremy

Re:Doomed

[tbannist]

Frankly, I barely remember any of the stuff you're talking about, but my impressions were quite different. For example, I don't think the central theme is that "guns should be outlawed", after all Michael Moore has been a member of the NRA since he was young, having won at least one NRA marksmanship award as a teenager. I think the point was that guns are used by Americans as a placebo to combat fear. I think the central theme was that fear and gun violence go hand in hand.

Re:Just Leave

[blair1q]

If two governments cannot have differing jurisdictions and laws, then two people cannot have differing opinions either.

False. You and I have differing opinions. Is that because our laws are different?

I have [secret passwords] because the organizations operating them are lazy.

The bank is lazy for giving you the ability to do your banking without talking to a teller while keeping other people from draining your account using your PIN. Got it. Where should the men in the white coats find you?

your view on a human's right to select his own laws is defective

It's not a human's right; I was using the royal "I" there. If there is a situation where people should live under two sets of laws, then the differences in the laws are irrational. The law should not regulate culture, it should regulate safety. And it's not about snapping fingers. It's about all of the people coming together and determining what the law should be, and changing it from time to time as they discover it's wrong. Drawing lines between them and saying "you do it your way, we'll do it ours" is the opposite of that. It denies one side or the other their humanity entirely. Or both, when each side decides its way can't include features of the other side's way, because the line must be maintained.

I'm not confusing these things,

You are, by believing that Assange is not guilty of crimes simply because some of the things released are things we should have been told about already. It is possible for Assange to do good things, but it is factual that he is also doing bad things. The good things do not excuse the bad things. Most people believe that because it's legal to kill in self-defense that the law has a balance to it. It does not. It's legal to kill in self-defense because (and only if) that is the only way to stop the person attacking you. It is not legal to get people killed by releasing their names as spies just because you may be stopping others in the same spy ring from killing someone else. That is the defense Assange attempts to erect for his culpability in putting lives at risk. Even moreso, it's not legal to put people in mortal peril just to release information without going through the proper procedure. That is the defense you're making of Assange's actions.

It's wrong. Stop it.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Myopic]

My own, obviously. It's a law that I don't live under, and more importantly one that I've never heard of, and most importantly of all one which other commenters I've listened to are saying they've never heard of.

What other standard could I possibly go by?

Re:Doomed

[blair1q]

They're instrumental in the killing of those roosters.

That doesn't make them non-instrumental in the killing of those people.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[TheTurtlesMoves]

We are the general public. We don't do that sort of thing.

Now that JA is held, how hard is it...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to ask him him these damn questions? Seriously, are there no phones in Sweden? Isn't that why we invented phones, so we wouldn't have to scream over long distances, or make long trips to talk to someone? Pick up a damn phone, call the prison, and ask him these "pressing" questions, then let him go. I thought Sweden was in such a hurry to ask him something? Or am I making too much sense?

Re:Doomed

[gknoy]

Most civilians (and non-police) that buy bullets are doing so to go hunting or target-shooting. (OK, gang members might be a counter-example.) If I'm a clerk at Joe's Gun Shop, and someone wants to buy several boxes of rounds, it's pretty unlikely that their reason is to go off and shoot other people. More likely it's to fire them off at the range, or kill some turkeys or rabbits.

Is there a law regulating the sale of ammunition? (Probably.)

Re:Doomed

[Anachragnome]

"Then you've never seen any of Fox's News. Their wildly skewed to the right shows, skewed to the point of being "creative edits" that completely misrepresent the truth, are presented as news. Most people understand that term to mean factual and attempting to be unbiased. Ever watch Fox News? That's the wildest piece of creative editing slant to the right ever and it won awards as a "journalism". You think calling that news doesn't hide that their pushing an agenda???"

See how easy that was?

Re:Doomed

[Vancorps]

The point is that the confidential informants were already in danger, this leak gave them time to secure themselves or rather the last leak did.

If the cables were being snooped on by a 3rd party then that information would be quietly sold and the informants actually would die, instead with publication out in the open they can actually prepare themselves and key assets would be retrieved by our men and women still on the ground.

As for whether or not the informants were killed, this is not something the government has to do, any news organization can go find them since presumably the details of such are in the leaked documents. There are plenty of news organizations out there that would do it for all sorts of reasons so I find it difficult to swallow the idea that these leaks killed anybody when an entire year later we've not heard of any consequences. One would think it would be in the government's interests even to make it known that a few people were killed so the anti-wikileaks bills could move forward. Most of the reactions to wikileaks are merely knee-jerk, yes, it would be nice if they didn't have to go to such lengths but they did ask for help redacting everything. What should they do? Just say they have these secret documents? Then they would merely conspiracy theorists and nothing would change. Government transparency is not supposed to just be a pipe dream.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

PIV == penis in vagina

Michael Moore is someone you have to approach...

[Yoshamano]

pragmatically. I look at all of his films as a starting point for the discussion. They make it very easy to engage people over the topic he's talking about. NOW, I don't trust any of the facts he presents in his films. I do my best to fact check everything he says, and find out how much of his stuff is BS that I need to throw out the window.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Jeremy Erwin]

"Penis In Vagina", of course. She's trying to deconstruct the myth that vaginal intercourse is "normal", and "PIV" helps it seem more alien.

Re:Doomed

[matrim99]

I see what you did there, Mr. Moore. Nice try!

Analogies are useful illustrating concepts and ideas while not getting hung up on irrelevant details, as you did above.

Re:Doomed

[WiseWeasel]

Personally, I don't much like his movies because they're often sleazy and underhanded, taking cheap shots at people. No matter what, he doesn't seem like the type of director to let facts get in the way of his narrative. His health care movie was a fairly good exposé, until he got to the solutions part, or lack thereof. His capitalism movie was a complete load of crap, with a bunch of bluster, a total misunderstanding of economics, and no proposed solutions to any of the problems raised. Seeing that movie just left me feeling dirty from all the sleazy argumentation tactics. After seeing that one, I doubt I'll be watching another of his movies.

Re:Doomed

[gknoy]

We punish the car-creators when they malfunction. When Bob runs down a row of kindergarteners on purpose, he gets punished, not Ford.

Guns killing people is a case of the user causing the weapon to function perfectly, in a manner and direction which is (usually) illegal. Guns are designed to impart lots of kinetic energy to a projectile, while keeping the user safe from harm (barrel exploding, etc) and keeping the projectile's trajectory as predictable as possible.

If someone wants to murder someone, they'll find a way -- whether they use a gun, poison, a knife, a bow-and-arrow, a trebuchet, or a bus. It seems pretty wilfully obtuse to want to punish gun-makers for the fact that some of their creations are used illegally. The gun (and manufacturer) has no way of determining the legality of its use: that's for the user to understand. Guns can't tell whether you're pointing them at the guy raping your wife (likely to be legal), or whether they're pointed at the driver in the car next to you who flipped you off (Likely not legal).

Punish the user for poor moral choices. Don't blame the tool.

Re:Doomed

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

And yet, Michael Moore continues to sell tickets to his movies. He motivates and inspires quite a few fans. He does not, in fact, "lose arguments." He wins them, if convincing people is any measure.

How do you he's actually convincing anybody but you and possibly your friends, as opposed to simply being entertaining?

Finally, I suspect The Lord God Himself could present the message in the most eloquent and infinitely perfect manner possible, and some people would "dislike the way he said it."

The Lord God Himself, as depicted by the Old Testament, is a monster with the ethics of a sociopathic child and the manners of a Dalek. The only thing I want to hear from that motherfucker is a good reason why I shouldn't do the universe a favor and kill him.

Re:Doomed

[gknoy]

"I like your fiscal policy, but think that your stance on X is pure lunacy."

Re:Doomed

[spun]

I've already read and rebutted every single one of those ~900,000 results, I can't be bothered to do it all again. What's more, I have just as much proof that I have done so as you have proof that Moore lies. If you have any new lies about him that need rebutting, please post them. Otherwise, I know that your posts here are just uninformed liberal bashing. You do not provide any criticism, which I would be more than happy to refute. You provide uninformed opinion, which is impossible to refute except with more opinion.

"I think he lies!"

Yeah, well I think he doesn't. And since you are the one making the claim, it is up to you to back it up, otherwise, sensible people everywhere will simply ignore you. And providing a link to "Micheal Moore Lying" is not proof. If it were, then I could provide counterproof simply by linking to a google search for "Micheal Moore telling the truth."

Re:Doomed

[tbannist]

As of the middle of October, even Fox News admits no one has been killed in Aghanistan because of the War Logs.

Re:Doomed

[Duradin]

"Can you drive a bullet?" The gun usually takes care of that.

"Take the kids to the mall with one?" Depends on the mall. Not all of them allow bullets on the premises.

"Cruise Main Street? Move across town?" Yup, got all the permits I need for this state (may not be applicable in other states).

"Can you use a bullet for anything - and I mean ANYTHING - other than being a projectile weapon?" Without being obtuse by saying anything that lumps of lead are generally good for target shooting doesn't require weapons, so they wouldn't be projectile "weapons".

Re:Just Leave

[BobMcD]

You are, by believing that Assange is not guilty of crimes simply because some of the things released are things we should have been told about already

You remind me of an old-school D&D Paladin. I never said that Assange could never be found in violation of any laws. There's no basis for me to make that assertion, per se, because the laws are fluid, as I said. The law that eventually submits him to capital punishment at the hands of the US government is probably being penned as we speak.

That has nothing to do with who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'. Something can easily be illegal and right at the same time, especially when the law is imperfect or just plain wrong.

Even moreso, it's not legal to put people in mortal peril just to release information without going through the proper procedure.

It isn't Assange that puts these people in peril. It is the secret itself. It may well be wrong for him to tell it, to be sure, but it would have been a deeper wrong for him to perpetuate the lie.

My wife turns to me and asks, 'does this dress make me look fat'. I cannot win, so I make the best choice I can in that scenario. Vis-a-vis Assange.

In a world with evil empires committing heinous acts under immoral secrecy, someone needs to leak the facts to the people. Everyone who keeps such an abomination of a secret is doing something evil.

Re:Alternative headline

[akeeneye]

Quite right. It's astonishing how when tens of thousands (hundreds perhaps, I don't have authoritative numbers) of Iraqi and Afghan civilians have been killed by the U.S. as part of these wars we started, citizens here (U.S.) just brush the fact off as if we were talking about insects. As if these innocent civilians have no children, no families, no hopes, no dreams. They just happen to live in the wrong place at the wrong time, sucks to be them. And our government (and its sycophants) goes around slinging the "xxx has blood on his hands" epithet. It's clear what institution in this turmoil truly has blood on its hands. As far as I can tell it's because, to us, it's only Americans who matter. Their lives are worth 10x what those brown people so far away are worth. It's Room 101 for me I'm afraid.

Its a sad thing

[NuKe_MoNgOoSe]

Americans more than any other country, and Canada is now coming close behind suffer from beaten spouse syndrome... You love your country, really your country is good. Just when your country gets angry it takes it out on you and so you cant stand up to your country you dont dare tell your country that its wrong. You obey your country because you love it so much, and you fear the reprisal for standing up for what you may or may not know is right.. People blindly follow a flag oblivious to the governments who hide behind their pretty colors same with Canada I love this country but its quickly tagging on behind the good ol US like a kid trying to be popular by hanging out with the arrogant high school jock.. Agreeing and giving concession just to try and fit in. It makes me sick Canada has slipped so much in the last few decades from being the FREE country that I know and love. The US gov. has sadly made it so the US is looked at with hostility across the world even though each countries people are good, honest and hard working.. People often dont see that and paint the countries people with the same brush as they paint their governments... yes i am negative, and yes people have made me that way. This is my opinion I could be wrong.

Re:Doomed

[Buelldozer]

Sort of how Michael Moore perpetrated character assassination of Charleston Heston with his "creative" film edits in the movie "Bowling for Columbine"?

Yes, I'm sure that Mr. Moore knows character assassination when he sees it.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[Hatta]

You do not have to like the Iraq War to know that we really were not lied into the war

I do not see how anyone could possibly believe we were not lied to in order to support the cause for war. Bush himself was quite careful not to speak outright falsehoods, but his half truths were bad enough. Further, his people told outright lies, this is documented. (e.g. aluminum tubes. Colin Powell was briefed that they were not part of a centrifuge before he went to tell Congress that they were.)

The ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda were never explicitly stated as reasons

Why then did Bush & Co. bring it up? To mislead.

WMDs was given as a reason but just about every government (there were a lot of U.N. declarations stating that) in the world believed Iraq had them.

What other countries believe isn't evidence. Hans Blix had evidence and it was deliberately ignored. When you say that you know something with absolute certainty ("We know where they are" Rumsfeld) which turns out to be untrue, that's a lie.

to say we were lied into the Iraq War is disingenuous.

To say that the case for the Iraq war was made honestly is far more disingenuous.

Re:Or:

[definate]

Need? So, your problem with Assange is that he doesn't have ENOUGH power? You now want him to decide what you need to know? To some extent, he already does this. What if what he believed doesn't line up with what you believe? Then he's even worse, because you've forced him to me more biased.

In case you haven't read any of the news, WikiLeaks is working side by side, with large reputable news organizations. So even if you don't think he's a "journalist", you can't argue the others aren't.

In conclusion, you talk like a retard, and your shits all fucked up!

Re:Alternative headline

[davester666]

Especially given that the people we are fighting against

1) a significant portion of them live with the local population, and have families
2) they look/dress/act just like the rest of the local population
3) they actively switch between being combatants and non-combatants, depending on whether they are winning or losing the battle at the moment

objection, yerhonor

[TiggertheMad]

So people in jail are all innocent ?

Despite, of course, having been proven guilty to the satisfaction of a jury of their peers (or at least an independent judge). I mean, you can make the point that there are a few innocents in jail, yes, but you're going very, very far indeed.

Nitpicking, but prison usually where convicted people are placed. Jail is a holding place for people that are have been arrested or people that have been given short term sentences. Depending on the arrest/conviction ratio of wherever you live, you could say that most people in jail are innocent.

Re:Doomed

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Let's not mince words. A Tek-9 is a submachinegun. Not that there's anything wrong with a submachinegun; I favor the old-fashioned Thompson myself.

Re:Doomed

[blair1q]

So you're saying that there are no situations in which someone may need to be killed?

No. But with guns it rarely works out that way.

Your strawman about stopping a rape with a gun is matched with my strawman about your toddler shooting you with your own gun, your toddler shooting another toddler with your gun, your toddler shooting herself with your own gun...(man these toddlers are dangerous; good thing we got guns to protect ourselves from them, huh)...you shooting your toddler and yourself with your own gun, you taking the law into your own hands, etc.

Firearms exist because firearms exist. Your rationalization for the massive proliferation of firearms exists because you think it makes you safer, when it doesn't.

Re:Moore Claims Credit!

[scot4875]

Yeah, it's a good thing you're employing critical thinking here and not taking Moore at his word that he paid Assange's bail. It would suck to just believe what you read with no consideration whatsoever.

Oh wait, no, you're instead just blindly believing what the Slashdot *story submitter* wrote. In fact, Moore never claimed to post Assange's bail. So really, you're falling into the exact same trap you're trying to expose by pointing out Heston's tie color changes.

As usual though, you'll believe what you want to believe, as long as it reinforces what you already believe. Just like everyone else.

--Jeremy

Max Stirner would like a word with you.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

"The state calls its own violence law, and that of the individual crime."

Re:Alternative headline

[gknoy]

For what it's worth, there are certainly Americans who understand that some parts of the rest of the world doesn't want us there, and that much of our foreign policy woes are directly related to our past (and current) meddlings in local politics. Also, not all of us feel we're there to "civilize" you.

Re:Doomed

[xnpu]

In most countries on this planet selling bullets is illegal (for a reason.) Why do you feel these cashiers are bare no responsibility when in other countries they would be jailed? Is it because the US government has OK-ed their actions? Does something being legal take away your responsibility to consider if it's a good thing to be doing?

Re:Doomed

[spun]

Show me where Micheal Moore does anything even remotely similar to your made up analogy. I can't even understand what you are comparing. Give some specifics of him doing what you claim.

Re:Doomed

[TooMuchToDo]

Firearms exist because there is demand for them. If there was no demand for them, they'd be melted down for more useful purposes and no one would craft them to sell them. Are some of the uses to kill? Yes. Are some of those killings justified? You better believe it.

I'm not responsible for the poor choices other gun owners make, only my own choices. Should everyone not be permitted a car because those over 80 are attracted to farmer's markets like magnets to steel?

Re:Doomed

[spun]

Care to provide an example of his sleazy argumentation tricks? No? Well, I had to ask, just for form's sake. I've been asking everyone. Amazingly, no one has replied with anything concrete, just a bunch of appeals to emotion. Speaking of bad argumentation, you have it.

Re:Doomed

[Attila Dimedici]

Here is an example (it is one of many). In Bowling for Columbine, Moore presented "a" speech by Charlton Heston. In the middle of the speech the camera goes from showing Charlton Heston speaking (although you continue to hear him speak) to showing a crowd and signs, then it goes back to showing Charlton Heston. In the meantime Charlton Heston has changed shirts. It turns out that Moore spliced together footage of Charlton Heston at two different speeches to completely different groups so as to make them seem to be one coherent whole and to take some of his comments out of context and make them look like terrible comments about Columbine. When I first heard about the "speech", I thought "Oh, how could he say something like that." Then I heard the context for the parts of each speech, and thought, "OH, he didn't say anything like that. Those two peices don't actually go together."

Re:Doomed

[spun]

I know he is convincing people because (and here I will use the technique his detractors have been using all along) I READ IT ON THE INTERNET. There. That is all the proof I need, based on the standards of evidence used so far.

God is a monster, agreed, and I was using the phrase humorously, thus the olde-timey "Lord God Himself" phrasing. The idea being that a hypothetical perfect and omniscient being could lecture these assholes on The Truth for all of eternity and they still wouldn't believe anything they don't feel like believing, because they are not fact based thinkers, they are emotion based feelers.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

Fucking Examples, How Do They Work?

Anyone? Anyone? Examples. We are looking for examples here. Anyone? No? Color me shocked.

Re:Empty theatrics

[SpeedyG5]

I thought he was wanted, so no one would kill him, thereby releasing the bad shit. So he is essential been detained for his own protection and as a result of his own protection scheme ie i am releasing horrible stuff and if you try to stop me or kill me I will release more horrible stuff than this. Now you have groups that want him dead for what he released already and you have groups that want him alive for what he could release. The rest of it is smoke and mirrors

Re:Just Leave

[blair1q]

The law that eventually submits him to capital punishment at the hands of the US government is probably being penned as we speak.

It was written in 1917, actually.

That has nothing to do with who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'. Something can easily be illegal and right at the same time, especially when the law is imperfect or just plain wrong.

That's what happened in the early 70s with the NY Times and the Pentagon Papers. The courts found the President's attempt to keep the information secret too broad, and that applying such a broad proscription to a newspaper was not in keeping with the 1st Amendment. Since then the rules have changed and are no longer very broad; and Assange is not "the press" in any case. So, even if it were the NY Times, if they publish legally classified information they may be found guilty; and someone like Assange could be found guilty of publishing illegally classified information.

It isn't Assange that puts these people in peril. It is the secret itself.

Abso-fucking-lutely false. The secret is being kept because releasing it would put them in peril; that is the definition of a legal secret. The person who releases it puts them in peril. Even the people who steal it but keep it secret don't put anyone in peril.

In a world with evil empires committing heinous acts under immoral secrecy, someone needs to leak the facts to the people.

I agree. But in this "evil empire" of America, we have rules that make it such that the people currently in the government have not only a right but a duty to do that, and a procedure for doing it such that the secrets that should be kept are kept. If we did not have that, anyone who circumvented the rules would only be doing the right thing the only way it could be done. But because we have it anyone who circumvents the rules is rightfully a criminal.

You're on your own when dealing with your wife.

Re:Doomed

[blair1q]

Anyone who uses strawman arguments seriously should be denied a gun and the vote.

Re:Doomed

[vekrander]

Maybe he's remembering this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOVXh4xM-Ww. It was Jim Kramer on CNBC. Not CNN but he really rages after about 2 minutes into the video. All of this happened a bit before the market went to hell.

Re:Doomed

[_Sprocket_]

Please point out where MM is lying. I hear this all the time, but his work has been fact checked left, right, up, down and sideways and no one can find the glaring lies that some people claim are there. Please, you seem quite upset by him, so I just know you have actual factual, verifiable examples of him lying.

Michael Moore does not lie. But he is a master of mis-direction. Fahrenheit 911 was a great example of his craft and modern propaganda. It implies so many things that simply were not said. But I'll still run in to people today who use that film as a basis for completely false understandings based on what they thought the film said.

How to tell you're a nut job

[WinstonWolfIT]

Michael Moore agrees with your message and your methods.

Re:Doomed

[bigstrat2003]

First of all (and most importantly), the legality or illegality of an action has no bearing on whether it is acceptable. In most countries at one point, it was illegal for a slave to try to escape. In several countries today, it is illegal for a woman to dare to uncover her head. That does not make those laws just laws, they just have the force of law in those countries... for better or for worse.

Second, the cashiers bear no responsibility because bullets are a means to an end, not an end unto themselves. You can use them to murder, but also for legitimate self-defense. You can even use them to go down to the range and dick around shooting targets. Some cashier at some store, or even the store itself, cannot be expected to magically divine what someone's intent is. If bullets could only be used to murder people in cold blood, you'd have a point, but that is not at all the case.

Re:Just Leave

[BobMcD]

It was written in 1917, actually.

Not so, seeing as he only published the info. He didn't actually steal it. Further, he isn't subject to American laws being neither a citizen, nor a resident, nor even a visitor.

So, I expect we'll see a new one soon enough.

...and Assange is not "the press" in any case.

In the internet age, just as before Gutenberg, we're all journalists. The First guarantees that right.

The secret is being kept because releasing it would put them in peril; that is the definition of a legal secret.

This is what I was referring to as 'lazy' before. It is possible to go only so far as securing something with a secret and stopping there. That is true. But that is the flaw, not the exposure of the secret. More measures need to be taken if actual security is desired.

But in this "evil empire" of America, we have rules that make it such that the people currently in the government have not only a right but a duty to do that, and a procedure for doing it such that the secrets that should be kept are kept.

Their moral duty as human beings comes first, though. Were there ever a scenario where telling the secret is the right thing to do, it should be done without hesitation, by a moral person.

But because we have it anyone who circumvents the rules is rightfully a criminal.

But that's often the only right thing to do, to be a criminal. Look again at George and the boys back in the 1770's. They did the RIGHT THING, and were guilty of HIGH TREASON. It just so happens that they won the war and their 'crimes' went unprosecuted.

Re:Doomed

[JackieBrown]

The fact that the more radical leftists see democrats as conservatives proves my point.

It also demonstrates why no side can strive for the center sense this is useless as no one can agree where the center is.

Re:Alternative headline

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

As someone who had his country 'invaded' by US gov, I gotta say... we don't want you to 'civilize' us.

I don't want the US government trying to civilize you, either; I've got better things to do with my money. Unfortunately, I'm a single angry man amid a population of 300 million sheep.

Re:Doomed

[bigstrat2003]

I would expect him to find another route. People can, and do, shame companies into action all the time without making some low-level employee's day at work miserable. Maybe it was done with good intentions (I'm not comfortable trying to judge that), but even so, it was a dick move.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[Webz]

Newsflash, self evidence hasn't worked to date, try something else.

While I agree with you that messages should be pure, you may be working with an audience that doesn't operate on that level. Therefore, the newly wrapped message isn't for you, it's for them. To get them thinking. So that one day, they might not need the window dressing.

Being right doesn't mean being effective.

Re:Alternative headline

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

If you don't know the truth about what is going on, then how do you judge whether your government is acting in your best interests (as opposed to the best interests of the rich and powerful)?

I sidestep the question by assuming, unless provided with compelling evidence to the contrary, that the US government is acting in a manner inimical to what I understand to be my best interests.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

This is good, it is almost an example. You've come the closest of anyone so far, anyway. I've heard this before, though, and the worst that can be said is that the certain lines were taken out of context. It is not as though meanings were reversed or Moore edited the speech to make it sound as though Heston were saying something the opposite of what he was actually saying.

If I recall, the comment that caused the uproar was Heston's "cold dead hands" comment. Was Heston insensitive enough make a comment about cold dead hands at Columbine? No. Was Moore trying to make it seem as if he were that insensitive? I don't think so. I think everyone could tell that they were two different speeches, what with the completely different stage, clothing, lighting, etc.

But I will give you a point for illustrating a technique that Micheal Moore uses that may be considered a bit over the top and manipulative. I think I can understand why some people don't like it. I guess it could be considered "hitting you over the head to make a point."

Re:oh gee

[easyTree]

Most of the people who 'disagree' with him would rather continue to blind themselves to the fact that they are directly or indirectly profiting from corruption and abuse of power.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

No, you didn't point out anything. You linked to something you claim illustrates your point, not to anything specific. Here is my rebuttal, using your same technique: go google "Micheal Moore telling the truth." There, now I have refuted your point with the same intellectual rigor that you provided. Wheee! Isn't debate fun?

Re:Doomed

[spun]

Again with the generalities. Micheal Moore IS good, not only can he manipulate people, he can evidently erase all evidence of manipulation from their brains, rendering them incapable of even pointing out HOW they had been manipulated! The man is an evil genius!

YouTube link, corrections.

[chrb]

I got disgusted with him after watching a part of Bowling for Columbine where he went to the Shopko (or some other store) where the assailants bought bullets. He then proceeded to badger one of the cashiers at length, insinuating that they bore responsibility for those murders because they sold bullets. That was when I was done with Michael Moore forever.

YouTube link of the interview you're talking about, note that the woman featured is K-Mart's Director of Media Relations, not a cashier, big difference.

You call that "badgering"? Moore appears to be calmly asking questions, not being aggressive and harassing. Shouldn't a professional Director of Media Relations be able to handle a man calmly asking questions? What about this clip is so outrageous?

Re:Doomed

[gclef]

Important distinction: Mr. Moore impresses and inspires "fans." They are just as likely to accept his message as correct (whether it is or not) as the the people you correctly identify as being biased the other way.

Put another way: is Michael Moore winning arguments, or is he preaching to the choir? From where I sit, it looks like he's mostly convincing people that their pre-conceived biases are correct, which is not actually winning an argument at all.

But then, preaching to the choir is what substitutes for actual political debate these days on both sides, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Re:Doomed

[easyTree]

Can you drive a bullet? Take the kids to the mall with one? Cruise Main Street? Move across town?

Can you use a bullet for anything - and I mean ANYTHING - other than being a projectile weapon?

You're wasting your time. These people want their guns for reasons generated by the non-rational mind and will use whatever messed-up justifications they can come up with.

Re:Doomed

[Creepy]

Well if there were any surprises, I haven't heard of 'em. US and most Arabs don't like Iran and even some like Saudi Arabia want the US to attack them... yawn. That is about as informative as telling me North Korea is run by a dictator with lavish mansions while his people starve (a fact), not unlike Saddam Hussein.

As far as US opinions on people, well we all know opinions are like assholes - everyone's got one and they all stink.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[frank_adrian314159]

The message should speak for itself.

Yes, your right... it should.

Now, given that it doesn't, how do you get the message across? We'd all love to live in a purely rational world where we were all Spocks and used logic to determine truth and falsity (although, once you consider that most people disagree on axioms, even that breaks down). However, we do not. Hyperbole and entertainment are useful in the real world. They do not detract from the message and, in fact, make it more palatable and digestible. That is, unless you're actively looking for something to use to disregard the message in the first place. If you can see so clearly, it must be hell for you to live in world full of colors where the only thing you want to see are black-and-white, unadulterated facts. Although, I have a sneaking suspicion that you disregard your own internal filters and save your carping for those whose messages you disdain. Which, sadly (at least to you) makes you human. But the good news is that Spock would find joy in it...

not sure if I should be disgusted or impressed

[flappinbooger]

I guess the main takeaway here is that Michael Moore is ALSO an annoying punk who likes to poke finger in the eye of the establishment and stir things up.

Also Michael Moore is very good at what he does, whether or not you think he is a higher life form than pond scum.

Fitting he should post bail.

Assange should head for a non-extradition country and keep his head down because he will shortly become very "accident prone".

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

So who is liable for the actions of a country?

A country can take no actions, as it has no concrete existence independent of its constituent individuals. Every individual is responsible for his own actions.

If you lease a car, and then refuse to make payments, would you consider the court requiring that you pay them "confiscation" or just you being forced to make payments?

I can choose whether or not I wish to lease a car. One does not get a choice as to whether or not one wishes to be a subject of a government or retain his natural sovereignty.

You have no effect on his [the highwayman's] ability to take your money.

If I have a weapon, I can kill the motherfucker and claim self-defense if made to stand trial. I might even convince the jury to let me off.

Re:What to say to police (what is costs)

[Thelasko]

...spend 12 hours in holding cells, held in jail with convicted criminals...

Holding cells are for people awaiting trial or hearings. Convicted criminals are sent to prison.

Watch the Media Play Us

[catchblue22]

It is interesting to watch the development of this story. Firstly, the leaks were properly reported on. However, now, even as leaks are being continually released, the story is insensibly shifting into one of the personal drama of Assange. I just read a posting about US diplomats musing about the possibility for a coup in Nigeria in response to increased costs of operation to Shell Oil. And do we see any mention of this in the major newspapers? This cannot simply be about the mythical "limited attention span" of the public. The material in the cables is simply not being emphasized or covered with any degree of vigor. I can imagine a day in the not too distant future when shocking disclosures in cable leaks will not warrant any mention on the part of the media. It will be "yesterday's story". Thus we are played.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Xaositecte]

On most of the sources I've read, the warrant specifically includes a rape charge.

How that's justified and why different sources say different things for what should be one easily readable document is beyond me.

Re:Empty theatrics

[metacell]

Correct, the Swedish laws on sex crimes are very flexible. Both of the allaged victims admit they had voluntary sex with Assange; the rape accusation is based on Assange not stopping to put on a condom when one of the women asked him to. This may or may not be a judged a crime by a Swedish court. A couple of days after the event, the two women Assange had had sex with met each other and talked, and decided what happened might be rape/molestation. They weren't sure, though, so they went to the police for "advice" on how to proceed. And so the whole circus started.

Re:Doomed

[TXP]

I can understand this. I find it a little repulsive if someone like moore (fat, rich, and intelligent enough to know better) would badger someone who is probably a minimum wage employee at a store. Meanwhile there are bigger fish to fry such as the store owner, the franchise, the lobbyists and the government.

In Other news...

[DarthVain]

...a large number of Republicans had huge aneurysms that day.

What a perfect storm, Michael Moore bailing out Julian Assange.

I mean I couldn't make that shit up if I tried.

Even though I know he was not given bail, and Moore is a known media whore, I still laughed my ass off.

Ignore the man behind the curtain!

[retardpicnic]

Simply amazing. WikiLeaks has made it abundantly clear that the 5th estate is not working in our best interests anymore, the media in the general sense has simply become a tool. By feeding us a special blend of half truth, fear and innuendo our attention is kept where it is needed most, on Miley Cyrus smoking a bong and Jon and Kate's divorce. WikiLeaks has unearthed more truth in a month than the rest of the worlds media has since the Pentagon papers in the 70's. Now, in a simply dazzling show of both confidence and obfuscation the media( both left AND right leaning) have reframed whats occurred. You will note that not one gov't or media agency is disputing that the facts presented by WL are all true. Instead of a discussion on why the gov't and media are working in concert to keep the citizens in the dark and fed lies at a level not seen since Nazi Germany, we are treated to discussions on Julian Assange's sex life and dating history. We are invited into a discussion about a sexually frustrated Army private (the privates' privates!) and then told that this man is a terrorist for telling us the truth! We debate freedom of information acts, Federal espionage acts, and extradition law, all the while moving farther and farther away fromthe end result of all of this will simply be the status quo. The discussion we so badly needed to have as a populace and the moral outrage that should be absolutely simmering across america has been rendered inert and impotent by a reframing of what actually occurred. sigh.....

Re:Ignore the man behind the curtain!

[cpghost]

You will note that not one gov't or media agency is disputing that the facts presented by WL are all true.

Regarding the Cables, those are not facts, they are reports on facts and opinions, allegedly written by US diplomats. Even if nobody is currently disputing this, WE the readers can't be confident enough that those are indeed the pristine documents (in fact, some redacted are definitely not pristine, but that's beside the point): those documents are not digitally signed, and we don't have the public key of the Government so we can verify independently of WikiLeaks their authenticity. Personally, I think WikiLeaks are honest and wouldn't make up or sneakily modify documents, but that's more a question of gut feeling and faith than certainty.

Re:Hmmm

[flappinbooger]

His movies might be packs of lies of joke level quality, but they are well done packs of lies of joke level quality.

He tells his lies very convincingly, as if he truly believes them himself. I saw Sicko and the way he portrayed euro socialized medicine put the programs in such good light, it made them look amazing and a must-have. His mistake was not showing even a single solitary piece of information that was negative. He forgot that nothing is perfect and that most people are not total idiots.

The purpose of his movie Sicko, I think, was not a documentary. His purpose of Sicko, just guessing here, was to show that the US health care costs and insurance system are messed up and that there are other ideas. In that regard, it WAS done well....

As a disclaimer I do not like Moore's politics and seriously doubt his patriotism. This stunt with Assange only makes sense because he and Assange are, apparently, birds of a feather.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

I think it is pretty clear that Micheal Moore is winning arguments amongst the undecided, and that it is only partisans amongst the opposing "choir" who remain unconvinced.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

I like a clean brain, which is why I choose to bathe it in the cool, clear waters of The Truth now and then. You should try it.

Except, he never said those things... facts:

[chrb]

This is the same guy who has insinuated that George W. Bush is pals with Osama Bin Laden and specifically sent too few troops into Afghanistan to make sure Bin Laden escaped and wanted to keep his Taliban friends safe.

Do you have a citation for these claims? From what I remember of the movie, the points you refer to are:

• The claim that the Bush family have business contacts and personal friendships with some of the Bin Laden family - the friendships being so close that they affectionately nicknamed one Bin Laden "Bandar Bush". However, there is no claim, at all, that George W. Bush is pals with Osama Bin Laden. Moore does make a point that the Bin Ladens were given special "fly" approval and allowed to leave the country when everyone else in the U.S. was prohibited from flying. Given the personal and financial contacts that the Bin Laden family have had with Osama, Moore suggests that interviewing these people may have been more appropriate.
• The claim that Bush sent too few troops into Tora Bora, despite having intelligence that Osama bin Laden was there. This refers to the incident: "How bin Laden outsmarted Bush in caves of Tora Bora". Despite publically stating that they were certain Osama was in Tora Bora, only a special operations task force of fewer than 30 US soldiers was sent after him, and no attempt was made to close mountain passes with Pakistan. Several thousand U.S. troops from the US Army's Tenth Mountain Division were just across the border in Uzbekistan and ready to be sent in to action, but the order was never given.

The Bush/Bin Laden family and business connection stuff is documented fact. The President's special "fly" approval enabling the Bin Laden's to leave the U.S. immediately after the 9/11 attacks is documented fact. The decision to send fewer than 30 soldiers to pursue Osama, when they knew (or claimed to know) where he was, is documented fact. What is so outrageous about Moore's statements here?

Re:Doomed

[spun]

Do you have proof that the footage of Flynt that was purported to be post layoff was actually shot pre layoff?

I assert that the footage of Flynt that was presented as post-layoff was actually post-layoff, and not pre-layoff. And I have provided just as much evidence as you have.

Re:Doomed

[LordLucless]

Uh-huh. People like Assange have no need for valor. Which is why he put himself front-and-centre for his organization, deliberately exposed things that people needed to know, while knowing that he was going to cop all the flack himself. Tell me, name one thing you've done that's been half so valorous as what Assange has accomplished over the last few years?

You know who else isn't above the law? The managers at DynCorp who hire underage prostitutes to woo their clients. And pharmaceutical companies who perform illegal testing regimes on ill-informed, impoverished foreigners. But wait, they're not being charged. The people who brought their actions to light are. Meanwhile, Julian Assange asked, and was told, that he could leave Sweden, and as soon as he does, is slapped with an interpol warrant, and extradition orders. This after his case was already dropped, then reactivated. Given the level of corruption already exposed, you don't need to be particularly cynical to see that these actions weren't motivated by a sense of justice, or a desire to see the law upheld.

So you're saying that if you go to Iran, and have sex with your girlfriend while you're there, it is right and just for you (or more likely, just her) to be stoned to death, because the law of the land you're in is the absolute arbiter of morality. That something is morally right and ethical if you're on one side of the border, but take a step to the left, and you deserve whatever you get.

Law != Morality

Re:Doomed

[sorak]

Spun already responded to this, but I wanted to elaborate. In the latter part of the movie, Moore goes to Canada, and portrays them as a people that people have guns everywhere, and never lock their doors. He then goes on to speculate about why guns aren't ruining the country, pointing out that their media does not participate in fear-mongering, and that they have a social safety net that we don't. (I am doing this from memory, so forgive me if I get some details wrong).

The general idea is that, a). Street crime/Columbine shootings aren't as common as we think, and b). if we don't have to worry so much about "what if I get laid off tomorrow/what if I can't find a job by next February/how do I pay my medical bills", then we may not be as likely to commit crimes.

Of course I don't remember it well enough to argue your other points. The only thing that really got me (other than hyperbole) was the way he tried to link the NRA to the KKK. I am assuming he's full of crap, there, because his argument seemed weak.

Re:Doomed

[metacell]

That's just one of 1000's of items that were released that are not crimes, are not important for the American people to know, and still undermine our government's ability to operate on the world stage.

Perhaps not, but Assange is a private citizen of Australia, and has no particular reason to be loyal to the United States of America, If he believes the public is served by finding out what goes on behind the scenes of world politics, the potential damage to just one foreign nation, USA, is not likely to be his top priority.

The USA isn't the topmost concern of every human being in the world, you know.

In doing so he signed the death warrants of those people.

If you're thinking of the Afghanistan papers, even your own military intelligence admitted there was no evidence anyone had died because of the information Wikileaks released. Even the cases where there has been suscpicion that the leak contributed to someone's death, number in the single digits. But some of your politicians keep spewing out rhetoric as if the "hundreds of death warrants" were a fact. They're misleading you.

Re:Doomed

[Attila Dimedici]

Or it could be considered, editing to make it seem like someone said something they didn't. As for whether or not Moore was trying to make it seem as if Heston was that insensitive, if he wasn't he is even more over-rated than I think he is because that was what people took from the movie when it first came out (until people who did not agree with Moore's politics started pointing out that it was two different speeches and people who agreed with Moore started to go, "Oh, I didn't notice.").
If you want examples of Moore being dishonest, there are several websites that fact check "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11". I have yet to see either of those fact checks (which both find those movies to be almost truth free) debunked.

Re:Doomed

[AshtangiMan]

I'll prelude by saying that I'm neither a rabid fan, nor do I see MM as a villain. But I do have some issues with his tactics. One example, when he went to interview Chuck Heston at his home, he made a point to be fairly rude to him, which did not make any sense to me. here is the charismatic and well known leader of the NRA, the man who could be a great ally in helping to solve the problems of violence in the US. MM had already demonstrated through comparison with Canada that gun ownership alone does not have to lead to gun violence, and so the movie was not "anti-gun". This was an opportunity to actually frame the gun situation for healthy debate rather than reactionary bullshit. But despite that he ambushes CH at home and makes an ass of himself, while CH was being remarkably friendly and accommodating. I saw this as not only a missed opportunity, but an example of the kind of grandstanding in political debate that detracts from actually finding solutions to problems. I have not watched much by MM since then, but do still see him as generally a good person who is striving to make the US a better place motivated not by money but by principle.

Re:Alternative headline

[metacell]

Don't you think the relatives of Afghani civilians who have been killed by US soldiers would rather the truth come out?

Re:Doomed

[locallyunscene]

Why does no one actually ever calm down when you tell them to calm down ;-)

Example 1
Example 2

Michael Moore spins highly sensationalized versions of the truth and uses them to imply massive corruption. This is exactly Glenn Beck's Modus Operandi. I would not be surprised in the slightest if Glenn Beck told more outright falsehoods than Michael Moore, but it's clear he tells his share as well. Hence my interest in a comparison.

Also, your post (intentionally?) is a perfect example of making a point badly. You're attempting to point out I provided no evidence previously, which is true. But the way you do it is by using what most would consider a personal attack that makes it sounds as if you view Michael Moore as an idol and Glenn Beck as a demon drawing the focus away from any fault of mine and onto yours.

You are either one of the most partisan-blinded people I have ever responded to, or an elaborate and subtle troll that was somehow modded insightful.

Re:Doomed

[Somewhat Delirious]

Radical left wing? Are you joking? Radical left wing in the US? Seriously?
I guess you've never informed yourself about what people in the rest of the world might mean by the words political left. By the standards of any democratic European country there is no political left in US politics. There never has been. Not even those presidents who have been accused of being communists qualify as left wing by that measure.

And now that I have said that, I'd like to apologize to the US government and it's people. I didn't mean to burts the buble that the US is the center of the universe and I didn't mean to imply there is anyone beyond the US borders who's existence or opinion should be taken into account. Please don't call for my assasination or label me a terrorist...

God Bless Michael Moore

[b4upoo]

A thank you to Mr. Moore for helping Julian. Perhaps these two gentlemen should be considered for a Nobel Peace prise.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[RazorSharp]

I'm a nutbag anarcho-capitalist, and I donate to Wikileaks.

And Ron Paul supports Wikileaks as well. Good old Wikileaks, bringing the nutbag socialists (myself) and nutbag libertarians into agreement. But really, why should government transparency be a right-wing/left-wing issue? The ones who paint it as a liberal/conservative issue are just trying to demonize their opponents. A sad effect of the two-party system in the U.S.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[Johnny5000]

Now, given that it doesn't, how do you get the message across?

Well, I don't think that an emotional appeal is necessarily a bad thing, but whenever Michael Moore comes out with a movie, his detractors are able to come up with a huge list of inaccuracies in the films. Some might be honest oversights or maybe an opinion that's open to interpretation, but there are also plenty of blatant falsehoods which call the entire message into question.
That's what I could do without.

However, he's often been described as a left-wing Rush Limbaugh. And what does Rush Limbaugh do? He lies his ass off to support his point, and even when his lies are pointed out to those who listen to him, they will still believe the lies, at least on a visceral level. It will still color their outlook on the world.

So maybe that's what Michael Moore needs to do. Lie his ass off, and poison people's thinking for the greater good? Get them to believe a larger "Truth" by swallowing a few small lies here and there? I don't think I feel entirely comfortable with that, even if it does provide my side with a few more wins.

I think that's a reason why the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world have so much control over the political dialog.

Re:Doomed

[_Sprocket_]

Again with the generalities. Micheal Moore IS good, not only can he manipulate people, he can evidently erase all evidence of manipulation from their brains, rendering them incapable of even pointing out HOW they had been manipulated! The man is an evil genius!

Eh. I admit to being too busy / lazy right now to go through point-by-point on this yet again. I believe I've done it several years ago during another conversation about this particular work. If one can't find my own writings, there's plenty of others (if you can weed out the foaming-at-the-mouth neocons who revel in reviling Moore). I suggest other readers do the same and not simply react to Moore because his politics do or do not fall in line with yours.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

Why would I want to argue about the statement? It's true. I wouldn't argue against the statement, but against the unstated premise that killing people is better than letting them commit a crime. It isn't an infuriating statement, it just appears uninformed and ill-considered.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[Kattspya]

Nice ad hominem, dickface.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

I agree with More's politics, but I did not consider Heston insensitive. I thought it was obvious that Moore was illustrating the stupidity of the 'cold, dead hands' rhetoric by comparing it to actual cold, dead hands. He was not trying to make it seems as though Heston had made that comment at Columbine, IMHO.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

Point well made, and point taken. I will only point out that esteemed television news shows such as "Sixty Minutes" also make use of the adversarial interview. Is it grandstanding when a journalist ambushes a subject and asks them uncomfortable questions? If so, then journalists do a lot of grandstanding.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

My hypothesis is that the American civil war never actually ended; they just changed the rules of engagement. As for socialism: I have no objection to socialism between consenting adults. Just leave me out of it.

Re:Why do you hate America, Michael?

[conspirator57]

and you hate freedom. which makes you a terrorist. c wat i did thar?

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[Johnny5000]

You have stated a conclusion that would follow from my being wrong, but offered no argument.

If you're a taxpayer, and you know your money is going to support something you find intolerable, then you shouldn't pay your taxes. Ultimately we're all responsible for our support of the state, because we're paying for it.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[anyGould]

Right, it's the worst atrocities, or nothing. Nobody's supposed to condemn any of the other stuff in between.

And remember, there's always a worse atrocity out there, so the horrible things I'm doing are totally OK, because "that guy over there" is worse.

Case in point: the old mayor of Toronto is quoted as saying people should relax about the G20 mass arrests because the Federal government was way worse during the FLQ crisis in the 70s.

Re:What to say to police (what is costs)

[RajivSLK]

Well if we are going to nit pick...

The two are not mutually exclusive. Many of the people in the holding cell may be repeat offenders and may have been convicted in the past. The statement is valid.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

The first link has nothing to do with Micheal Moore, except to say in a very partisan fashion that the commercial they ARE critiquing is even more dishonest than he is.

The second link raises several issues, and rates most of them as "true" or "mostly true." The ones that are rated false, such as "America supports single payer" are debatable. Nowadays, most Americans DO support a single payer system, though that might not have been true at the time of the movie. Many of the points labeled as false are only false on a technicality, like the claim that youth are evenly split on support for capitalism and socialism. That is true, according to politifact, the falsehood is in the timing, as the one poll they cite happened after the 2008 election, and they say that Moore claimed it to be true before the election.

Of the six points raised in the second link, four are rated as true, mostly true, or partly true. Of the nine "related points" raised in the sidebar, seven are rated true, mostly true, or partly true. I think you should check the links you use to support your positions, to see if they actually support your positions, or do the opposite.

Re:Doomed

[BeanThere]

Hmm, you said 'badger' ... Badger badger badger ...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Doomed

[bigstrat2003]

You exemplify what is wrong with rational discourse on the internet. Just because you cannot agree with someone, does not make them irrational or messed-up.

Re:Doomed

[Penguinisto]

People in a lot of countries are getting a wakeup call on how the US really views them ...

If you think for one moment that other countries don't view each other through the same jaundiced, prejudiced, and otherwise unkind views, you are more than just a little naive.

This isn't new news, nor does it reveal anything that sufficiently wise individuals didn't already know.

Really ?

[tizan]

By people: all individuals in the US do you love, including all people from Georgia to Alaska, Hawaii to Virgin Islands ?

Then you love your government as they are run by individuals (the federal and state governments must be tens of millions of people including politicians).

But you say you hate government ...then you are inconsistent or illogical.

Re:Really ?

[Opportunist]

Ok, ok, I bite.

I said "the people". Yes, that doesn't mean ALL the people. I guess it's ok to still use it, after all you might remember some old document starting with "We, the people", and that didn't include ALL the people living in the US either, so it's kinda grandfathered to not include the "unpleasant" ones.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[skywire]

I agree with you that I might well experience an instinctive revulsion. But surely you are not suggesting that that feeling constitutes actual responsibility.

Re:Doomed

[johnlcallaway]

Moore and Assange should get along swell. They are both egotistical idealists who think they and only they have the answers to the worlds problems, and anyone who doesn't agree with them is just a moron.

Moore is no more an unbiased source of information than Assange is. He also only puts forth information that furthers his ideals, ignoring anything that contradicts them.

Moore became irrelevant years ago when the public learned this, the only people that applaud Mr. Moore are the ones that agree with his points and use his biased movies (they are not documentaries, no matter how hard he tries) to respond to arguments. As soon as he publishes anything they disagree with, they will dump him like a load of manure.

Re:Doomed

[FoolishOwl]

I've got my own list of criticisms of Moore -- his sloppiness sometimes undermines the causes he supports -- but it's surprising how often he's criticized for claiming things he didn't claim.

This particular criticism is particularly blatant, as you say, given that he spends much of the movie tearing down the conventional explanations for high rates of gun violence in the US, and doesn't come to a definite conclusion, except for the animated sequence that argues that there's a strong historical association in the US between gun violence and racist paranoia.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[The Living Fractal]

Nonetheless, the point he is making makes sense to most people. It's about perception. For if we, as a nation, cannot control our government, who is to blame but ourselves?

Re:Or:

[Penguinisto]

Nitpick: Woodward and Berenstein are famous because they uncovered an actual crime in progress.

The only two things Assange managed were these:

* He published information that the rest of the planet pretty much knew about anyway, just not in detail
* He showed himself to be an attention whore of sorts, pretending to live the life of James Bond and the like.

According to Cryptome, he was angling for money as well.

Re:Blinders

[cje]

Having the maturity to realize that taxes are a necessary part of living in a modern, safe, and orderly society does not make one a "big-government cheerleader". Yes, it would be great if everybody's tax rate was zero percent and all of the things that define the First World standard of living magically appeared ex nihilo. Unfortunately, this is not the case -- and it's the reason that the whole "government is robbing me at gunpoint" schtick never fails to elicit involuntary eye-rolling from folks who are more grounded in reality.

Re:Doomed

[Em Adespoton]

It's what they believe they're in the middle of that matters.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

You fucking cretin, how can you claim that I both did and did not address an issue? He raised the central theme of the movie as an issue. I showed that he completely misunderstood the theme of the movie.

Next, he says "Moore may have had a point about the ammo, but fails to mention K-Mart was in the process of maybe someday banning sales of ammo." Riiiiiight.

So his only legitimate point was that Moore ambushed Dick Clark. Oh my fucking god, a documentary maker ambushing a subject. Don't watch 60 Minutes dude, your head will explode.

And he didn't point out that Clark's poor fudge packer had no better options than to work for Clark. Well, that was the whole point of the movie, how did you miss it? Capitalism offers people a choice between starving to death or eating whatever shit is served to them.

Re:Doomed

[johnlcallaway]

So I guess purposefully misrepresenting the truth isn't the same as lying??

Lets check Dictionary.com ...

lie [lahy]
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

I think #2 and #3 above fits this situation.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Doomed

[johnlcallaway]

The brain is a wondrous organ, and is capable of doing lots of thinking without a person even being aware of it. It is capable of picking up nuances in vocal patterns or body language that help to determine if someone is lying or not.

Just because something "doesn't seem right" does not mean someone isn't thinking. It could mean their brain is trying to tell them something they aren't consciously aware of.

For instance, someone who is just a little bit too sure of himself comes off as an egotistical asshole (i.e. Moore), as if they are using bullying tactics to 'scare' you into believing something they don't really have facts to back up. Now, it doesn't mean that someone who is sure of themselves is lying, but it makes one wonder more than someone who is a bit more humble. Someone who states a fact and presents themselves in a very insecure way can make one wonder whether or not they are providing the correct information. Again, doesn't make them wrong, but it does make one question whether or not they know what they are talking about. We gain these 'feelings' from people who have lied to us in the past and the behaviors they expressed when they did so.

Feelings are responses that can be caused by many things, including chemical responses in the body, past experiences, and inherited behaviors. To casually toss them aside as if they don't mean anything is rather short sighted.

Re:What to say to police (what is costs)

[Thelasko]

Many of the people in the holding cell may be repeat offenders and may have been convicted in the past. The statement is valid.

The guy sitting next to me on the bus may have been convicted in the past.
That statement is valid too!

Hypothetical question

[rumblin'rabbit]

If I hacked into Michael Moore's computer, and then found and leaked a lot of embarrassing private material revealing Moore to be a hypocritical douche bag, and then I got arrested for this, would Michael bail me out of jail?

Of course I wouldn't need his bail money cause there would be a million or so other people ahead of him, but -- you know -- just asking.

Oh, great.

[residents_parking]

There is one serial-attention-seeking never-has-been too many. We could cope with Lasagne as an unknown quantity, but Moore will put off a lot of potential supporters. He undeniably colours anything he weighs into. Here in the UK we have the Guardian (a left-wing arts rag that pretends to be a newspaper), and the BBC (online and TV version of the Guardian). They'll love this. Shame.

Re:Doomed

[MrKaos]

He makes some good points, but he makes them incredibly badly. He's the kind of person who could turn 'water is wet' into a controversial statement. Even when he says something that I agree with, he makes me want to argue.

Yes, he has mastered the art of talking to his countrymen (and women).

Re:Doomed

[spun]

Good point, except for the part where Moore wasn't purposefully misrepresenting the truth. He can't help it that some people take things too literally. And some people take things too literally, to try to make a point. They get outraged about things because they want to get outraged. The outrage came first, and then a reason was found for the outrage, but the outrage preceded the reason.

Re:Doomed

[johnlcallaway]

I'm confused .. Mr. Moore is listed as the directory, writer, and star for this movie. The tag line on the poster is 'Are we a nation of gun nuts, or just nuts' and shows Mr. Moore holding up a globe. The above poster points out a few things that are wrong with the movie, you don't address any of them, yet claim he didn't watch the whole thing which has nothing to do with whether or not the points he made are accurate.

These are simple points that the poster made, that Moore purposefully portrays the side he agrees with in a good light and demonizes the opposite point using less than ethical journalistic standards. I.e. use crazies to show guns are bad and non-crazies so show guns aren't needed and ambushes any possible supporters of the opposing viewpoint so no matter what they do, they too look bad, and shows irrelevant information to make the opposing supporters look bad. While these technically aren't lying, they are misrepresenting the truth.

Moore is a hack movie writer, he doesn't do documentaries. He writes movies that supports his views without any regard to fairly providing opposing viewpoints, which a true documentary would do. It's kind of like Animal Planet and Whale Wars, why show both sides when it makes for a boring show that no one will watch instead of an exciting show that at least the people that agree with him will watch.

Re:What to say to police (what is costs)

[RajivSLK]

Yeah so? I ate a banana for lunch is also a true statement.

Btw, there is a higher chance that the guy in a Jail cell is a convicted criminal than a guy on a bus... not that it matters much

Re:Doomed

[spun]

You raise a very good point, emotions can be powerful and accurate tools for quickly processing complex, incomplete, and contradictory information. However, there is a reason that rational thought has superseded emotions. Emotions are home to unseen biases, they arrive at conclusions quickly but are not always accurate. Emotions can not examine the methods they used to arrive at a feeling. Logic can, but most people make logic a slave to emotions. They feel first, think second. They use a pretense of logic to justify their emotional response. But it is important to remember that emotions and rational thought are two separate things. Claiming that one arrived at a conclusion after thinking it through carries more weight with others than a "gut feeling," and with good reason. It is dishonest to claim that one is being logical when in fact logic is only playing a subordinate role to the feeling of certainty.

I am positing that most people who criticize Moore do not like the conclusions he reaches. He says things which can cause cognitive dissonance in most people. People do not like the feeling of having their world view invalidated, and Moore's films invalidate some people's world views. This feels like a death threat to most people.

Feeling their core identity threatened, they naturally do not like the person who made them feel that way. But they have no logical reason for feeling that way, and they can not admit that their world view was threatened. Admitting your world view has been threatened means it actually can be threatened, which means that there are contradictions in it. So they have to invent reasons for not liking the man that have nothing to do with the fact that he basically showed them they are living a lie.

Re:Doomed

[MrKaos]

Then you've never seen any of Moore's work. His wildly skewed to the left shows, skewed to the point of being "creative edits" that completely misrepresent the truth, are presented as documentaries.

I'm sure if Nixon was running for office today with the policies and views he ran with then he would also be viewed as a lefty. World politics has quite clearly kept moving to the right so any right wing views of the past will look quaint compared to today and balanced or left leaning views will look like, as you say, "wildly skewed to the left shows".

Re:Doomed

[spun]

Okay, first, the poster gets the main theme of the movie wrong. It is not about gun control. Moore realizes in the movie that guns are not the problem. We are not gun nuts. We are just nuts. Canada has no gun control, plenty of guns, and little gun violence. Moore points this out quite clearly.

Next, the poster raises "good points?" Did you read them? He basically negates all his own points. I responded below, pointing out how silly his so called points are. I'm not repeating myself here for your benefit. Read below.

Right, I agree that Moore writes movies that support his views. He writes movies to make a point. But, as in Bowling for Columbine, he will let facts change his mind. He set out to write a pro gun control movie, but when confronted with evidence that shows his premises are incorrect, he changes his mind, and lets us see the process.

The thing is, movies that present both sides do not change people's minds. When you let people think for themselves, they will think what they have always thought. If you do try to change their minds, they will still think what they have always thought. Most people find changing their minds quite painful.

Finally, do you honestly suppose that there is such an animal as the bias free documentary, where both sides are presented fairly? If you believe that, I have a documentary film about the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.

Re:Doomed

[blair1q]

"Everyone"

Haha. No. It didn't then and it doesn't now. Fool.

I was under the impression that...

[JoeInnes]

You needed to be a UK resident to provide a surety in the UK? I don't think Mr. Moore is a UK resident, but don't know. Anyone got any insight?

Re:Just Leave

[blair1q]

Their moral duty as human beings comes first, though. Were there ever a scenario where telling the secret is the right thing to do, it should be done without hesitation, by a moral person.

We all have capabilities any of us have (generally) and can do lots of things that we restrict to those who have better knowledge and more authority. The reason for this is that if you don't do it that way, people of no moral bearing will use this as an excuse to commit damaging acts, possibly even foment atrocities.

Like the 1300 people that Assange got killed in Kenya.

You may think that releasing the information is right for you. The people responsible for redacting it will almost certainly differ on certain points.

There is a right way to release it, and Assange isn't doing that.

George and the boys back in the 1770's. They did the RIGHT THING, and were guilty of HIGH TREASON.

Two ways to look at that:

1. The law gave them no choice; that's why it's tyranny. Assange had a choice that would accomplish his goals legally or illegally, and he chose illegally. That's not defiance in the face of tyranny, it's lazy ego-tripping.

2. If it weren't for the fact that George and the boys were willing to put their asses on the line, quite spectacularly in many instances, it would not today be considered the "RIGHT THING". Assange so far has run away from talking to a Swedish cop about whether he wore a rubber. He is not George Washington, and I wish people would stop sullying real heroes by comparing this twit to them. Let him sit out a winter in a field in Pennsylvania and take a few lead balls through his hat and then we'll see.

The right to revolt relies on the fact that there is no other course of action AND the fact that what you're doing is actually right. Otherwise you're going to have to agree that the Soviets were right, Mao was right, the government of Myanmar was right, Hitler was right, and so on. Just fighting people in power doesn't make you a righteous revolutionary.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Myopic]

I feel like we are arguing a tautology. Do you have a system of judging 'standard'-ness other than by using your own well-informed expectations?

Re:Empty theatrics

[Rakarra]

I don't know about that, I don't know a single person with a positive attitude towards either her or "octomom."

Re:Doomed

[rovolo]

You agree with him, but the way he says things makes you not want to agree? How does that work?

Someone who wanted the U.S. to invade Iraq because of the claimed WMDs wouldn't agree with someone who wanted to invade Iraq because it's full of muslims.

Someone who wanted the U.S. to not invade Iraq because weapons inspectors found no WMDs wouldn't agree with someone who thought there weren't any WMDs because muslims are such idiots that they can't build them.

For any opinion with a yes or no answer, there are bound to be people on your side who are either idiots or assholes that you won't agree with.

Re:Doomed

[MrKaos]

What purpose is served in releasing the fact that Hilary Clinton worries about the mental health of other world leaders? How does that aid in our international relations?

Perhaps Mrs Clinton has a valid concern that, in her opinion, some of the world leaders she has met have mental health issues. I for one would like to know if one of my representatives my have those sorts of concerns if peoples lives are going to depend on that leaders ability to make decisions.

That's just one of 1000's of items that were released that are not crimes, are not important for the American people to know, and still undermine our government's ability to operate on the world stage.

Democracy can be embarrassing and people have opinions, the political process will get over it. More honesty in politics today is what we need if we are to confront the very real issues we face as a world. Only those who seek a nanny state cry foul here and scripted politicians are getting really tiresome. It's the 21st century and what better time to shake loose the entropy of the past.

Releasing those kinds of documents doesn't serve a greater good. It doesnt expose any wrong-doings. It doesn't help create stability, ensure -anyone's- safety, or promote any kind of cooperation between nations. It was released to embarrass the US government and garner sensationlistic attention from a little weasle.

So says you but I think you are attaching too much emotion to the issue. Secrets cost a lot of money to maintain, the greater good that it can server is to really make those in power think about their actions before committing them to any secrecy act. There may already be an enormous financial benefit to getting all this stuff out in the open because it no longer incurs a cost to maintain it as a secret.

Not to mention that this guy released the names of confidential informants in the middle east. In doing so he signed the death warrants of those people. What greater purpose was served by releasing their names? What good will come of that? What crime did they commit? What evil are they responsible for? Where are your indignant tears for them and their families who will almost assuredly be slaughtered?

I think the U.S military coined the term Collateral damage for the un-intended consequence of their actions. Perhaps it would make you feel better about this if you consider it as the collateral damage that is incurred as a requirement to fix our democracy and prevent more loss of life. I know it's not right - but collateral damage never has been.

Assange has forced politicians to act by the ideals the espouse. You should be blaming those who made the secrets not those who exposed them in pursuit of a stronger, more functional democracy.

Re:oh gee

[Rakarra]

so this is different from fox news, all the corporate news channels, how ?

I hold everyone to a far higher standard than fox news. Having Michael Moore's documentaries being the Fox News of the left is not flattering to Moore (even if it's an accurate comparison).

Re:Doomed

[dbIII]

The worst "creative edit" I've seen was on CNN on 9/11. They showed footage that they said was Palestinians celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Centre. In the film a lot of them were wearing t-shirts with the Brazilian flag. Some were holding soccer balls. It was outside, and it was night. It should have been around noon in Palestine when the planes hit and the bit on CNN was only a couple of hours later. Some utter unethical bastard was pushing his own agenda with a bit of file footage.

How's that for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre?

Re:oh gee

[unity100]

Having Michael Moore's documentaries being the Fox News of the left

that is probably fox news' perception. i, as an outsider, see michael moore documentaries pretty much on the spot.

Re:Doomed

[Magius_AR]

What the hell, man? How is someone going to prove anything to you when you just handwave/dismiss attempts to mislead as "moviegoer's perogative" instead of intent. If he was being honest with facts, he wouldn't have to splice clips and juxtapose seemingly random information in a manner that implies correlation. He clearly attempts to spin and distort, to get people to try to draw conclusions or make connections where there are none.

You ask for "examples" when even the most trivial of searches, a simple Wikipedia lookup, shows dozens (emphasis mine):

Bowling for Columbine:

Moore's agents, under the pretext of "doing a story on unique businesses across America," are accused of convincing bank employees to have his rifle presented to him on camera the morning after filming his account opening. Further, they counter that contrary to the film's supposition that the bank kept hundreds of guns on their premises, the gun which was handed to Michael in the film was shipped overnight from a vault in their Upper Peninsula branch "300 miles away." Moore emphatically denies that this sequence was staged but admits the timing was compressed for production reasons .

Fahrenheit 9/11:

Christopher Hitchens criticized the film for not mentioning the history of repression, aggression, war crimes and the general state of human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, nor Iraq's noncompliance with numerous United Nations resolutions.[13] Hitchens writes, "in this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots , children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism.

Capitalism: A Love Story

Moore criticizes Wal-Mart for "dead peasant" policies, all 350,000 of which were cancelled in 2000. However, Moore notes that the termination of the policies was covered in the presentation of facts and quotes in the closing credits. I don't know if these examples are even relevant to you, as you appear to have your mind made up already. But what Moore does is akin to what those medical ads do to hide side-effects (small-print/rapid phrases). Or, even more accurately, what the robo-callers do to attempt to discredit politicans. For instance, you get a phone call that says "would you still support candidate X if you found out they cheated on their spouse?" No lies were spoken -- it's merely a question...however, it's a leading question that attempts to mislead and draw conclusions. It's one of the reason leading questions are illegal in court hearings. Suggestive questions (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Suggestive_question) are the same concept.

Hell, just look at the subject material of Sicko -- that's one gigantic false dichotomy right there. The entire argument hinges on the assumption that the only possible choices are "universal healthcare" or "capitalism", and seemingly ignores the fact that comparing two extremely different countries involves so many variables that any apples-to-apples comparison should be seen as tentative at best, especially when the specific topics of comparison are cherry-picked. I could cherry-pick a handful of facts (completely true ones) that make the US healthcare system look like it's the best in the world.

If I may make my movie moment: American's commitment to extensive medical testing and diagnosis is second to none! The US has the highest rate of MRI and CT scans per capita (http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/01/doctors-united-states-order-ct-scans-mri-tests.html). Canada performs less than half the same amount of tests in attempts to determine whether a patient is sick or not. [cut to film splice of canadian cancer patient in waiting room]. [overlay sound clip of interview with american cancer survivor: "how satisifed are you with the level of medical testing here in the US?"][f

Re:Doomed

[Rakarra]

If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about...right? I mean, that's what they told us with the Patriot Act and warrentless wiretapping, so...

Bullshit, utter bullshit. Have you never said something about a friend in confidence that you didn't want that friend to hear about? Or a relative? Ever done anything that you didn't want published in a newspaper? I'm not talking about criminal activity. I'm not even talking about immoral activity. Our entire society is based on the notion that your opinions can be private, with there being differing levels of privacy. If every single thing you'd ever said was reported to those whom you mentioned, you'd have a lot of strained and tense relationships in your life. It's really just a grown-up version of girls in high school spreading rumors of what Jenny said about Sally.

And no, the government is not somehow "different" in that regard. Criminal activity? Sure, let's have that exposed to the light of day. But for every "whoops, we bombed a village" atrocity, there are 10 "that diplomat is difficult to deal with" or "X and Y are unreasonable demands, maybe Z will work" documents that strain relationships and damage the US. The former is whistleblowing, the latter is not.

Re:Doomed

[Rakarra]

People in a lot of countries are getting a wakeup call on how the US really views them and their elected (or not elected) leaders, and while it has been 'known' by those in the know... Still to have it exposed to the public in such a manner means it's much harder to try hiding it from the people.

And do people in the US (and everywhere else in the world) get exactly the same level of detail on every other country's internal decisions, or is this all just an anti-US crusade?

Re:Doomed

[DurendalMac]

Right. The guy who processes cash transactions for products over which he has no control is responsible and should be badgered. Yes, the cashier should be held to stand for the crime because the store in which he works happens to sell something that COULD harm people. Don't put the blame on the shooters, blame the minimum wage worker who is doing his job! Hey, that guy killed three people with a hammer! Let's find a cashier who works at the store that sold it and chew him out because it's obviously his fault!

Are you really this much of a retarded asshole or does it take effort?

Re:Doomed

[Rakarra]

As I explained earlier in the thread, for me, it all comes down to Moore going "LOOKATME, I UNCOVERED THIS SLEAZE! ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!"

I'd actually be ok with that (annoyed, maybe) if all of his exposures were accurate or honest.

Re:Doomed

[Skuld-Chan]

Oh I agree fully! Though the ATF still considers it a handgun in a quick google search ;).

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[gtbritishskull]

A country can take no actions, as it has no concrete existence independent of its constituent individuals. Every individual is responsible for his own actions.

So, by your logic, it should not be illegal for me to give money to terrorist organizations. I am just giving them the means/power they need to go out and kill innocent people. Each terrorist is responsible for his own actions. I bear no responsibility for those actions just because I enable them.

Correct?

I can choose whether or not I wish to lease a car. One does not get a choice as to whether or not one wishes to be a subject of a government or retain his natural sovereignty.

Bullshit. You can move to whatever country suits your ideals. No one is forcing you to stay here. I am sure there are plenty of people willing to take your place.

If I have a weapon, I can kill the motherfucker and claim self-defense if made to stand trial. I might even convince the jury to let me off.

True, but you have no way of preventing him from trying to take your money in the first place. With a government you do, and can thereby prevent the violent outcome and risk to your life.

Re:Doomed

[easyTree]

You are correct. They are irrational and messed-up for reasons entirely unrelated to me or my opinion.

Who can say why someone would persistently gravitate towards objects whose sole purpose is to kill/maim other living things - all the while using lame justifications such as "guns don't kill people, gun-nuts do" etc. ?

Re:WMD's

[dbIII]

First and foremost, we didn't know for sure whether Iraq had WMD's or not.

Yes we did, in fact we knew that some of the "evidence" came from a fucking expensive advertising agency.
For details take a look at Powell's speech to the UN which ensured that his career was over as soon as Bush was gone.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Doomed

[Pojut]

Bullshit, utter bullshit. Have you never said something about a friend in confidence that you didn't want that friend to hear about? Or a relative?

No, I haven't. See, when I have a problem with someone, I talk to them, not someone else.

If every single thing you'd ever said was reported to those whom you mentioned, you'd have a lot of strained and tense relationships in your life. It's really just a grown-up version of girls in high school spreading rumors of what Jenny said about Sally.

You are comparing a single cog to the entire machine. Explain to me how my secrets and whispers somehow have the same power as government's secrets and whispers? I'm a nobody. They, for all intents and purposes, are everybody.

And no, the government is not somehow "different" in that regard. Criminal activity? Sure, let's have that exposed to the light of day. But for every "whoops, we bombed a village" atrocity, there are 10 "that diplomat is difficult to deal with" or "X and Y are unreasonable demands, maybe Z will work" documents that strain relationships and damage the US. The former is whistleblowing, the latter is not.

Fair enough.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[dbIII]

I can't understand it either. If they were consistent they would be calling him a hero. Instead they want him dead.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[Falconhell]

I"'m a nutbag," redundant-we noticed already.

Re:Alternative headline

[angus77]

The Soviets wisely stopped fighting in Afghanistan when they realized it's hopeless to civilize that mountain country, and we should too.

That's your reason for bringing the troops home?!? Not because the war is wrong or anything, but because it's TOOOO HAAARDDD!!!!!

And you're not seriously pulling the whole "White Man's Burden" schtick there with that "civilize that mountain country" bullshit, are you? In the 21st Century?

Re:Doomed

[HiMorons]

That's funny, guns are designed to prevent people from being killed in a very dangerous situation too. Maybe you should see what happens when you or someone you care about get into a very dangerous situation and don't have one.

Re:Doomed

[WiseWeasel]

I have no more examples, as they've all fleeted from memory. I'm simply giving my impressions of him based on the last few movies I've seen. I remember thinking that at the time, but no longer what made me feel that way, and I don't care enough about the subject to revisit it.

Re:Doomed

[Magius_AR]

That's certainly news to me. From what I've heard, both personally and in the news, his works are widely hated and/or discredited by the right, widely loved by the left, and generally ignored as sensationalist bias by the middle (the same people that ignore Fox News, HuffPo, and all the other biased sources)

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

You will die alone save for a cat who will spend your last moments licking his balls.

Re:Doomed

[Magius_AR]

which can cause cognitive dissonance in most people. People do not like the feeling of having their world view invalidated

Or perhaps they're just not fans of cognitive bias?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you're a global warming proponent. How'd you feel when ClimateGate came out? Did you feel cognitive dissonance? Was your world view invalidated? Hell no, you got pissed off that a bunch of morons ignored 95% of a document, instead focusing on the 5% that supported their own conclusions. They sensationalized the news and used an appeal to authority (a handful of scientists admitting to falsifying data to support their conclusions) to imply a trend. They generated doubt, uncertainty, and "what-ifs" in the general populace, all based on 100% factual truth. However, the presentation was such that people were led to believe their "evidence" was far stronger and far more closely tied to causal effects than it actually was. Moore is the same way, and I'm sorry you don't see that. You're so quick to dismiss the anti-Moore crowd as "just not 'self-aware' enough to recognize their own bias" that you completely fail to see your own.

Re:Alternative headline

[HiMorons]

Yeah, they do, and why is that? Is it because the US has successfully prevented that from happening on its own soil? I wonder how one accomplishes that? Almost every European country is having a degree of Islamic insurgency. Your grandparents understood that quick brutal violence will end the war faster and cost less civilian lives in the long run. It took two nukes to crack the will of the fanatical Japanese. It might not be that easy this time.

Re:Alternative headline

[HiMorons]

Skewing the informational releases to damage a specific country? Who knows what sort of exonerating evidence he chose not to release that is still classified (meaning they can't defend themselves.) But yeah, don't let that ruin your fantasy land.

Re:Doomed

[BenoitRen]

Are you stupid or something? What you're doing is essentially telling him to go to the library and check out all the science books by a certain author because he may have the answer to his scientific question.

Re:Doomed

[Yunzil]

don't understand this at all. You agree with him, but the way he says things makes you not want to agree? How does that work? What is it about his communication style that makes you want to disagree with things you actually agree with?

Part of it is that he can't make a point without turning it into a goddamned circus. Like in "Capitalism: A Love Story" where he goes to the bank with big bags to ask for our money back. Or in "Sicko" where he goes wandering around the hospital looking for the billing room. I get it, Mike.

Good for him

[KingAlanI]

Good for him to be publicly putting some of his money where his mouth is, rather than just talking about it. Granted, celebrity activism can often devolve into imperfect PR stunts.

Hmm...

[KingAlanI]

I recall some MAD article pointing out that Moor and Limbaugh are both big fat partisan gasbags (in the context of saying that each side theirs is better thna the others)

Canadian Bacon

[KingAlanI]

His Canadian Bacon film had noticeable political undertones, but was in large part an enjoyable comedy rather than a rant.

Re:Moore Claims Credit!

[MrKaos]

Everyone else has emboldened the word help so that it is understood that Michael Moore is helping so I thought I would help those who are helping.

Re:Doomed

[budgenator]

I've seen a Photograph made by Michael Yon (third photo in the slide show actually) used without permission or even atribution by Moore; if a film maker will infringe the copyright of another professional, what wouldn't he do? The photo was only taken down after Yon's lawyers started threatening law suits.

Re:Doomed

[budgenator]

Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't documentary films supposed to be taken literaly?

Re:Doomed

[Voyager529]

Okay, first, the poster gets the main theme of the movie wrong. It is not about gun control. Moore realizes in the movie that guns are not the problem. We are not gun nuts. We are just nuts. Canada has no gun control, plenty of guns, and little gun violence. Moore points this out quite clearly.

I'll point back to my disclaimer about it having been several years since I saw the film. After reading your post, I recollect that (unsurprisingly) you are indeed accurate, and I was not.

As a bit of a side note, I find it interesting that the bits I've seen from Moore indicate that he seems to praise their healthcare system, relatively low firearm violence rates, and yet he hasn't emigrated there. I'd be interested to see his documentary on all that Canada does wrong to the point that he'd rather remain an American.

Next, the poster raises "good points?" Did you read them? He basically negates all his own points. I responded below, pointing out how silly his so called points are. I'm not repeating myself here for your benefit. Read below.

I missed where I negated myself.

>

Right, I agree that Moore writes movies that support his views. He writes movies to make a point. But, as in Bowling for Columbine, he will let facts change his mind. He set out to write a pro gun control movie, but when confronted with evidence that shows his premises are incorrect, he changes his mind, and lets us see the process.

If he's making a point in a documentary, then the end result will ultimately reflect whatever point he desires to make. This is the nature of filmmaking.

The thing is, movies that present both sides do not change people's minds. When you let people think for themselves, they will think what they have always thought. If you do try to change their minds, they will still think what they have always thought. Most people find changing their minds quite painful.

Of course. But as you stated before, Moore (supposedly) changed his mind throughout the course of his research. If his research was unbiased and it was genuinely the facts he came across that changed his mind, then to the average person, the facts should be sufficiently persuasive by themselves.

Finally, do you honestly suppose that there is such an animal as the bias free documentary, where both sides are presented fairly? If you believe that, I have a documentary film about the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.

Maybe there isn't one where both sides are presented 100% fairly. I'll take a 60/40 mix, though, heck I'll even settle for a 70/30 from a documentarian (or whatever you call such a person) who at least demonstrates something of an effort to present the other side. Even if you want to argue that the facts changed his mind, answer me this: can you provide any citation that demonstrates that Moore even TRIED to set up an official interview with Dick Clark, and the ambush was his last resort after repeated attempts to get 20 minutes of the man's time? Even biased journalist/op-ed reporters like Maddow and Hannity do this. While I don't watch 60 minutes with any consistency, the clips I can recall involve shady storefront owners and other individuals under police investigation where they're avoiding things like implicating themselves in a crime or foul business practices. You may consider Clark to be in the same boat, but the tourist attraction was one of MANY properties he owns, and to my recollection wasn't under any state or federal investigation.

With regard to your other talking points...

Next, he says "Moore may have had a point about the ammo, but fails to mention K-Mart was in the process of maybe someday banning sales of ammo." Riiiiiight.

My only citation for this is the college professor who showed this film in our class; I'm unable to find an article on the topic that does not reflect the situation prior to the rel

Re:Doomed

[sjames]

You seem confused. Nobody has been killed, and the trivialities you speak of are part of the usual focus on anything but the substantial issues smokescreen.

The bigger news is Saudi Arabia urging us to invade Iran and China caught red handed hacking Google (whereas before we were just fairly sure that was the case). We would probably know a lot more by now except that it's being checked carefully and released slowly in order to avoid getting anyone killed.

Re:Just Leave

[Tolkien]

Don't apologize. You're right in your assessment.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Myopic]

I didn't brand a legal system anything. I branded one law non-standard. Can you help educate me by telling me all the places with laws like this particular Swedish condom law? Because my understanding is that it is nonstandard, as in not "accepted as normal and average". This is based on my understanding, which I consider to be well informed, of laws common in western civilization -- but perhaps these condom laws are standard after all and I am poorly informed. You can show me how little I know by showing me that it's a standard law.

I reject your suggestion that a person is capable, even in theory, of "judging other people" by any other than that person's "own measure". Of course judgments are made based on a person's own measure. Where else could judgment come from?

Re:oh gee

[budgenator]

Well I didn't think MM sprung for Assange's bail, he put up $20K against a $350K bond. Assange or Wikileaks raised money for Manning's defense, and promised to send $20K to it, but hasn't. I don't know how bail bonds work in England, but if it's 10% cash like in the US then I have serious doubts the Manning defense fund is going to see any money because Assange is going to need $15K real quick. The Wau Holland Foundation which is handling the funds seem to have a habit of late legal filings and having their funds frozen for money laundering; which doesn't inspire confidence in their ability to execute their fiduciary responsiblites

Re:Doomed

[davidshewitt]

But are 9mm rounds typically used for hunting?

Re:Doomed

[imunfair]

From personal experience - reputation imbues what you say with credibility. I interact with a lot of people online, and have a reputation for being knowledgeable about certain things.

I've tried speaking to the same people in the same way anonymously (as a different person) - and I can tell you it makes a huge difference in how much credence people give what you say.

Consider the difference between a scandal leaked by Donald Rumsfeld vs one leaked by a plumber from the Pentagon - one instantly has credibility, the other starts from a conspiracy theory angle and has to fight to be believed.

Re:Doomed

[Archangel Michael]

Tell me, name one thing you've done that's been half so valorous as what Assange has accomplished over the last few years?

Assange didn't do anything. You want to praise someone, praise the traitor/patriot the gave him the documents. Assange is sitting pretty with all the glory while the real traitor/patriot is gonna get hung or shot for his gift to the glory hound Assange.

Either that guy is a traitor, or a patriot. If you think that taking documents he was trusted with makes him a hero, say so.

Assange is not American, so I don't really give a rats ass what he thinks of my country. He's just another foreign douche who hates America, they are a dime a dozen. The only reason he doesn't pick on the REALLY bad places is because he knows he won't live if he does. He'd just disappear or get a surprise dose of radiation having a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Re:Doomed

[Archangel Michael]

So you're saying that if you go to Iran, and have sex with your girlfriend while you're there, it is right and just for you (or more likely, just her) to be stoned to death, because the law of the land

Yes, exactly. I may not like it, which is why I won't have sex with my girlfriend in Iran.

I know, it is hard for people like you to be able to keep your dick in your pants even when your life is at stake. Some of us don't have that problem.

Either laws matter, or they don't. If you don't like a law in a land you're visiting, then don't visit or go and obey the laws of the land, or expect the consequences. It doesn't matter what YOU think in Iran, really it doesn't. They don't care and neither should you.

You think it is screwed up system, perhaps you'd agree we need to invade huh?

Re:Doomed

[cold fjord]

Taliban Seeks Vengeance in Wake of WikiLeaks

After WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn’t take long for the Taliban to react. A spokesman for the group quickly threatened to “punish” any Afghan listed as having “collaborated” with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency. In recent days, the Taliban has demonstrated how seriously those threats should be considered. Late last week, just four days after the documents were published, death threats began arriving at the homes of key tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.

It might be handy to have some surviving informants among the Taliban since...
Suspect in Times Square bombing attempt was paid by Pakistani Taliban, indictment says

Re:Doomed

[LordLucless]

Uh-huh. "Sitting pretty" is having your assets frozen, being imprisoned, and defending yourself against extradition.

And as you have clearly failed to answer the question despite your three paragraphs of ranting, I have to conclude that your accomplishments amount to nothing more than whining pathetically on Slashdot against those who've accomplished more for freedom and democracy than you ever will.

What's more, since in your other reply to my post you, stated that you found painful death for the crime of extra-marital sex to be perfectly moral behaviour, I can now dismiss you as an unethical, amoral zealot, presumably only posting in a desperate and futile attempt at self-aggrandizement and validation.

Re:Doomed

[cold fjord]

You seem to have left out some important details, including, oddly enough, the title of the story.

Pentagon: New WikiLeaks Doc Dump Endangers Lives of Iraqi Informants

Lapan said Pentagon officials don't expect any huge surprises from the scheduled dump of classified "significant activities" documents by whistleblower website WikiLeaks, but he repeated his warning that releasing the identification of individuals who worked in close cooperation with U.S. and allied forces puts their lives at risk.

"We know terrorist organizations have been mining the leaked Afghan documents for information to use against us and this Iraq leak is more than four times as large. By disclosing such sensitive information, WikiLeaks continues to put at risk the lives of our troops, their coalition partners and those Iraqis and Afghans working with us," Lapan said in a statement.

Of course, there is another article that people should see...

Taliban Seeks Vengeance in Wake of WikiLeaks

After WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn’t take long for the Taliban to react. A spokesman for the group quickly threatened to “punish” any Afghan listed as having “collaborated” with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency. In recent days, the Taliban has demonstrated how seriously those threats should be considered. Late last week, just four days after the documents were published, death threats began arriving at the homes of key tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.

Re:Doomed

[Americano]

I am pointing out that his assertion that "everything people say he's lying about has been proven to be completely true," is incorrect. People have obviously found numerous inaccuracies in his film, and to maintain that "nobody" has found them is either deliberate misstatement or willful obtuseness.

Are you stupid or something?

Re:Alternative headline

[Cassander]

Let's bring the soldiers home so they can't accidentally kill children, journalists, or innocents. Or get killed themselves. And I don't mean two years from now ('bama's schedule) but immediately. Tomorrow. The Soviets wisely stopped fighting in Afghanistan when they realized it's hopeless to civilize that mountain country, and we should too. We'd save a LOT of lives.

Ok, I want to end our foreign wars as much as the next guy (maybe even more - my brother-in-law is risking his life in Iraq as we speak, but that's besides the point), but we can't just up and leave without making an even bigger mess than we already have. If we were to just pull out now, the power vacuum will be almost immediately filled by some very unpleasant local religious zealot warlords that will make life shitty for everyone nearby for a very long time.

We have to finish what we started or it gets even worse. That's the sad reality of the situation. It would have been better to not get involved in the first place (or at least to get involved very differently than we did), but now that we're here the only responsible action is to see it through.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Wandering Idiot]

I was mostly on his side. Then I saw how you capitalized the first three letters of his name, and I was all like "whoa man, fuck this guy". You even threw in the word "sheeple", favored phrase of all who put forth unsubstatiated claims as the unimpeachable gospel. Your peerless rhetorical technique has won me over, sir!








...

Go die in a fire.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[Viol8]

"So, since he's fat, he's lazy?"

Well he certainly isn't exactly on close terms with his local gym , so physically lazy yes. And people who are physically lazy more often than not are mentally lazy too.

Why applaud Mr Moore, specifically?

[tygerstripes]

He's one of a slew of celebrities who have offered up bail for Assange. Why is his offer more significant than any of the other (predominantly British) celebrity supporters who attended the hearing and offered equivalent sums, or the club-owner whose offer of residence was instrumental in overturning the judge's initial bail decision?

I don't mean to rant, but this is an egregiously US-centric summary of a distinctly international case. At least Mr. Moore himself had the decency to mention some of the others (Ken Loach, John Pilger, writer Jemima Khan) in his post - can't Slashdot give the same courtesy?

Re:Doomed

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

As a bit of a side note, I find it interesting that the bits I've seen from Moore indicate that he seems to praise their healthcare system, relatively low firearm violence rates, and yet he hasn't emigrated there. I'd be interested to see his documentary on all that Canada does wrong to the point that he'd rather remain an American.

This comes up time and time again in any debate in the US; i.e. a version of "Shut up or leave". I don't understand it. Where were you all taught that the road to progress and betterment is sweeping everything under the rug? How are you going to further your nation, or even maintain the one you've got without open, honest and healthy debate? For God's sake man, you can't ever maintain a healthy democracy without disagreement and open debate. Do you all honestly think you can?

Re:Alternative headline

[AP31R0N]

"protect the Right to a Free Press is also very good"

Wikileaks isn't press. Assange is not a journalist. They are unaccountables with a website where anyone can post any crap they like. That's not journalism.

Journalists are accountable. They can be fired and blacklisted if they break the ethics they were taught while seeking a journalism degree. Journalists also know that it's illegal to publish classified information.

They aren't heroes, they're a bunch of angsty teens who think they are sticking it to the man. What they are really doing is playing with fire. Someone's going to get burned because these children are trying to play a game for grown ups.

Re:Doomed

[tbannist]

Actually, I didn't leave out any important details, since I was specifically talking about Afghanistan, though, I don't think anyone in Iraq has been killed over Wikileaks either.

You may, however, have left out an important sentence in the paragraph after the one you quoted:
"While it is unknown whether any of the men were indeed named in the WikiLeaks documents, it’s clear the Taliban believes they have been cooperating with Western forces and the Afghan government."

Additionally, much of the information in the article you linked is "according to a senior Taliban intelligence officer" and as such it just might be propaganda.

Re:Alternative headline

[commodore64_love]

>>>What is wrong with this accusation is that showing the videos and internal papers is that someone's feelings are hurt (i.e. next of kin, grieving civilians back home, etc.).

Not really. Prior to the release of the video, the friends & family of the dead journalists had no idea what happened to them. The US Government lied and said "we don't know" while keeping the video secret. The release of the video at last brought closure to the friends/family because the journalists were no longer MIA. The next-of-kin now know the ultimate fate of their friend/relative.

As for the war, let me put this in terms you can wrap your little brain around:

The War in Afghanistan is a waste of time, money, and lives. It never should have been started.

Re:Doomed

[higuita]

What purpose is served in releasing the fact that Hilary Clinton worries about the mental health of other world leaders? How does that aid in our international relations?

1-If true (the mental health problem), shows how bad things are and is a alert to all over the
2-If false, shows what the US leaders thinks about other people and how they fake they are best friends!
3-either way, show the US paranoia and over-control and how much done hidden behind doors

USA is not the center of the world and somethings are not USA business... if all this makes the USA look bad, it's the USA fault, not wikileaks

Re:Moore Claims Credit!

[commodore64_love]

Yeah that's pretty typical of Michael Moore. Like one of Babylon 5's Minbari he never lies, but he never tells the Whole truth either. For example in the movie Columbine 9/11 he presents a speech from Charlton Heston to show how evil guns are, plus how heartless Mr. Heston is to give this speech after the school shooting.

But if you look closely you'll see Mr. Heston's tie changes color about 5 times, because Mr. Moore took 3 speeches from 3 different cities, that were given BEFORE the tragedy occurred. Then he used creative editing to rewrite what was said, and presents it as a single speech given after the shooting happened. Propagandist.

Or more simply: "Liar."

Re:What to say to police (what is costs)

[Snotman]

Your an idiot. People on trial are in general population at a jail. If you are convicted, you don't necessarily go to prison - at least in Colorado. If your sentence is under one year, then you go to jail. Of course, since you are being so general, I know that is what you meant.

Re:Just Leave

[BobMcD]

You clearly have a personal beef against Assange, and I assume that's what's clouding the conversation. In my view, however, the actions themselves can stand alone with or without condom use.

You speak as though Assange hacked the Pentagon, stole the files, and handed them to the enemy. That's not true. He was given the files by a party that wanted them published, with the stated purpose being that the world needed to know. At that point the choice to publish had been made. Everything was already moving in that direction, and to stop it would have been to assist in the evils within the documents.

And while I agree that not every revolutionary is making the right choice, I do fully support their right to make it. They're not sitting here on slashdot arguing from the safety of their homes, those people risked something to try and change the world.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[BobMcD]

You've already demonstrated that you were bigoted in the earlier post, why follow that up?

Re:In an alternate reality...

[Viol8]

Aww , am I bigoted , am I? Aww diddums. Why does it bother you, you a lazy fat fuck as well?

Re:In an alternate reality...

[BobMcD]

You're completely free to be so, but I'm also free to find it repugnant that you would judge people by their physical characteristics.

You may as well be a racist, in my view.

Have a great day!

Re:In an alternate reality...

[Viol8]

"find it repugnant that you would judge people by their physical characteristics."

You're confusing me with someone who cares what you find repugnant. And if you don't like being seen as a fat lard arse then lose weight. Being fat isn't a disability , its the inevitable result of gluttony combined with idleness which says a LOT about the person whether you like it or not.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

nothing untrue

Noted.

but full of exaggerations, omissions, and misleading assumptions.

These are weasel words. One person's 'exaggeration' is another person's 'emphasis.'

BfC:
He said, she said. Hearsay. Not actual evidence.

F9/11:
Who put Saddam in power, FFS?

C:aLS
Wal Mart claims they canceled policies, and you believe that they carried out that cancellation? Okay.

Sicko:
You got nothing but opinion here. You could not cherry pick ANY stats that make look like the best. Go ahead, try.

Congratulations. You came closer to presenting actual applicable evidence than anyone else!

Re:Doomed

[spun]

That, at least, is completely honest. Personally, I don't like liver. Some people like liver. Funny old world, innit?

Re:Doomed

[spun]

My critique of his films is that I've never learned a single new thing from them. In my circles, everything he talks about is common knowledge. They are nice introductions for the uninformed, though.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[BobMcD]

Being disabled isn't a disability either, then. It's a result of some avoidable accident, or undesirable genetics, or whatever judgement bigots like you would pass on them.

You judge people you do not know in negative ways by their outward appearance. You can try and make that about me all you want, you you're the one still posting in this thread. I've well-communicated my point.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

Perhaps I feel that way about Moore because I had already learned of the things he was trying to say, through other sources, and he was not telling me anything I did not already know. If anything, I thought he was far more even handed than I would be, presenting the same material.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

Are his films documentaries, or opinion pieces? I always thought they were supposed to be editorials.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[Viol8]

Comparing being fat with having a disability I find throughly sickening. You should spend some time with some real disabled people such as Iraq soldiers who've had their legs blown off or kids suffering from MS and then see if you get any sympathy when you tell them you're "disabled" too because you stuff your face with burgers and are too lazy to exercise.

People like you with your victim mentality even though you're nothing more than a victim of your own lack of will power and self control are a sad indictment of current western society and frankly utterly pathetic, so call me a bigot all you want if blaming someone else makes you feel better. It doesn't change reality.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[BobMcD]

You're still trying to make this about me. My observation is about you, based on your comments. You have sympathy for veterans who could have avoided their injury by not volunteering for war. That's fine, but it's a glaring double standard. You have sympathy for MS but not for obesity, again your call. In your mind you have attributed 'fat' to 'lazy' and it is causing you harm. I wish you all the best, and genuinely hope you never suffer from someone holding your own prejudices. Nobody can be anorexic forever, my friend.

Anyway, I would have said the same had you attributed 'black' to 'lazy' or any other grossly inappropriate, bigoted remark. I'm just doing my part to make the world a teeny bit better of a place. It's assholes like you that make otherwise decent people feel like monsters, and you ought to be caused to reflect upon that from time to time.

Anyway, again, all the best - take care!

Re:Doomed

[Voyager529]

While admittedly my post might have come across as such, I wasn't trying to say "shut up or leave". Believe it or not, I appreciate the fact that individuals like Moore can publish things like Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11. I believe in freedom of speech and press, and unlike many far-right conservatives (and far-left liberals, for that matter), that means that I wouldn't support anyone trying to take Moore's rights away from him simply because I disagree with the majority of what he says.

I'm not saying "shut up or leave", I'm saying, "If Canada has done so many more things right than we have, then what is the draw to staying here?" It was a sincere question. Perhaps Moore's very reason for staying is because he DOES desire to make some radical changes to our system and DOES want to correct some of the social and legislative injustices. If that's not his motivation for staying, then it appears to me, an individual who's never met the man in person, that it's foolish for him to stay in a country he's dissatisfied with and complain about it, instead of going someplace else that is better suited to the lifestyle he desires to lead.

That was my point.

Re:Doomed

[budgenator]

Michael Moore is an Academy-Award winning filmmaker and best-selling author. His films 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' 'Bowling for Columbine' and 'SiCKO' are among the all-time top ten grossing documentaries.Michael Moore

He thinks they are documentaries, so that's what he putting them forward as.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[Viol8]

Don't try and equate your burger face stuffing with someone volunteering to serve their county. You're fat because you eat too much. End of. And before you retort with some drivel about genetics go and check out just how many fat people there are in pictures from Auschwitz or the ethiopian famines. You eat less you lose eight. Its a pretty damn simple equation.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[BobMcD]

You know that it isn't that simple. I can tell by the way you're droning on and on about it. You're not trying to convince ME, but you're arguing with your own dissonance.

I'll be kind, and allow you the last word. Again, take care.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

You know, I just looked it up and "documentary" means "non fiction" not "unbiased." It is an evolving art form, as well, so anything that can be said of the genre must be placed in historical context. Really, it's a fascinating history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary

So, Moore's films can be both biased editorial and documentary, at the same time. I think you are missing something, namely, the real definition of 'documentary film.'

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[3.5 stripes]

I really hope you're trolling.

If not, sit down with a dictionary and read up a bit more on "representative" (especially as it applies to democracy)..

Re:oh gee

[gknoy]

I'm not sure why I was modded a troll; I'll try to explain better.

Richard said, "Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911 were driveling pieces of shit with huge gaping lies throughout." Jerry rebutted by saying, "I'm eagerly awaiting your own movie exposing these "lies"".

I was merely pointing out that that was a poor rebuttal. Whether or not one's made a movie is not a basis for truth, or a defense. Moore may have filled his movies with lies, or not -- I don't know, I haven't seen them. I'm merely saying that denigrating someone's opinion because they haven't made their argument in a particular manner (by making a film) is a case of attacking the messenger, rather than the message.

Re:Doomed

[brizzadizza]

You're the one who seems to have trouble with comprehension. A google search doesn't reveal anything about the veracity of Michael Moore's claims. Just list a few of the glaring lies that you know of personally to illustrate what a worthless scumbag Michael Moore happens to be.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[skywire]

I am well acquainted with the concept of representation in the context of representative democracy. However, my comments, as you will see if you review them, pertained to the lack of actual agency and what that entails for personal responsibility of a person for the actions of elected representatives. It beggars belief that you and some others seem to attribute moral culpability to an individual for what others do that they have neither authorized nor even agree with.

Re:Doomed

[Magius_AR]

Perhaps I feel that way about Moore because I had already learned of the things he was trying to say, through other sources, and he was not telling me anything I did not already know.

Well I'm sure alot of that has to do with the fact you agree with him -- and the sources you get your news/facts from probably align with your views as well. I mean I doubt you're reading FoxNews daily. It's probably primarily Daily Show/Colbert Report and a smattering of left-leaning websites (just to throw out a common segment -- not trying to pigeonhole ya or anything). And we, as fallible humans, try ten times as hard to disprove that which we don't agree with than what we do agree with -- it's very easy just to gloss over fact-finding when everything sounds so right. But conservatives do the same thing with Hannity and the like. They're so certain of the facts, and the conclusions they've drawn from those facts that they never seek additional evidence, counterpoints, or possible alternate explanations. It's far easier to dismiss the opponent as "beneath you" than it is to attempt to view the world from their eyes. We all do it to some extent or another.

And it's rather sad too -- they're quite a few things I agree with Moore on, and I would be much more receptive to him if he provided it fairly, without resorting to such spin tactics. Deceptive presentation weakens a position for anyone other than those who already strongly agree with your material. Because a person has to first trust the source because they can trust the facts.

Anyways, there's three main axioms I live by: 1) Trust no words from a biased source or someone with an agenda -- 9 times out of 10, there's more sides to the story you aren't hearing because they know it would weaken their position. This goes double for politicians. 2) Spend twice as long looking for counters to your arguments than support. 3) Don't be quick to lump a person into a "category" or "group" -- there's more shades of gray out there than people are willing to see

Between the three of these, I manage to at least check my own biases somewhat. Though I'm probably guilty of #3 right now, as I've made quite a few assumptions about you. But I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

I do read Fox News daily, to keep up on what the propaganda arm of the Republican party is up to.

All words are from a biased source. Even the choice to report or not report on something indicates bias.

Not all "sides" are equally valid. There is only one reality, and it is the same for everyone. Some "sides" are at least loosely based in reality. Some are not. Do you look at both sides of the moon landing "debate?"

While it is important to check your biases, there is no true neutral position on anything. Trying to achieve neutrality or impartiality is impossible. Choosing to believe in reality is not indicative of bias, unless reality itself is biased. There is one Truth, one reality. There are not two sides to it. Reality is not a matter of opinion.

Re:Doomed

[Americano]

Here's a good place to start.

I'll look forward to your lengthy, scholarly rebuttal that does not include an ad hominem dismissal of his points.

Re:Doomed

[BenoitRen]

People have obviously found numerous inaccuracies in his film, and to maintain that "nobody" has found them is either deliberate misstatement or willful obtuseness.

No, what you have linked to is results of people/articles claiming to have found inaccuracies. That doesn't rebut his statement at all. I can claim that the moon is bigger than the Earth, but that doesn't rebut everyone's claims of the opposite.

Nice try.

Re:Alternative headline

[gtbritishskull]

Who knows what sort of exonerating evidence he chose not to release that is still classified (meaning they can't defend themselves.)

Obviously you do since it would be very underhanded to attack his character like this without any evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing on his part.

Or, are you assuming that he did this? If so, it is very convenient for you because it is impossible to prove otherwise. Which is why I assume that he is releasing leaks in an unbiased manner. Because that would be very easy to disproved if it weren't the case. (Wouldn't be the first time politicians leaked classified materials)

But I have another reason for believing that wikileaks is not withholding information. Because it would be stupid. If wikileaks (a site dedicated to fighting corruption by posting leaked documents in the public domain) were shown to be corrupt it would destroy their credibility. And they know that the irony of the situation would be way too much for about half of the nerds out there not to leak on wikileaks.

Re:Doomed

[binkzz]

When you're all lined up in a circle, who is in the middle of the line?

Re:Doomed

[Geminii]

I'm a hippie lefty commie pinko tree-hugging freak.

/With free healthcare.

Re:Doomed

[Magius_AR]

All words are from a biased source. Even the choice to report or not report on something indicates bias.

To some extent, I believe that's splitting hairs. It's like saying true altruism is impossible because you always get something out of it, even if it's just an emotional high. Of course it's impossible to be 100% right-down-the-middle truly impartial, but I believe you can get close -- or at least far closer than the Fox News's of the world. When I say to get facts from a "non-biased source", perhaps I should instead say "far less partisan" source. Because I do believe there's quite a few people in the world that truly want to seek and tell real truth, instead of merely the truths of whatever side they happen to be politically allied with. Perhaps these are the moderates of the world.

Not all "sides" are equally valid.

True that, but in the absence of supporting data that a particular belief is truly based upon faulty premises, assumptions should not be made.

There is only one reality, and it is the same for everyone.

Heh, some philosophers would disagree with that statement. And it's also very easy to distort reality in one's mind. Haven't you ever been in situations where you swore it went down one way and another person swore it went down another way, and you're both certain your memory is not failing you? Alot of times we see what we want to see, choose to remember what we want to remember -- in as such, "reality" (at least as perceived through the eyes of emotional human beings) should be assumed to be somewhat malleable when discussing our views on it.

Some "sides" are at least loosely based in reality. Some are not. Do you look at both sides of the moon landing "debate?"

And this I entirely concur with -- religion is another fine topic that always ventures into this realm of non-debate. But I guess the important distinction that I'd like to make is that: given a random argument and a random opponent, they should not immediately be assumed to be of "moon landing"-type intelligence simply because they disagree with you or because they happen to share a belief with loons.

Take the Tea Party for instance. Conspiracy theories aside about it being a Republican front, it's a valid political movement with quite a few relatively sane ideas. And there's quite a few Tea Party proponents who are thinking, intelligent people who care only about small government and not a lick about religion or any of the other fringe stuff. However, center stage are a bunch of braindead loons who not only run under the Tea Party label, but in fact lead political demonstrations under the group's name. Now if you were to debate an individual who admitted to identifying with the Tea Party, would you give him the benefit of the doubt, or would you assume he's as loony as the ones making all the racket in the media? If he made a cogent argument with valid points, would you immediately recognize it or would you key in on the group identification and summarily dismiss his opinions? That's the issue with most of these hot-button debates. No one can have an opinion about anything without getting summarily lumped into some kind of group and then judged against that group. Broad-sweeping assumptions are simply far too common and rarely have any business in debate -- because if one truly values facts, why assume anything about an opponent's stance or beliefs?

While it is important to check your biases, there is no true neutral position on anything. Trying to achieve neutrality or impartiality is impossible.

True, but one can try. And I believe that taking proponents of misinformation and deceit with a huge grain of salt to be a good start (regardless of their intentions)

Reality is not a matter of opinion.

And yet it is, in so many simpl

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Doomed

[budgenator]

Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position.

As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.
Propaganda

So documentary films are now officially propaganda films as per wikipedia?

Re:Doomed

[spun]

I think the two categories have significant overlap. Many propaganda films are fictional, like Eisenstein's The Battleship Potemkin, and thus not documentaries. Many documentaries are not propaganda, per se, like nature films (but even some nature films are propaganda, and more fictional than many people assume). Some documentaries, like Moore's, can rightly be considered propaganda. I wouldn't think that this would be all that confusing. Things can often fit into more than one category.

Re:Or:

[Thing 1]

It is a secret whether I agree with that.

Re:Alternative headline

[Thing 1]

Sorry, you fail at citizenship. Publishing is possible from anyone who has a "press", and a press is a computer these days. So, we are all "journalists", especially on this site. Journalists require no license from the government.

Re:Doomed

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

My answer to that is quite simply. "No man is an island". It's the same reason that I do a weekly commute to the other side of the country, rather than move. I have friends and family where I live now. I guess it's the same with most everyone else. Even though I have opinions (sometimes strong) about what could/should be different in my own country, and even though I use other countries as an example of what is possible/could be done better, that doesn't mean that I want to *leave*. I find the suggestion preposterous. To wit, Michael Moore likes Canada, he likes the Canadian system and since it's on the same continent and similar in many other respects he holds that up as an example that he thinks all of you should follow. That doesn't make him Canadian.

I'm sorry, but even if you're not saying "shut up or leave", I still find it too close to "love it or leave", where "love" is defined as the unhealthy unquestioning kind. If you have children you know that there are plenty of room for both love and scathing criticism :-) It doesn't mean that you want to abandon them just because you have issues with the way they're behaving. Quite the opposite. :-)

I guess I'm just used to a completely different kind of discourse. I have virtually never heard the same sentiments expressed publicly in the Swedish debate, i.e. if you're so unhappy then shove off. And I think our debate is healthier for it. After all, what kind of an argument is that? When you've said that you've drawn your line in the sand; you've clearly not interested in discussing the issues; you're closing the door on maybe being able to meet half way or at least come to an understanding further down the line. It's a good way to further division and an "us vs them" mentality. And that IMHO is no way to build a nation.

All above IMHO of course. I don't know Michael Moore and can't profess to any actual inside knowledge into his motives. Maybe he want's to emigrate, I just don't see why anyone would assume that's anywhere near the top of the list of anyone's motives. Maybe it's because you are fundamentally a nation of immigrants? Could it be that simple?

Re:Empty theatrics

[Myopic]

Okay. You have stated that you interpreted this phrase:

he's wanted for some non-standard local law having to do with wearing a condom

as referring to the entirety of Swedish law, and have criticized my composition. I find that absurd; I think it's plainly stated as referring to the one singular law of which he is accused of violating. I'll let everyone else make up their own minds.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Doomed

[cavebison]

He may not directly lie, but he does present a biased opinion which, of course, is his right just like anyone with a video camera and some air time.

One example: In Sicko, Moore visits a hospital in Cuba, to basically show how wonderful "health care" is there. Now, whether he was misled by what Cuban officials told him, or whether he did it knowing full well that most Cubans cannot access that hospital, he is at fault. It's deceptive. He should have visited a normal hospital that the average Cuban would visit, to get the level of care most Cubans would get. Call it nitpicking, but I consider that questionable journalism, and makes me wonder how else he slants his facts to suit his argument. What he presented there wasn't the average experience.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1936307620070719

Re:Empty theatrics

[Myopic]

No, by my interpretation, not every law or every statute could be interpreted as non-standard. Most places in western civilization have most laws the same, mostly. Those are standard laws. Many laws, but a fairly small minority overall, are non-standard; and this condom law is one of those.

Just to be clear, in case you aren't familiar with the word, the definition is "an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations". This condom law, good or bad, is not a norm.

Do you want to move the goalposts again? Go for it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Empty theatrics

[Myopic]

You started out by asking me whose standard was standard. Then you misunderstood what "standard" even means. Then you somehow misread a plain sentence to mean something it didn't mean, and criticized standard (ahem) English grammar. Finally, you have arrived at the statement of an opinion -- that most laws across western civilization are NOT common to other lands. I don't think that's true, but I'm not an international comparative law expert so I won't argue that opinion; nevertheless, that goalpost is quite a ways from where you started. I wonder how many reply levels the Slashdot forums can handle?