I wouldn't consider this site to be more than a cooking-enthusiast's blog with an interesting recipe format. There doesn't seem to be any "engineer"-included aspects or approach to the content IMO.
As a software designer that goofs off with cooking, I think I take a more tech approach. For example, I've started smoking various meats and making my own beef jerky, but I've also been trying dozens of different kinds of woods, some plain, some soaked in different types of liquids and alcohol and researching the ways in which the smoking process with different wood imparts flavor to the food. I've also been working on designing a way to interface an electric smoker to a dehydrator to automate the process of making beef jerky with a true smoky flavor.
I have friends who have designed their own cooking grills and monitoring systems. Those things seem more like an engineers approach to cooking. This site, while interesting, isn't anything special.
Then again, maybe this guy is using an overclocked Pentium as his heating element?
Good, bad, and mostly useless
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There were some good details of this legislation, namely that it furthered the effort to enforce existing laws regarding background checks and waiting periods, but there were numerous loopholes.
For example, gun configurations were banned, like large-scale magazines, weapons with built-in cleaning kits, bayonets, folding stocks, etc., however the individual sale of many of these components wasn't completely restricted so in many cases you could buy an SKS or AK-47, purchase a folding stock separately, and configure the weapon on your own. It was way too easy to get around this.
The premise behind the law was sound: Who needs a "hunting" weapon that was exclusively designed for killing people in wartime? Who needs a folding stock or a 30-round magazine for hunting deer? Unfortunately, the passage of this bill didn't really reduce the availability of these weapons or their components in my opinion. I've always been able to go down the street to the gun shop and buy a cheap Chinese-made AK-47 for less than it costs to pick up a modest hand gun.
What I found most ironic about the Brady Bill and Feinstein Amendment, was that the NRA blew the consequences of this legislation way out of preportion and suggested its passage was going to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. The facts since then have indicated otherwise - the more-stricly-enforced background checks have reduced the number of firearms getting into the hands of people who were prohibited from owning them. At the same time, the proliferation of many of the assault weapons has not been noticeably diminished. Ironically, the NRA, for all its anti-commie, freedom-lovin', second-amendment protecting propaganda, vehemently pushed for the opposition of this bill which mainly would have had the most profound impact on the substantive importation of communist-Chinese-manufactured assault weapons which have been flooding the US. This is a case of the NRA agenda helping directly fund a communist regime - irony of ironies, and a talking point they never brought up in all their dialogue on this law.
When you're standing in front of a room full of people all of which are booing you off the stage, and you dare to use the word "We" (refering to the rest of the room) when expressing your opinions, that is arrogant. Is there any other way to interpret that? Speaking your mind is okay. Speaking your mind in front of a room of people who disagree with you can even be described as taking courage. But using the word "We" when talking about your opinions, when there is clear evidence that absolutely everyone else can see which shows the word "We" really doesnt begin to apply, that's arrogant.
I assume you're talking about the Academy Awards ceremony? You don't know what you're talking about. This is classic! I saw the video of the event and Moore wasn't "boo'd" - there were a small smattering of people who whined and then people booed at the people panning Moore. In any event it was totally blown out of preportion. I saw the tape; I've read numerous stories on the subject. You're basing your opinion on heresay. Very uninformed. But this is the the weak evidence Moore's critics have: they base their opinions off others' opinions of third-hand reports; they pan movies they don't go to see, etc.
Even if what you're implying is true, which it IS NOT. It's a really, really, ridiculous stretch to characterize the use of the word "we" as pompous.
How lame can you get? Don't you have something better to do that concern yourself with such childish trivialities?
It reminds me of a guy who walks into a shopping mall, throws a bunch of pennies on the floor, and while everying is on their hands and knees picking up loose change, he's making off with all their shopping bags.
People get off your knees. Have some self respect and decency and don't fall prey to this big inept pseudo-journalistic, National Enquirer-esque troll that really has very little to do with real issues.
Kerry went to Viet Nam. Bush did not. That's all there basically is. Whether Bush was snorting coke and avoided the health exam, or Kerry was shooting Viet Cong puppies in the back are stupid, distractions that people will forever argue. Let's not get side-tracked by these distractions both parties are vomiting during a time where it's important to pay attention to the real issues and who is best for the country.
Computer Tampering is a felony. In some cases the penalty could even be interpreted under the Patriot Act to be an act of "terrorism" (disrupting commerce and national security services) and punishable by death! Most states have sentences of up to 3 years in prison for each instance of installing a zombie on a PC.
You can see details here on each state's laws and then we also have a plethora of federal laws that these guys are breaking.
These are all serious, criminal violations.
As I said in another post, you need to contact your Attorney General and encourage them to prosecute. The FBI collects information, but they're at the mercy of the Federal and State Attorneys to prosecute the people who do this. As far as I know, they haven't gone after anyone.
It's just disgusting. This is a political issue. NOT a technological one. Our officials are not prosecuting the people who break the law!
If you all want this stuff stopped, contact your local Attorney General and demand they start prosecuting these cases. The Feds can't do anything if the AGs won't prosecute. Call your AG and tell him you'll make sure he isn't re-elected if he doesn't start prosecuting people for computer tampering.
Err, okay, have you ever seen any of Micheal Moore's movies or appearances? Those movies which he independently created and was the center of? And those appearances which are actually him? Do you think he's just trying to keep up the image of his on-screen persona (like hip-hop?) I mean, that's a valid argument in the sense that I have no information which would prove otherwise. I mean, based entirely on what he says, he's either a pompous asshole or a liar. (I guess that would just make him an asshole)
I don't mean this in any disrespectful way, but comments such as yours, in my opinion, show that you're a lot more personally insecure than Moore is potentially pompous.
What's even more ironic is that Michael Moore embodies one of the most distinctive characteristics that his critics praise in Bush: courage of conviction.
I'd say it's a lot more courageous for Moore to stand up for what he believes in when it's a helluva lot less politically-correct than Bush's agenda.
I fail to see what's so pompous about this. Or egocentric. If Moore's self-interests were such a motivating factor, there are a thousand less dangerous ways he could make a living. He's had money for a long time. The guy's a multi-millionaire and he still dresses like a truck driver. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of evidence to back up your claims.
If one personally and independently created a movie, (or Three) which were arogant and exploitive, I think I'd say that not only is the movie arogant and exploitive, but the star (being the one who single-handedly brought about the existence of the movie) is arogant and exploitive. And if you make three arogant and exploitive movies, I also consider you a pompous asshole.
Not everyone finds F911 to be an "arrogant" movie. This is your own insecurity (or jealousy) manifesting itself in my opinion.
I contend that all movies are exploitive. That's the nature of the industry.
I think you are intimidated by Moore's determination and self-confidence and you micharacterize this as arrogance. In all the interviews and public appearances I've seen of his, I would never characterize him as arrogant. If anything, he comes off as an "accidental icon" that has passionately accepted his role and responsibility. If he can make tons of money doing so, that's good for him. I think a lot of people are angry that Moore can make money bashing a lot of more-powerful institutions.
I would however, give him props for having a lot of guts to speak his mind in forums where it wasn't appropriate. I'd venture to guess that if we were talking in general terms and your prejudices weren't in the picture, you'd consider the behavior of someone like Moore to be a positive character trait. Most people do, but he's been so demonized by the mainstream media, it's become apropos to exempt Moore from such respect.
The bottom line IMO is the more personal disparagement people lob at Moore, the more they expose their own insecurities and jealousy. It's a sign they are threatened by someone so strong-willed. You don't have to agree with Moore's agenda to recognize that he's a guy that won't back down, and these days there aren't very many like him, especially on the left. This is probably why the public has such a love/hate relationship with him.
The first clear case of the faithless elector happened in 1820, where one of James Monroe's electors voted for John Quincy Adams instead. Monroe carried every state in the Union, so the outcome was not affected.
In this century, there have been 7 faithless electors. The first was in 1948, when Strom Thurmond was running for president on the Dixiecrat platform. Preston Parks, a Truman elector for Tennessee, voted for Thurmond, who was a distant third in the popular vote. W.F. Turner, an elector for Adlai Stevenson, voted in 1956 for a local judge from his home district.
The first appearance of a faithless elector in a close election happened in the 1960 race between Nixon and Kennedy. An Oklahoma Kennedy elector named Henry D. Irwin voted instead for Harry F. Byrd, a senator from Virginia. Byrd ran as an independent and gained in addition all the 8 electoral votes from Mississippi and 6 of the 7 votes from Alabama. Reportedly Irwin, a southern Democrat, objected to Kennedy's civil rights policies. Although this election was very close, Irwin's vote did not affect the outcome.
In 1968 however, the independent candidate's appeal and his corresponding electoral votes almost did change the outcome. Lloyd Bailey, a North Carolina Nixon elector, voted instead for George Wallace, who ran as an independent. In this case, Wallace gained a total of 46 electoral votes, which came close to preventing either Nixon or Humphrey from getting the number needed to win.
In 1972, a Nixon elector named Roger L. McBride voted for the Libertarian candidate John Hospers. The publicity McBride received culminated in his own run for President in 1976, also as a Libertarian.
A Ford elector from Washington, Mike Padden, voted in 1976 for Ronald Reagan. Reagan has lost the party's nomination to Ford. The most recent case was in 1988, where Margarette Leach, a Democratic elector from West Virginia, voted for Democratis Vice-Presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen instead. She said, "it was nice to make a mark on history... I wish every year somebody... would make a statement and it would be heard."
What happens when an elector is faithless? It turns out that only about half of the states have laws binding their electors to vote for the popular vote winner in their state. But wait, the situation is even worse. In the states that do bind their electors, either there is no penalty, or the penalties range from a fine ($1000 in Wisconsin) to conviction of a fourth-degree felony (New Mexico). And, although there are clear documented cases of faithless electors, no faithless elector has ever been punished. Of course, no faithless elector has ever changed the outcome of an election. So far.
I often state the obvious, and people like you just argue with me. Bush won the election... Not everyone has accepted it.
Yea, "won" is a good characterization. I wouldn't use "earn" or "deserve". He was awarded the presidency by the Supreme Court. It was a gift given to him, not unlike the way other people "win" things, without legitimately earning them.
If you are among those that think this is a concept that Bush's detractors should just "get over", I suggest you cease referencing the nobility of the concept of democracy, because that is what the issue revolves around. There was never a full, legitimate, audit of Florida accepted as the formal count. So democracy was NOT served. It's not about Bush. It's about respecting the concept of representative government. So don't talk of democracy when you validate a process that was never democratic.
Wrong and wrong: I didn't see it in a theater, and the reason I say two minutes it's because that's how long it took me to find critical damning lies. See my post on the recount.
I saw your post. I made two other posts refuting the bogus claim that the recount statement was a lie. It was not.
Calling something a lie over and over doesn't negate the facts.
But, just for the record, do you agree that Moore is slanted? Do you agree that there is at least one deception in the movie? Do you agree that this is just an anti Bush film?
Hey, Captain Obvious. Even Moore has admitted he's biased. You can't find any human being which isn't biased in one way or another. What kind of news flash is that? It proves nothing.
As far as "deception", that's highly subjective. You could call F911 "deceptive" because it didn't tell the "whole story" on anything because there will always be some group that feels they didn't get enough time to explain their side of the story. What are you going to do? Everything in the media is "deceptive" in that respect. The news is "deceptive" in that it condenses "everything" that's going on in Iraq down to 30 seconds. The newspapers are deceptive because they tell a story in only 1500 words.
That's why we have brains. To research things ourselves and not expect any single source to be the pinnacle of accuracy. This doesn't mean that any specific source is completely devoid of value.
Is F911 nothing more than an "anti-Bush" film? I guess that depends upon your perspective. But is it "anti-Bush" in its tone and objective? Again, a great big DUH!
Is Fox a pro-Bush network? DUH. Is Clear Channel pro-Bush? DUH. Are O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh and the vast majority of mainstream media pundits primarily defending the Republican agenda? Yes. DUH! On any given day there's at least 100+ hours of pro-GOP propaganda being spewed across hundreds of radio and television stations - a fraction of which has any comparable leftist editorial. And Michael Moore comes out with a single two hour liberal-leaning documentary and you guys get your panties in a complete wad!
Moore tells another side of the story. Just cause you don't like that side of the story doesn't make it full of lies.
There are 250 swift boat vets who served with Kerry (that doesn't mean the same boat...that means the same group of boats. You know what the guy 10 feet away from you on the next boat is doing) who say that Kerry did not serve honorably, showed extreme cowardice, and lied to get his medals, all the while filming documentaries about how heroic he was for future campaign material.
Yea, right. It's amazing you people believe this BS.
COLUMBUS - Swift boat veteran Bob Anderson of Columbus is ticked.
It bothers him that Sen. John Kerry's swift boat history has become such a political hot potato. But he's even more irritated that his name was included - without his permission - on a letter used to discredit Kerry.
"I'm pretty nonpolitical," the 56-year-old Anderson said Tuesday. So, when he found out last week that his name was one of about 300 signed on a letter questioning Kerry's service, he was "flabbergasted."
"It's kind of like stealing my identity," said Anderson, who spent a year on a swift boat as an engine man and gunner.
The letter, which was posted on the Swift Boat Veter-ans for Truth Web site, claims the Demo-cratic presidential candidate has "grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that (Vietnam) war."
The letter also criticizes Kerry for trying to change his image from a critic of the war to a war hero.
"After reading the letter," Anderson said, "it kind of got under my skin. I had never come across a situation where someone used my name without my support or approval. It's not a very comforting feeling."
What's worse, he said, he disagrees with the letter.
"Had they asked me to use my name, I wouldn't have allowed them to," he said.
Anderson, a 1966 graduate of Chinook High School, describes himself as a naive Montana kid who was smacked by the reality of war soon after arriving in Vietnam in 1967.
"It's not a very pleasant way to grow up," he said.
He served on a swift boat about the same time Kerry did. However, the first time he met Kerry was during a reunion of swift boat vets in Norfolk, Va., in March 2003.
Anderson said he cannot dispute or verify Kerry's experience. In fact, he's forgotten much of his own.
"You remember the simple things," he said. "The rest is what you don't want to remember."
He does, however, support Kerry's right to state his opinion.
"We say we're protecting democracy. That's why we go to war. As Americans, we can have our opinions, right?"
Anderson can vividly recall the last day of 1969, when his boat was attacked.
"The thing I remember before we got hit was the grass dragging on the sides of the boat - the canals were so narrow," he said. "I can also remember the smell of napalm."
Anderson's boat was about the fourth boat back in a string of 10. He describes the scene as an Armageddon. Fellow swift boat sailor Bob Wedge was so badly wounded, Anderson doubted he would survive.
"That boat was like a slaughterhouse that day," he said. "He (Wedge) just about bled to death before we got a tourniquet on him and the chopper got him."
Wedge, who lost a leg, was flown home. Thirty-four years passed before the two met again. Now they find themselves on the same side of another conflict.
Wedge, 60, of Mesquite, Nev., said his name, too, was on the list - and he's mad.
"This is the fourth or fifth time someone has called me or e-mailed me in regard to signing this damn letter," he wrote in an e-mail to Anderson. "I don't agree with it and want no part of it and especially don't want my name on it."
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is offering a novel reason for denying a request seeking the Justice Department's database on foreign lobbyists: Copying the information would bring down the computer system.
"Implementing such a request risks a crash that cannot be fixed and could result in a major loss of data, which would be devastating," wrote Thomas J. McIntyre, chief in the Justice Department's office for information requests.
Advocates for open government said the government's assertion that it could not copy data from its computers was unprecedented but representative of generally negative responses to Freedom of Information Act requests.
"This was a new one on us. We weren't aware there were databases that could be destroyed just by copying them," Bob Williams of the Center for Public Integrity said Tuesday. The watchdog group in Washington made the request in January. He said the group expects to appeal the Justice Department's decision.
Many Justice Department computer systems, especially at the FBI, are considered outdated. The FBI is spending nearly $600 million to modernize its antiquated systems.
The Center for Public Integrity sought information about lobbying activities available under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, a 1938 law passed in response to German propaganda before World War II. Database records describe details of meetings among foreign lobbyists, the administration and Congress, and payments by foreign governments and some overseas groups for political advertisements and other campaigns.
"What they're asking for is a lot, and it's not something at this particular point in time we have the technical ability to do," Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra said Tuesday.
McIntyre explained in a May 24 letter that the computer system - operated in the counterespionage section of the Justice Department's criminal division - "was not designed for mass export of all stored images" and said the system experiences "substantial problems."
"It sounds like incredible negligence for an agency that is keeping public records to keep them in such a precarious condition," said Stephen Doig, interim director at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. "I've never heard the excuse that making the equivalent of a backup copy would somehow cause steam to rise out of the computer."
The government said an overhaul of the system should be finished by December and copies should be available then.
Paper copies of records still are available for review four hours each day for people willing to travel to Washington, the Justice Department noted. Williams said the index available to researchers there is at least 12 months outdated, "which kind of renders it useless."
Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered federal agencies in October 2001 to review more closely which documents they release. Ashcroft's policy lets officials withhold information on any "sound legal basis." Under looser policies issued in 1993, agencies could hold back information to prevent "foreseeable harm."
"This is an administration and Justice is an agency that does not go out of its way to make information available to the public," said David Sobel, general counsel for the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center.
The thing he forgets is that there's no draft in this country. If poor people have more sons in the military, that's because those sons *VOLUNTARILY SIGNED UP* to join the military... in my opinion, that invalidates his entire documentary. Now, if he were talking about Vietnam where the soldiers had no choice, then that's a different story. But you can't say that "poor end up paying when it comes to military service" when EVERYBODY in the military, rich or poor, is there voluntarily.
I don't think Moore forgot there was no draft. In fact that's his point. The rich won't participate in backing up their beliefs with their own sons and daughters unless they're forced to by a draft. The poor who fight the wars the rich start don't have the luxury many times to choose. You can bet that the majority of those who signed up in the military did so, not because of patriotism or loyalty to their country as much as it represented a way to escape their poverty, provide opportunities to travel, and fund their education. Those that signed up never had much of a choice as to whether or not they wanted to serve in Iraq.
Moore eloquently points this out as he investigates in the course of the movie how few politicians have their own families serving in Iraq. It's also substantive to point out that Bush didn't fulfill his duty in the military, yet he seems to have no reservation about sending others off to fight. There's nothing misleading or erroneous about those facts.
I contend, as Moore probably does, that if there were an actual mandatory draft, we wouldn't have engaged in the Iraqi invasion. It's easy for politicians to laud the nobility of war when they don't have a personal stake in it... and that's the essence of what Moore was trying to say, and it's backed up by facts that can't be disputed.
Uhm, neither does Moore. If he had presented a movie that wasn't full of lies, the truth might stand out more. 2 minutes into the movie I knew I couldn't trust Moore to present the truth... I hoped for a documentary, all I saw was slanted attack commercial.
You took your biased, preconceived prejudices with you into the theater. If you came to a conclusion two minutes into the movie what it was all about, that speaks volumes about your objectivity.
Good luck in finding any media source that doesn't have some bias in its perspective. You are obviously one of the naive who expected what? The movie to be even-handed? F911 wouldn't have needed to be made in the first place had the mainstream media been even-handed. They aren't. I'm not sure what you were expecting, not that anything Moore could have done would have countered the extreme prejudice you exhibit. Like all of Moore's critics, you avoid specifics and use generalizations like the movie is "full of lies". You need to qualify yourself and admit that anything that doesn't jive with your personal agenda you consider to be bogus.
You can completely remove Moore from the movie and just show the raw footage and it alone is powerful and substantive. I could have done without Moore's commentary over the top of Bush's idle classroom time when the WTC was attacked, but I'm intelligent enough to separate the rhetoric from the facts and come to my own conclusion without condemning the entire movie and all the information it presented. It's a shame you are not.
Agreed. The only problem with Micheal Moore is he's the second-worst kind of pompous asshole with no sense of reality. The first-worst kind is of course someone exactly like Micheal Moore, but expressing opinions I disagree with:)
It has always bothered me, comments like this. Do you know Michael Moore personally? How can you so authoritatively comment on who he is as a person, and better yet, what relevance does this have to his work?
I hear Kevin Costner is a dick. What bearing does that have on his movies? Ok, bad example.
No sense arguing over and over on this, but I think you are wrong. You cannot find any evidence to substantiate your case which isn't either wholly speculative in nature, or takes into account a subset of Florida, which is a distraction and not the truth. There are plenty of references available.
In any case, there was never a thorough audit that was officially accepted - that much is true, because the reality is after the Supreme Court made their decision, there were a lot of powers that didn't want any more digging to be done. The American people were the real losers.
I do agree with you though, that Gore screwed up in not fighting this issue more thoroughly.
Another authoritative commentary on Cuba by someone whose only first-hand knowledge of the country comes from watching re-runs of "I Love Lucy." Gotta love armchair pundits.
Here is an example of how Moore's critics distort reality to claim his film is inaccurate - you can go through point-by-point and research things yourself on any of the anti-Moore web sites, and upon further examination, you'll find more distortions in F911's critics than you will the movie itself.
Moore's critics say the movie's claim that "Gore would have won Florida" is a lie.
The truth is, there are two ways to interpret the statement in the movie. The literal interpretation in F911 which doesn't call attention to the nature of the "recount" is 100% accurate. In a *statewide recount* Gore would have won the election.
Moore's critics twist this by implying that Moore meant (but did not say) "the recount requested by Gore", which only included a subset of Florida, in which Bush would have won.
What is the real issue? Bush won Florida and therefore won the Presidency. Any meaningful discussion of a "recount" involves the entire state because it was the entire state's electoral votes that were up for grabs.
However, Moore's critics insinuate that the movie "lies" by manufacturing a specific scenario, that is not represented in the movie, where Bush could have legitimately won Florida, and therefore use it to "prove" that Moore was a "liar." Unfortunately, it's 100% fabrication. The movie's statements on this issue are accurate despite the right wingers' attempt to snow-job the public into believing otherwise.
With so many right-wing resources being expended to tear apart Moore's movie, they were bound to find something. No doubt about that... They discovered that the book Bush was reading when the WTC was attacked was entitled "The Pet Goat" and not "My Pet Goat" as Moore mentioned in the film. Yes, this grevious error is a classic example of the horrendous propaganda and lies that Farhenheit 911 epitomizes!
Almost all of the F911's "lies" fall into these two categories: distortions of reality to imply the movie distorted reality, or expose's of completely irrelevent "facts" and continuity inconsistencies that have virtually nothing substantive to do with the movie's main theme or accuracy.
Right-wing propaganda such as this, told over and over, makes the public believe that Moore's movie is inaccurate when it is not. It's the same tactic that has misled millions into thinking there was a substantive connection between 9/11 and Iraq. There are more right-wing voices sprewing dubious arguments against Moore's film than there are people in the public eye calling attention to the blatant inaccuracy of such criticisms, so people "assume" Moore was distorting the truth when he wasn't.
What's important here is that people need to get wise to the massive effort that is underway to wholly discredit Moore personally, and therefore keep people from giving creedence to ANY aspect of his work. You don't hear people complain about any single aspect of the movie - you hear people merely regurgitate the opinion fed to them, that "Moore is a propagandist". They don't really know themselves.
This is completely unjust. You can't open any newspaper or watch anything on television that doesn't have some bias. This doesn't mean that one can't glean some insight or truth therein. But the conservatives' M.O. is to encourage people to completely disregard (and preferably boycott or destroy) anyone who challenges their version of reality. It is for this very reason that a thinking person should be even more interested in hearing what Moore has to say. With so much caustic counter-propaganda blowing about in the wind, common sense dictates the target of that vitriol probably has something very illuminating to share with others.
"Whether Moore got his footage first hand isn't relevant. This is a classic example of the smokescreens his opponents blow in order to discredit him rather than address the core themes of his work."
Why isn't it relevant if he got footage first hand or not? The fact is the footage was taken from Iraq and given to him by cameramen.
The movie isn't entitled, "I Michael Moore shot my own footage and was there."
It's amusing that the best Moore's detractors can cite are lame arguments like whether or not he has any credibility talking about military veterans unless he lost his leg to a land mine or something. He was just showing some footage from Iraq. He let the viewers interpret it how they see fit.
If I were to use your reasoning, I'd say, unless you were in the WTC when it was bombed, you have no right to comment on it.
My favorite lie: 'A little while later, Fahrenheit shows Jeffrey Toobin (a sometime talking head lawyer for CNN) claiming that if the Supreme Court had allowed a third recount to proceed past the legal deadline, "under every scenario Gore won the election."'... while the truth is " if there had been partial recounts under any of the various recounts sought by Gore or ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, Bush would have won under every scenario."
I'm glad you brought this up. This is a PERFECT example of right-wing propaganda. Technically it's true, but ONLY because GORE DIDN'T REQUEST AN ENTIRE FLORIDA RECOUNT... only select precincts. Had an ENTIRE STATEWIDE RECOUNT been done, GORE WOULD HAVE WON. This is a fact.
You inject the seemingly innocuous "recounts sought by Gore" to pervert the idea that Bush would have won under any circumstance, when this is completely misleading.
Michael Moore's claim in the movie is 100% true. You insert additional wording that wasn't there to imply otherwise. That's disgraceful, misleading and completely wrong.
This is a classic example of how the right twists things to convey ultimately inaccurate information.
The issue that people care about is whether Gore would have won Florida had ALL the votes been counted. YES HE WOULD and this has been proven. The republicans' claim this isn't true by playing semantical word games and distorting the truth.
Well said. I didn't want to post and start a flame war. I've already noticed comments anti-bush being modded up and comments that are anti-moore being modded down. The bias here is getting pretty bad I think.
Inevitable Nazi reference by right-wingers in 3.. 2.. 1..
The GOP has plenty of their own "hollywood-types" they exploit as well: Schwartzenager, Alice Cooper, Brittney Spears, Travis Tritt, Charlie Daniels, Dennis Miller, Ted Nugent, etc.
What is the standard by which you judge truthfulness?
Fox News?
Whether Moore got his footage first hand isn't relevant. This is a classic example of the smokescreens his opponents blow in order to discredit him rather than address the core themes of his work.
Don't forget Moore is fat. That's relevant to you guys as well. He's a big fat dude, and therefore he has nothing to say. He's also Canadian, so it's likely he's trying to undermine the American Way(tm), or perhaps he's... French! Oh no!
Moore's critics are more concerned with exposing tiny little continuity issues in his film than they are getting to the truth. Almost every single one of the supposed "faults" they can find in the movie are trivial at best, and even more a perversion of reality than anything in F911.
I'm not saying I don't think the movie was biased. Of course it was, but trying to pick tiny aspects of unimportant sections apart is a distraction and doesn't diminish the significance of Moore's main theme which NOBODY can refute:
* There were some substantive conflicts-of-interest regarding the powers that presided over the 2000 election
* The Bush family has a suspicious relationship with the Saudis and has exhibited favoritism that was not in the best interests of America, and is possibly illegal
* Almost all of the politicians involved in spearheading the "war" don't have children serving and have inconsequential/nonexistent military service records
* While Bush's policies predominantly favor the rich, it is the poor who end up paying, specifically when it comes to military service
I could have done without Moore's commentary over Bush's classroom visit when the WTC was attacked, but nonetheless, that "seven minute segment" is something everyone in the country NEEDS to see.
All of this notwithstanding, there's probably not a snowball's chance in hell this movie would make it to network television prior to the election.
F911 is an extremely powerful film. Which is why the right wingers seek to discredit Moore at any cost. If it didn't have a lot of substance and truth in it, they wouldn't be so afraid of people seeing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that all other scientific horizons have been crossed, we're tackling the age-old problem of solo foosball.
I wouldn't consider this site to be more than a cooking-enthusiast's blog with an interesting recipe format. There doesn't seem to be any "engineer"-included aspects or approach to the content IMO.
As a software designer that goofs off with cooking, I think I take a more tech approach. For example, I've started smoking various meats and making my own beef jerky, but I've also been trying dozens of different kinds of woods, some plain, some soaked in different types of liquids and alcohol and researching the ways in which the smoking process with different wood imparts flavor to the food. I've also been working on designing a way to interface an electric smoker to a dehydrator to automate the process of making beef jerky with a true smoky flavor.
I have friends who have designed their own cooking grills and monitoring systems. Those things seem more like an engineers approach to cooking. This site, while interesting, isn't anything special.
Then again, maybe this guy is using an overclocked Pentium as his heating element?
There were some good details of this legislation, namely that it furthered the effort to enforce existing laws regarding background checks and waiting periods, but there were numerous loopholes.
For example, gun configurations were banned, like large-scale magazines, weapons with built-in cleaning kits, bayonets, folding stocks, etc., however the individual sale of many of these components wasn't completely restricted so in many cases you could buy an SKS or AK-47, purchase a folding stock separately, and configure the weapon on your own. It was way too easy to get around this.
The premise behind the law was sound: Who needs a "hunting" weapon that was exclusively designed for killing people in wartime? Who needs a folding stock or a 30-round magazine for hunting deer? Unfortunately, the passage of this bill didn't really reduce the availability of these weapons or their components in my opinion. I've always been able to go down the street to the gun shop and buy a cheap Chinese-made AK-47 for less than it costs to pick up a modest hand gun.
What I found most ironic about the Brady Bill and Feinstein Amendment, was that the NRA blew the consequences of this legislation way out of preportion and suggested its passage was going to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. The facts since then have indicated otherwise - the more-stricly-enforced background checks have reduced the number of firearms getting into the hands of people who were prohibited from owning them. At the same time, the proliferation of many of the assault weapons has not been noticeably diminished. Ironically, the NRA, for all its anti-commie, freedom-lovin', second-amendment protecting propaganda, vehemently pushed for the opposition of this bill which mainly would have had the most profound impact on the substantive importation of communist-Chinese-manufactured assault weapons which have been flooding the US. This is a case of the NRA agenda helping directly fund a communist regime - irony of ironies, and a talking point they never brought up in all their dialogue on this law.
When you're standing in front of a room full of people all of which are booing you off the stage, and you dare to use the word "We" (refering to the rest of the room) when expressing your opinions, that is arrogant. Is there any other way to interpret that? Speaking your mind is okay. Speaking your mind in front of a room of people who disagree with you can even be described as taking courage. But using the word "We" when talking about your opinions, when there is clear evidence that absolutely everyone else can see which shows the word "We" really doesnt begin to apply, that's arrogant.
I assume you're talking about the Academy Awards ceremony? You don't know what you're talking about. This is classic! I saw the video of the event and Moore wasn't "boo'd" - there were a small smattering of people who whined and then people booed at the people panning Moore. In any event it was totally blown out of preportion. I saw the tape; I've read numerous stories on the subject. You're basing your opinion on heresay. Very uninformed. But this is the the weak evidence Moore's critics have: they base their opinions off others' opinions of third-hand reports; they pan movies they don't go to see, etc.
Even if what you're implying is true, which it IS NOT. It's a really, really, ridiculous stretch to characterize the use of the word "we" as pompous.
How lame can you get? Don't you have something better to do that concern yourself with such childish trivialities?
This is getting out of hand.
It reminds me of a guy who walks into a shopping mall, throws a bunch of pennies on the floor, and while everying is on their hands and knees picking up loose change, he's making off with all their shopping bags.
People get off your knees. Have some self respect and decency and don't fall prey to this big inept pseudo-journalistic, National Enquirer-esque troll that really has very little to do with real issues.
Kerry went to Viet Nam. Bush did not. That's all there basically is. Whether Bush was snorting coke and avoided the health exam, or Kerry was shooting Viet Cong puppies in the back are stupid, distractions that people will forever argue. Let's not get side-tracked by these distractions both parties are vomiting during a time where it's important to pay attention to the real issues and who is best for the country.
Computer Tampering is a felony. In some cases the penalty could even be interpreted under the Patriot Act to be an act of "terrorism" (disrupting commerce and national security services) and punishable by death! Most states have sentences of up to 3 years in prison for each instance of installing a zombie on a PC.
You can see details here on each state's laws and then we also have a plethora of federal laws that these guys are breaking.
These are all serious, criminal violations.
As I said in another post, you need to contact your Attorney General and encourage them to prosecute. The FBI collects information, but they're at the mercy of the Federal and State Attorneys to prosecute the people who do this. As far as I know, they haven't gone after anyone.
It's just disgusting. This is a political issue. NOT a technological one. Our officials are not prosecuting the people who break the law!
If you all want this stuff stopped, contact your local Attorney General and demand they start prosecuting these cases. The Feds can't do anything if the AGs won't prosecute. Call your AG and tell him you'll make sure he isn't re-elected if he doesn't start prosecuting people for computer tampering.
Err, okay, have you ever seen any of Micheal Moore's movies or appearances? Those movies which he independently created and was the center of? And those appearances which are actually him? Do you think he's just trying to keep up the image of his on-screen persona (like hip-hop?) I mean, that's a valid argument in the sense that I have no information which would prove otherwise. I mean, based entirely on what he says, he's either a pompous asshole or a liar. (I guess that would just make him an asshole)
I don't mean this in any disrespectful way, but comments such as yours, in my opinion, show that you're a lot more personally insecure than Moore is potentially pompous.
What's even more ironic is that Michael Moore embodies one of the most distinctive characteristics that his critics praise in Bush: courage of conviction.
I'd say it's a lot more courageous for Moore to stand up for what he believes in when it's a helluva lot less politically-correct than Bush's agenda.
I fail to see what's so pompous about this. Or egocentric. If Moore's self-interests were such a motivating factor, there are a thousand less dangerous ways he could make a living. He's had money for a long time. The guy's a multi-millionaire and he still dresses like a truck driver. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of evidence to back up your claims.
If one personally and independently created a movie, (or Three) which were arogant and exploitive, I think I'd say that not only is the movie arogant and exploitive, but the star (being the one who single-handedly brought about the existence of the movie) is arogant and exploitive. And if you make three arogant and exploitive movies, I also consider you a pompous asshole.
Not everyone finds F911 to be an "arrogant" movie. This is your own insecurity (or jealousy) manifesting itself in my opinion.
I contend that all movies are exploitive. That's the nature of the industry.
I think you are intimidated by Moore's determination and self-confidence and you micharacterize this as arrogance. In all the interviews and public appearances I've seen of his, I would never characterize him as arrogant. If anything, he comes off as an "accidental icon" that has passionately accepted his role and responsibility. If he can make tons of money doing so, that's good for him. I think a lot of people are angry that Moore can make money bashing a lot of more-powerful institutions.
I would however, give him props for having a lot of guts to speak his mind in forums where it wasn't appropriate. I'd venture to guess that if we were talking in general terms and your prejudices weren't in the picture, you'd consider the behavior of someone like Moore to be a positive character trait. Most people do, but he's been so demonized by the mainstream media, it's become apropos to exempt Moore from such respect.
The bottom line IMO is the more personal disparagement people lob at Moore, the more they expose their own insecurities and jealousy. It's a sign they are threatened by someone so strong-willed. You don't have to agree with Moore's agenda to recognize that he's a guy that won't back down, and these days there aren't very many like him, especially on the left. This is probably why the public has such a love/hate relationship with him.
Source: http://www.issues2000.org/askme/Faithless_Electors .htm
The first clear case of the faithless elector happened in 1820, where one of James Monroe's electors voted for John Quincy Adams instead. Monroe carried every state in the Union, so the outcome was not affected.
In this century, there have been 7 faithless electors. The first was in 1948, when Strom Thurmond was running for president on the Dixiecrat platform. Preston Parks, a Truman elector for Tennessee, voted for Thurmond, who was a distant third in the popular vote. W.F. Turner, an elector for Adlai Stevenson, voted in 1956 for a local judge from his home district.
The first appearance of a faithless elector in a close election happened in the 1960 race between Nixon and Kennedy. An Oklahoma Kennedy elector named Henry D. Irwin voted instead for Harry F. Byrd, a senator from Virginia. Byrd ran as an independent and gained in addition all the 8 electoral votes from Mississippi and 6 of the 7 votes from Alabama. Reportedly Irwin, a southern Democrat, objected to Kennedy's civil rights policies. Although this election was very close, Irwin's vote did not affect the outcome.
In 1968 however, the independent candidate's appeal and his corresponding electoral votes almost did change the outcome. Lloyd Bailey, a North Carolina Nixon elector, voted instead for George Wallace, who ran as an independent. In this case, Wallace gained a total of 46 electoral votes, which came close to preventing either Nixon or Humphrey from getting the number needed to win.
In 1972, a Nixon elector named Roger L. McBride voted for the Libertarian candidate John Hospers. The publicity McBride received culminated in his own run for President in 1976, also as a Libertarian.
A Ford elector from Washington, Mike Padden, voted in 1976 for Ronald Reagan. Reagan has lost the party's nomination to Ford. The most recent case was in 1988, where Margarette Leach, a Democratic elector from West Virginia, voted for Democratis Vice-Presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen instead. She said, "it was nice to make a mark on history... I wish every year somebody... would make a statement and it would be heard."
What happens when an elector is faithless? It turns out that only about half of the states have laws binding their electors to vote for the popular vote winner in their state. But wait, the situation is even worse. In the states that do bind their electors, either there is no penalty, or the penalties range from a fine ($1000 in Wisconsin) to conviction of a fourth-degree felony (New Mexico). And, although there are clear documented cases of faithless electors, no faithless elector has ever been punished. Of course, no faithless elector has ever changed the outcome of an election. So far.
I often state the obvious, and people like you just argue with me. Bush won the election... Not everyone has accepted it.
Yea, "won" is a good characterization. I wouldn't use "earn" or "deserve". He was awarded the presidency by the Supreme Court. It was a gift given to him, not unlike the way other people "win" things, without legitimately earning them.
If you are among those that think this is a concept that Bush's detractors should just "get over", I suggest you cease referencing the nobility of the concept of democracy, because that is what the issue revolves around. There was never a full, legitimate, audit of Florida accepted as the formal count. So democracy was NOT served. It's not about Bush. It's about respecting the concept of representative government. So don't talk of democracy when you validate a process that was never democratic.
Wrong and wrong: I didn't see it in a theater, and the reason I say two minutes it's because that's how long it took me to find critical damning lies. See my post on the recount.
I saw your post. I made two other posts refuting the bogus claim that the recount statement was a lie. It was not.
Calling something a lie over and over doesn't negate the facts.
But, just for the record, do you agree that Moore is slanted? Do you agree that there is at least one deception in the movie? Do you agree that this is just an anti Bush film?
Hey, Captain Obvious. Even Moore has admitted he's biased. You can't find any human being which isn't biased in one way or another. What kind of news flash is that? It proves nothing.
As far as "deception", that's highly subjective. You could call F911 "deceptive" because it didn't tell the "whole story" on anything because there will always be some group that feels they didn't get enough time to explain their side of the story. What are you going to do? Everything in the media is "deceptive" in that respect. The news is "deceptive" in that it condenses "everything" that's going on in Iraq down to 30 seconds. The newspapers are deceptive because they tell a story in only 1500 words.
That's why we have brains. To research things ourselves and not expect any single source to be the pinnacle of accuracy. This doesn't mean that any specific source is completely devoid of value.
Is F911 nothing more than an "anti-Bush" film? I guess that depends upon your perspective. But is it "anti-Bush" in its tone and objective? Again, a great big DUH!
Is Fox a pro-Bush network? DUH. Is Clear Channel pro-Bush? DUH. Are O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh and the vast majority of mainstream media pundits primarily defending the Republican agenda? Yes. DUH! On any given day there's at least 100+ hours of pro-GOP propaganda being spewed across hundreds of radio and television stations - a fraction of which has any comparable leftist editorial. And Michael Moore comes out with a single two hour liberal-leaning documentary and you guys get your panties in a complete wad!
Moore tells another side of the story. Just cause you don't like that side of the story doesn't make it full of lies.
There are 250 swift boat vets who served with Kerry (that doesn't mean the same boat...that means the same group of boats. You know what the guy 10 feet away from you on the next boat is doing) who say that Kerry did not serve honorably, showed extreme cowardice, and lied to get his medals, all the while filming documentaries about how heroic he was for future campaign material.
Yea, right. It's amazing you people believe this BS.
Two hundred and fifty of THESE GUYS.
Columbus swift boat vet angry about letter
By LINDA HALSTEAD-ACHARYA
Of The Gazette Staff
COLUMBUS - Swift boat veteran Bob Anderson of Columbus is ticked.
It bothers him that Sen. John Kerry's swift boat history has become such a political hot potato. But he's even more irritated that his name was included - without his permission - on a letter used to discredit Kerry.
"I'm pretty nonpolitical," the 56-year-old Anderson said Tuesday. So, when he found out last week that his name was one of about 300 signed on a letter questioning Kerry's service, he was "flabbergasted."
"It's kind of like stealing my identity," said Anderson, who spent a year on a swift boat as an engine man and gunner.
The letter, which was posted on the Swift Boat Veter-ans for Truth Web site, claims the Demo-cratic presidential candidate has "grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that (Vietnam) war."
The letter also criticizes Kerry for trying to change his image from a critic of the war to a war hero.
"After reading the letter," Anderson said, "it kind of got under my skin. I had never come across a situation where someone used my name without my support or approval. It's not a very comforting feeling."
What's worse, he said, he disagrees with the letter.
"Had they asked me to use my name, I wouldn't have allowed them to," he said.
Anderson, a 1966 graduate of Chinook High School, describes himself as a naive Montana kid who was smacked by the reality of war soon after arriving in Vietnam in 1967.
"It's not a very pleasant way to grow up," he said.
He served on a swift boat about the same time Kerry did. However, the first time he met Kerry was during a reunion of swift boat vets in Norfolk, Va., in March 2003.
Anderson said he cannot dispute or verify Kerry's experience. In fact, he's forgotten much of his own.
"You remember the simple things," he said. "The rest is what you don't want to remember."
He does, however, support Kerry's right to state his opinion.
"We say we're protecting democracy. That's why we go to war. As Americans, we can have our opinions, right?"
Anderson can vividly recall the last day of 1969, when his boat was attacked.
"The thing I remember before we got hit was the grass dragging on the sides of the boat - the canals were so narrow," he said. "I can also remember the smell of napalm."
Anderson's boat was about the fourth boat back in a string of 10. He describes the scene as an Armageddon. Fellow swift boat sailor Bob Wedge was so badly wounded, Anderson doubted he would survive.
"That boat was like a slaughterhouse that day," he said. "He (Wedge) just about bled to death before we got a tourniquet on him and the chopper got him."
Wedge, who lost a leg, was flown home. Thirty-four years passed before the two met again. Now they find themselves on the same side of another conflict.
Wedge, 60, of Mesquite, Nev., said his name, too, was on the list - and he's mad.
"This is the fourth or fifth time someone has called me or e-mailed me in regard to signing this damn letter," he wrote in an e-mail to Anderson. "I don't agree with it and want no part of it and especially don't want my name on it."
Both men have tried to contact the Swift Boat Ve
There are many issues regarding Bush's records that aren't being made available. The military service issue is probably trivial compared to this:
Justice Department Says It Can't Share Lobbying Data Because Computer System Will Crash
By Ted Bridis Associated Press Writer
Published: Jun 29, 2004
Source: http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBDP9DE2WD.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is offering a novel reason for denying a request seeking the Justice Department's database on foreign lobbyists: Copying the information would bring down the computer system.
"Implementing such a request risks a crash that cannot be fixed and could result in a major loss of data, which would be devastating," wrote Thomas J. McIntyre, chief in the Justice Department's office for information requests.
Advocates for open government said the government's assertion that it could not copy data from its computers was unprecedented but representative of generally negative responses to Freedom of Information Act requests.
"This was a new one on us. We weren't aware there were databases that could be destroyed just by copying them," Bob Williams of the Center for Public Integrity said Tuesday. The watchdog group in Washington made the request in January. He said the group expects to appeal the Justice Department's decision.
Many Justice Department computer systems, especially at the FBI, are considered outdated. The FBI is spending nearly $600 million to modernize its antiquated systems.
The Center for Public Integrity sought information about lobbying activities available under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, a 1938 law passed in response to German propaganda before World War II. Database records describe details of meetings among foreign lobbyists, the administration and Congress, and payments by foreign governments and some overseas groups for political advertisements and other campaigns.
"What they're asking for is a lot, and it's not something at this particular point in time we have the technical ability to do," Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra said Tuesday.
McIntyre explained in a May 24 letter that the computer system - operated in the counterespionage section of the Justice Department's criminal division - "was not designed for mass export of all stored images" and said the system experiences "substantial problems."
"It sounds like incredible negligence for an agency that is keeping public records to keep them in such a precarious condition," said Stephen Doig, interim director at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. "I've never heard the excuse that making the equivalent of a backup copy would somehow cause steam to rise out of the computer."
The government said an overhaul of the system should be finished by December and copies should be available then.
Paper copies of records still are available for review four hours each day for people willing to travel to Washington, the Justice Department noted. Williams said the index available to researchers there is at least 12 months outdated, "which kind of renders it useless."
Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered federal agencies in October 2001 to review more closely which documents they release. Ashcroft's policy lets officials withhold information on any "sound legal basis." Under looser policies issued in 1993, agencies could hold back information to prevent "foreseeable harm."
"This is an administration and Justice is an agency that does not go out of its way to make information available to the public," said David Sobel, general counsel for the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center.
The thing he forgets is that there's no draft in this country. If poor people have more sons in the military, that's because those sons *VOLUNTARILY SIGNED UP* to join the military... in my opinion, that invalidates his entire documentary. Now, if he were talking about Vietnam where the soldiers had no choice, then that's a different story. But you can't say that "poor end up paying when it comes to military service" when EVERYBODY in the military, rich or poor, is there voluntarily.
I don't think Moore forgot there was no draft. In fact that's his point. The rich won't participate in backing up their beliefs with their own sons and daughters unless they're forced to by a draft. The poor who fight the wars the rich start don't have the luxury many times to choose. You can bet that the majority of those who signed up in the military did so, not because of patriotism or loyalty to their country as much as it represented a way to escape their poverty, provide opportunities to travel, and fund their education. Those that signed up never had much of a choice as to whether or not they wanted to serve in Iraq.
Moore eloquently points this out as he investigates in the course of the movie how few politicians have their own families serving in Iraq. It's also substantive to point out that Bush didn't fulfill his duty in the military, yet he seems to have no reservation about sending others off to fight. There's nothing misleading or erroneous about those facts.
I contend, as Moore probably does, that if there were an actual mandatory draft, we wouldn't have engaged in the Iraqi invasion. It's easy for politicians to laud the nobility of war when they don't have a personal stake in it... and that's the essence of what Moore was trying to say, and it's backed up by facts that can't be disputed.
Uhm, neither does Moore. If he had presented a movie that wasn't full of lies, the truth might stand out more. 2 minutes into the movie I knew I couldn't trust Moore to present the truth... I hoped for a documentary, all I saw was slanted attack commercial.
You took your biased, preconceived prejudices with you into the theater. If you came to a conclusion two minutes into the movie what it was all about, that speaks volumes about your objectivity.
Good luck in finding any media source that doesn't have some bias in its perspective. You are obviously one of the naive who expected what? The movie to be even-handed? F911 wouldn't have needed to be made in the first place had the mainstream media been even-handed. They aren't. I'm not sure what you were expecting, not that anything Moore could have done would have countered the extreme prejudice you exhibit. Like all of Moore's critics, you avoid specifics and use generalizations like the movie is "full of lies". You need to qualify yourself and admit that anything that doesn't jive with your personal agenda you consider to be bogus.
You can completely remove Moore from the movie and just show the raw footage and it alone is powerful and substantive. I could have done without Moore's commentary over the top of Bush's idle classroom time when the WTC was attacked, but I'm intelligent enough to separate the rhetoric from the facts and come to my own conclusion without condemning the entire movie and all the information it presented. It's a shame you are not.
Agreed. The only problem with Micheal Moore is he's the second-worst kind of pompous asshole with no sense of reality. The first-worst kind is of course someone exactly like Micheal Moore, but expressing opinions I disagree with :)
It has always bothered me, comments like this. Do you know Michael Moore personally? How can you so authoritatively comment on who he is as a person, and better yet, what relevance does this have to his work?
I hear Kevin Costner is a dick. What bearing does that have on his movies? Ok, bad example.
No sense arguing over and over on this, but I think you are wrong. You cannot find any evidence to substantiate your case which isn't either wholly speculative in nature, or takes into account a subset of Florida, which is a distraction and not the truth. There are plenty of references available.
In any case, there was never a thorough audit that was officially accepted - that much is true, because the reality is after the Supreme Court made their decision, there were a lot of powers that didn't want any more digging to be done. The American people were the real losers.
I do agree with you though, that Gore screwed up in not fighting this issue more thoroughly.
/yawn
Another authoritative commentary on Cuba by someone whose only first-hand knowledge of the country comes from watching re-runs of "I Love Lucy." Gotta love armchair pundits.
Here is an example of how Moore's critics distort reality to claim his film is inaccurate - you can go through point-by-point and research things yourself on any of the anti-Moore web sites, and upon further examination, you'll find more distortions in F911's critics than you will the movie itself.
Moore's critics say the movie's claim that "Gore would have won Florida" is a lie.
The truth is, there are two ways to interpret the statement in the movie. The literal interpretation in F911 which doesn't call attention to the nature of the "recount" is 100% accurate. In a *statewide recount* Gore would have won the election.
Moore's critics twist this by implying that Moore meant (but did not say) "the recount requested by Gore", which only included a subset of Florida, in which Bush would have won.
What is the real issue? Bush won Florida and therefore won the Presidency. Any meaningful discussion of a "recount" involves the entire state because it was the entire state's electoral votes that were up for grabs.
However, Moore's critics insinuate that the movie "lies" by manufacturing a specific scenario, that is not represented in the movie, where Bush could have legitimately won Florida, and therefore use it to "prove" that Moore was a "liar." Unfortunately, it's 100% fabrication. The movie's statements on this issue are accurate despite the right wingers' attempt to snow-job the public into believing otherwise.
With so many right-wing resources being expended to tear apart Moore's movie, they were bound to find something. No doubt about that... They discovered that the book Bush was reading when the WTC was attacked was entitled "The Pet Goat" and not "My Pet Goat" as Moore mentioned in the film. Yes, this grevious error is a classic example of the horrendous propaganda and lies that Farhenheit 911 epitomizes!
Almost all of the F911's "lies" fall into these two categories: distortions of reality to imply the movie distorted reality, or expose's of completely irrelevent "facts" and continuity inconsistencies that have virtually nothing substantive to do with the movie's main theme or accuracy.
Right-wing propaganda such as this, told over and over, makes the public believe that Moore's movie is inaccurate when it is not. It's the same tactic that has misled millions into thinking there was a substantive connection between 9/11 and Iraq. There are more right-wing voices sprewing dubious arguments against Moore's film than there are people in the public eye calling attention to the blatant inaccuracy of such criticisms, so people "assume" Moore was distorting the truth when he wasn't.
What's important here is that people need to get wise to the massive effort that is underway to wholly discredit Moore personally, and therefore keep people from giving creedence to ANY aspect of his work. You don't hear people complain about any single aspect of the movie - you hear people merely regurgitate the opinion fed to them, that "Moore is a propagandist". They don't really know themselves.
This is completely unjust. You can't open any newspaper or watch anything on television that doesn't have some bias. This doesn't mean that one can't glean some insight or truth therein. But the conservatives' M.O. is to encourage people to completely disregard (and preferably boycott or destroy) anyone who challenges their version of reality. It is for this very reason that a thinking person should be even more interested in hearing what Moore has to say. With so much caustic counter-propaganda blowing about in the wind, common sense dictates the target of that vitriol probably has something very illuminating to share with others.
"Whether Moore got his footage first hand isn't relevant. This is a classic example of the smokescreens his opponents blow in order to discredit him rather than address the core themes of his work."
Why isn't it relevant if he got footage first hand or not? The fact is the footage was taken from Iraq and given to him by cameramen.
The movie isn't entitled, "I Michael Moore shot my own footage and was there."
It's amusing that the best Moore's detractors can cite are lame arguments like whether or not he has any credibility talking about military veterans unless he lost his leg to a land mine or something. He was just showing some footage from Iraq. He let the viewers interpret it how they see fit.
If I were to use your reasoning, I'd say, unless you were in the WTC when it was bombed, you have no right to comment on it.
My favorite lie: 'A little while later, Fahrenheit shows Jeffrey Toobin (a sometime talking head lawyer for CNN) claiming that if the Supreme Court had allowed a third recount to proceed past the legal deadline, "under every scenario Gore won the election."' ... while the truth is " if there had been partial recounts under any of the various recounts sought by Gore or ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, Bush would have won under every scenario."
I'm glad you brought this up. This is a PERFECT example of right-wing propaganda. Technically it's true, but ONLY because GORE DIDN'T REQUEST AN ENTIRE FLORIDA RECOUNT... only select precincts. Had an ENTIRE STATEWIDE RECOUNT been done, GORE WOULD HAVE WON. This is a fact.
You inject the seemingly innocuous "recounts sought by Gore" to pervert the idea that Bush would have won under any circumstance, when this is completely misleading.
Michael Moore's claim in the movie is 100% true. You insert additional wording that wasn't there to imply otherwise. That's disgraceful, misleading and completely wrong.
This is a classic example of how the right twists things to convey ultimately inaccurate information.
The issue that people care about is whether Gore would have won Florida had ALL the votes been counted. YES HE WOULD and this has been proven. The republicans' claim this isn't true by playing semantical word games and distorting the truth.
Well said. I didn't want to post and start a flame war. I've already noticed comments anti-bush being modded up and comments that are anti-moore being modded down. The bias here is getting pretty bad I think.
Inevitable Nazi reference by right-wingers in 3.. 2.. 1..
lame.
The GOP has plenty of their own "hollywood-types" they exploit as well: Schwartzenager, Alice Cooper, Brittney Spears, Travis Tritt, Charlie Daniels, Dennis Miller, Ted Nugent, etc.
Your black-and-white world is not the real world.
Hollywood is not a homogenous group of liberals.
What is the standard by which you judge truthfulness?
Fox News?
Whether Moore got his footage first hand isn't relevant. This is a classic example of the smokescreens his opponents blow in order to discredit him rather than address the core themes of his work.
Don't forget Moore is fat. That's relevant to you guys as well. He's a big fat dude, and therefore he has nothing to say. He's also Canadian, so it's likely he's trying to undermine the American Way(tm), or perhaps he's... French! Oh no!
Moore's critics are more concerned with exposing tiny little continuity issues in his film than they are getting to the truth. Almost every single one of the supposed "faults" they can find in the movie are trivial at best, and even more a perversion of reality than anything in F911.
I'm not saying I don't think the movie was biased. Of course it was, but trying to pick tiny aspects of unimportant sections apart is a distraction and doesn't diminish the significance of Moore's main theme which NOBODY can refute:
* There were some substantive conflicts-of-interest regarding the powers that presided over the 2000 election
* The Bush family has a suspicious relationship with the Saudis and has exhibited favoritism that was not in the best interests of America, and is possibly illegal
* Almost all of the politicians involved in spearheading the "war" don't have children serving and have inconsequential/nonexistent military service records
* While Bush's policies predominantly favor the rich, it is the poor who end up paying, specifically when it comes to military service
I could have done without Moore's commentary over Bush's classroom visit when the WTC was attacked, but nonetheless, that "seven minute segment" is something everyone in the country NEEDS to see.
All of this notwithstanding, there's probably not a snowball's chance in hell this movie would make it to network television prior to the election.
F911 is an extremely powerful film. Which is why the right wingers seek to discredit Moore at any cost. If it didn't have a lot of substance and truth in it, they wouldn't be so afraid of people seeing it.