-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
The TMF is sponsored by:
Disney Trying to Block Release of Michael Moore's New Movie
- Thread starter Mimi
- Start date
august spies
TMF Master
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 703
- Points
- 0
censorship, if its corporate or state, is still censorship. In fact most censorship is linked, both corporate and state.
Moores film is critical of the state, so the states corporate friends censor it. Its the same as if the state censored it. Most state censorship is done to please corporations anyway.
If you have the media being owned and controlled by fewer and fewere and more right wing biased corporations than censorship and binding of debate is one of the worst problems facing our society today
Moores film is critical of the state, so the states corporate friends censor it. Its the same as if the state censored it. Most state censorship is done to please corporations anyway.
If you have the media being owned and controlled by fewer and fewere and more right wing biased corporations than censorship and binding of debate is one of the worst problems facing our society today
General Zod
Level of Triple Jade Feather
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Messages
- 70,462
- Points
- 0
I guess if the left wing had total control over the media it would be better for the people? I seriously doubt it😡august spies said:
august spies
TMF Master
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 703
- Points
- 0
actually it would be, but thats not the point, the point is for there to be equall access to all points of view something that can never happen with corporate or state dominated communication
red indian
2nd Level Yellow Feather
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
- Messages
- 3,442
- Points
- 0
I see........
.....it has just won the top award at the cannes film festival, lets hope it makes more sense than the immature,incomprehensible, incoherent "Bowling for Columbine"
.....it has just won the top award at the cannes film festival, lets hope it makes more sense than the immature,incomprehensible, incoherent "Bowling for Columbine"
august spies
TMF Master
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 703
- Points
- 0
from what i hear there are a lot of interviews, but i guess all those people are made up and their points of view are made up as well. Actually just about everything critical of the government nowadays is made up, what a coincidence
As I said..Moore himself admitted that much in the movie is more comical than documentary....Much of columbine was made up, unless you would rather we term it "poetic license" or perhaps "creative editing" would be a better classification...😉
Roseblossom
TMF Regular
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 267
- Points
- 0
Mr. Moore says:
"I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in "Bowling for Columbine" is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact."
"We have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine." Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them."
"So, faced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film – or resorting to character assassination."
He also lists some of his sources, linked so you can read them yourselves:
[http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/]
Article
Chicago Sun-Times, "Banks use gifts to target depositors"
Article
Chicago Sun-Times, "U.S. chief executives, Pentagon brass fail to make Paris show"
Eyewitness reports
Columbine High School Shooting
Article
Rocky Mountain News, "WILD RIDE Turbulent ups, downs drive careers, lives in Waterton Canyon"
Charlton Heston's Speech
Transcript of Bowling for Columbine
Bank Employee
Article
Los Angeles Times, "Their cold, dead hands"
Article
Aviation Week & Space Technology
"I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in "Bowling for Columbine" is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact."
"We have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine." Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them."
"So, faced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film – or resorting to character assassination."
He also lists some of his sources, linked so you can read them yourselves:
[http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/]
Article
Chicago Sun-Times, "Banks use gifts to target depositors"
Article
Chicago Sun-Times, "U.S. chief executives, Pentagon brass fail to make Paris show"
Eyewitness reports
Columbine High School Shooting
Article
Rocky Mountain News, "WILD RIDE Turbulent ups, downs drive careers, lives in Waterton Canyon"
Charlton Heston's Speech
Transcript of Bowling for Columbine
Bank Employee
Article
Los Angeles Times, "Their cold, dead hands"
Article
Aviation Week & Space Technology
babinsky
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2001
- Messages
- 373
- Points
- 18
.......
Well....Just for the record...There are several web sites that challenge every fact in "Bowling for Columbine"..Just do a search.
I don't care really..I like the guy and I like his work. What amazes me is the out and out hatred between conservatives and liberals. Thats
whats tearin'this country apart..Personnally, the kitchen got too hot.
I had to get out. Now I'm out listening to the cicades...
Well....Just for the record...There are several web sites that challenge every fact in "Bowling for Columbine"..Just do a search.
I don't care really..I like the guy and I like his work. What amazes me is the out and out hatred between conservatives and liberals. Thats
whats tearin'this country apart..Personnally, the kitchen got too hot.
I had to get out. Now I'm out listening to the cicades...
Roseblossom
TMF Regular
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 267
- Points
- 0
Yes, that's why I posted the link to the articles in reputable news sources - they cite the sources that refute those baseless challenges.babinsky said:
I like the cicadas, too.
~Rose~
Those sites do not, in fact, validate the factual basis of Michael Moore's work. Visit:
www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
http://www.moorelies.com/
Read them carefully. Moore has not rebutted them at all. Not on his website, not in the media, nowhere. That's why I belive Michael Moore is a complete liar.
www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
http://www.moorelies.com/
Read them carefully. Moore has not rebutted them at all. Not on his website, not in the media, nowhere. That's why I belive Michael Moore is a complete liar.
*Sigh* May I suggest that the point of watching ANY opinion piece is to make up ones own mind on the subject at hand?
Does Michael Moore present a clear, unbiased and untainted view of a the issues he addresses? No, absolutley not.
Does Michael Moore resort to sometimes questionable tactics in order to make his point? Yes, more's the pity.
Does Michael Moore fabricate evidence? Well.... that's a tougher question to answer, and on this Roseblossom is correct, but with one minor correction. Moore has never been sued succesfully. I do believe there's at least one case pending, but until that is won then Moore is correct in what he says.
Does any of this make the issues, or indeed his points on them, invalid? No, absolutley not.
Everyone, everyone that is in a position where they have access to the public does exactly the same thing, whether intentionally or not. To make the point without having to duck randomly thrown American flags with sharpened poles, look at the government of my fair isle. Thanks to their efforts the word "spin" now has a meaning far removed from a particular bowling technique in cricket. Look at the recent actions of The Mirror tabloid newspaper for an anti-war viewpoint, or The Sun for a pro-war view.
The sort of film Micheal Moore makes is, at heart, not a documentery OR a comedy. It is a film designed to make us think about issues that we may otherwise ignore. To use Bowling For Columbine as an example, well, let me take one link in particular from those posted by MikeMike, http://www.bowlingfortruth.com.
Now this is obviously an extremely biased source, and in fact it goes far too far in its attacks. Instead of concentrating on easily proved points it tries to disect EVERY aspect of the film and comes off as a simple hate campaign as the author stretches the point just as much as he claims Moore does. But leaving that aside, look at the section on "A breif history of America". It presents, to my mind, a rather desperate image of the author trying to discredit something that hit a little too close to home in some areas, though in others it's not accurate. But regardless of the motivation it makes the reader THINK about this sort of thing.
I've said this before, and I beleive in this thread as it happens, but anyone who bases their opinion on a single source, or multiple sources from the same area in relation to the subject (umm, different opinion writers on Fox News for example) is asking for trouble. If what you hear in a Michael Moore film disturbs you, or you believe it's wrong, go look it up. Everyone reading this post has access to the biggest damn library in the world, and opinions from damn near every corner of the world, so make use of it.
Doubtless there will be those that watch this film and start reciting word-for-word the arguments presented therein. However these people are, by and large, much the same as those who still believe that 9/11 was carried out by Iraqi hijackers. They have BOTH bought into politically motivated facts and do not see the need to look further than that information, usually because it confirms to their own view of the world. However, for the rest of us, I am sure it will present opportunity for debate on the subject matter it covers and, as such, is a worthwhile endevour. The same is true of Bowling For Columbine, it is a good starting point, nothing more .... and nothing less.
Knowledge comes by taking things apart: analysis. But wisdom comes by putting things together.--John A. Morrison
Does Michael Moore present a clear, unbiased and untainted view of a the issues he addresses? No, absolutley not.
Does Michael Moore resort to sometimes questionable tactics in order to make his point? Yes, more's the pity.
Does Michael Moore fabricate evidence? Well.... that's a tougher question to answer, and on this Roseblossom is correct, but with one minor correction. Moore has never been sued succesfully. I do believe there's at least one case pending, but until that is won then Moore is correct in what he says.
Does any of this make the issues, or indeed his points on them, invalid? No, absolutley not.
Everyone, everyone that is in a position where they have access to the public does exactly the same thing, whether intentionally or not. To make the point without having to duck randomly thrown American flags with sharpened poles, look at the government of my fair isle. Thanks to their efforts the word "spin" now has a meaning far removed from a particular bowling technique in cricket. Look at the recent actions of The Mirror tabloid newspaper for an anti-war viewpoint, or The Sun for a pro-war view.
The sort of film Micheal Moore makes is, at heart, not a documentery OR a comedy. It is a film designed to make us think about issues that we may otherwise ignore. To use Bowling For Columbine as an example, well, let me take one link in particular from those posted by MikeMike, http://www.bowlingfortruth.com.
Now this is obviously an extremely biased source, and in fact it goes far too far in its attacks. Instead of concentrating on easily proved points it tries to disect EVERY aspect of the film and comes off as a simple hate campaign as the author stretches the point just as much as he claims Moore does. But leaving that aside, look at the section on "A breif history of America". It presents, to my mind, a rather desperate image of the author trying to discredit something that hit a little too close to home in some areas, though in others it's not accurate. But regardless of the motivation it makes the reader THINK about this sort of thing.
I've said this before, and I beleive in this thread as it happens, but anyone who bases their opinion on a single source, or multiple sources from the same area in relation to the subject (umm, different opinion writers on Fox News for example) is asking for trouble. If what you hear in a Michael Moore film disturbs you, or you believe it's wrong, go look it up. Everyone reading this post has access to the biggest damn library in the world, and opinions from damn near every corner of the world, so make use of it.
Doubtless there will be those that watch this film and start reciting word-for-word the arguments presented therein. However these people are, by and large, much the same as those who still believe that 9/11 was carried out by Iraqi hijackers. They have BOTH bought into politically motivated facts and do not see the need to look further than that information, usually because it confirms to their own view of the world. However, for the rest of us, I am sure it will present opportunity for debate on the subject matter it covers and, as such, is a worthwhile endevour. The same is true of Bowling For Columbine, it is a good starting point, nothing more .... and nothing less.
Knowledge comes by taking things apart: analysis. But wisdom comes by putting things together.--John A. Morrison
Haltickling
2nd Level Green Feather
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
- Messages
- 4,353
- Points
- 0
Here's a brief review of "Fahrenheit 9/11", written by a columnist of the "The New York Times":
Frank Rich: Beautiful minds and ugly truths
Frank Rich NYT Friday, May 21, 2004
NEW YORK "But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? And watch him suffer." - Barbara Bush on "Good Morning America," March 18, 2003.
.
She needn't have worried. Her son wasn't suffering. In one of the several pieces of startling video exhibited for the first time in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," we catch a candid glimpse of President George Bush about 36 hours after his mother's breakfast TV interview - minutes before he makes his own prime-time TV address to take the nation to war in Iraq. He is sitting at his desk in the Oval Office. A makeup woman is doing his face. And Bush is having a high old time. He darts his eyes about and grins, as if he were playing a peek-a-boo game with someone just off-camera. He could be a teenager goofing with his buds to relieve the passing tedium of a haircut.
.
"In your wildest dreams you couldn't imagine Franklin Roosevelt behaving this way 30 seconds before declaring war, with grave decisions and their consequences at stake," said Moore in an interview before his new documentary's premiere at Cannes last Monday. "But that may be giving him credit for thinking that the decisions were grave." As we spoke, the consequences of those decisions kept coming. The premiere of "Fahrenheit 9/11" took place as news spread of the assassination of a widely admired post-Saddam Iraqi leader, Ezzedine Salim, blown up by a suicide bomber just a hundred yards from the entrance to America's "safe" headquarters in Baghdad, the Green Zone.
.
Whatever you think of Moore, there's no question he's detonating dynamite here. From a variety of sources - foreign journalists and broadcasters (like Britain's Channel Four), freelancers and sympathetic American TV workers who slipped him illicit video - he supplies war-time pictures that have been largely shielded from our view. Instead of recycling images of the planes hitting the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, once again, Moore can revel in extended new close-ups of the president continuing to read "My Pet Goat" to elementary school students in Florida for seven long minutes after learning of the attack. Just when Abu Ghraib and the savage beheading of Nicholas Berg make us think we've seen it all, here is yet another major escalation in the nation-jolting images that have become the battleground for the war about the war.
.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is not the movie Moore watchers, fans or foes, were expecting. (If it were, the foes would find it easier to ignore.) When he first announced this project last year after his boorish Oscar-night diatribe against Bush, he described it as an exposé of the connections between the Bush and bin Laden dynasties. But that story has been so strenuously told elsewhere that it's no longer news.
.
Moore settles for a brisk recap in the first of his film's two hours. And, predictably, he stirs it into an over-the-top, at times tendentious replay of a Bush hater's greatest hits: Katherine Harris, the Supreme Court, Harken Energy, AWOL in Alabama, the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, the lazy Crawford vacation of August 2001, the Patriot Act. But then the movie veers off in another direction entirely. Moore takes the same hairpin turn the country has over the past 14 months and crash-lands into the gripping story that is unfolding in real time right now.
.
Wasn't it just weeks ago that we were debating whether we should see the coffins of the American dead and whether Ted Koppel should read their names on "Nightline"? In "Fahrenheit 9/11," we see the actual dying, of American troops and Iraqi civilians alike, with all the ripped flesh and spilled guts that the violence of war entails. We also see some of the 4,000-plus American casualties: those troops hidden away in clinics at Walter Reed and at Blanchfield Army Community Hospital in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where they try to cope with nerve damage and multiple severed limbs. They are not silent. They talk about their pain and their morphine, and they talk about betrayal. "I was a Republican for quite a few years," one soldier says with an almost innocent air of bafflement, "and for some reason they conduct business in a very dishonest way."
.
Perhaps the most damning sequence in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the one showing American troops as they ridicule hooded Iraqis in a holding pen near Samara in December 2003. A male soldier touches the erection of a prisoner lying on a stretcher underneath a blanket, an intimation of the sexual humiliations that were happening at Abu Ghraib at that same time. Besides adding further corroboration to Seymour Hersh's report that the top command has sanctioned a culture of abuse not confined to a single prison or a single company or seven guards, this video raises another question: Why didn't we see any of this on American TV before "60 Minutes II"?
.
The New York Times reported in March 2003 that Americans were using hooding and other inhumane techniques at CIA interrogation centers in Afghanistan and elsewhere. CNN reported on Jan. 20, after the U.S. Army quietly announced its criminal investigation into prison abuses, that "U.S. soldiers reportedly posed for photographs with partially unclothed Iraqi prisoners." And there the matter stood for months, even though, as we know now, soldiers' relatives with knowledge of these incidents were repeatedly trying to alert Congress and news organizations to the full panorama of the story.
.
Moore says he obtained his video from an independent foreign journalist embedded with the Americans. "We've had this footage in our possession for two months," he says. "I saw it before any of the Abu Ghraib news broke. I think it's pretty embarrassing that a guy like me with a high-school education and with no training in journalism can do this. What the hell is going on here? It's pathetic."
.
The movie's second hour is carried by the wrenching story of Lila Lipscomb, a flag-waving, self-described "conservative Democrat" from Moore's hometown of Flint, Michigan, whose son, Sergeant Michael Pedersen, was killed in Iraq. We watch Lipscomb, who "always hated" antiwar protesters, come undone with grief and rage. She clutches her son's last letter home and reads it aloud, her shaking voice and hand contrasting with his precise handwriting on lined notebook paper.
.
Sergeant Pedersen thanks his mother for sending "the bible and books and candy," but not before writing of the president: "He got us out here for nothing whatsoever. I am so furious right now, Mama." By this point, Moore's jokes have vanished from "Fahrenheit 9/11." So, pretty much, has Moore himself. He can't resist underlining one moral at the end, but by then the audience, crushed by the needlessness of Lipscomb's loss, is ready to listen. Speaking of America's volunteer army, Moore concludes: "They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is, remarkably, their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?"
.
A particularly unappetizing spectacle in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is provided by Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of both the administration's Iraqi fixation and its doctrine of "preventive" war. We watch him stick his comb in his mouth until it is wet with spit, after which he runs it through his hair. This is not the image we usually see of the deputy defense secretary, who has been ritualistically presented in the U.S. press as the most refined of intellectuals - a guy with, as Barbara Bush would have it, a beautiful mind.
.
No one would ever accuse Moore of having a beautiful mind. Subtleties and fine distinctions are not his thing. That matters very little, it turns out, when you have a story this ugly and this powerful to tell.
.
The New York Times (end of article)
I can't wait to see this movie... 😎
Frank Rich: Beautiful minds and ugly truths
Frank Rich NYT Friday, May 21, 2004
NEW YORK "But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? And watch him suffer." - Barbara Bush on "Good Morning America," March 18, 2003.
.
She needn't have worried. Her son wasn't suffering. In one of the several pieces of startling video exhibited for the first time in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," we catch a candid glimpse of President George Bush about 36 hours after his mother's breakfast TV interview - minutes before he makes his own prime-time TV address to take the nation to war in Iraq. He is sitting at his desk in the Oval Office. A makeup woman is doing his face. And Bush is having a high old time. He darts his eyes about and grins, as if he were playing a peek-a-boo game with someone just off-camera. He could be a teenager goofing with his buds to relieve the passing tedium of a haircut.
.
"In your wildest dreams you couldn't imagine Franklin Roosevelt behaving this way 30 seconds before declaring war, with grave decisions and their consequences at stake," said Moore in an interview before his new documentary's premiere at Cannes last Monday. "But that may be giving him credit for thinking that the decisions were grave." As we spoke, the consequences of those decisions kept coming. The premiere of "Fahrenheit 9/11" took place as news spread of the assassination of a widely admired post-Saddam Iraqi leader, Ezzedine Salim, blown up by a suicide bomber just a hundred yards from the entrance to America's "safe" headquarters in Baghdad, the Green Zone.
.
Whatever you think of Moore, there's no question he's detonating dynamite here. From a variety of sources - foreign journalists and broadcasters (like Britain's Channel Four), freelancers and sympathetic American TV workers who slipped him illicit video - he supplies war-time pictures that have been largely shielded from our view. Instead of recycling images of the planes hitting the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, once again, Moore can revel in extended new close-ups of the president continuing to read "My Pet Goat" to elementary school students in Florida for seven long minutes after learning of the attack. Just when Abu Ghraib and the savage beheading of Nicholas Berg make us think we've seen it all, here is yet another major escalation in the nation-jolting images that have become the battleground for the war about the war.
.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is not the movie Moore watchers, fans or foes, were expecting. (If it were, the foes would find it easier to ignore.) When he first announced this project last year after his boorish Oscar-night diatribe against Bush, he described it as an exposé of the connections between the Bush and bin Laden dynasties. But that story has been so strenuously told elsewhere that it's no longer news.
.
Moore settles for a brisk recap in the first of his film's two hours. And, predictably, he stirs it into an over-the-top, at times tendentious replay of a Bush hater's greatest hits: Katherine Harris, the Supreme Court, Harken Energy, AWOL in Alabama, the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, the lazy Crawford vacation of August 2001, the Patriot Act. But then the movie veers off in another direction entirely. Moore takes the same hairpin turn the country has over the past 14 months and crash-lands into the gripping story that is unfolding in real time right now.
.
Wasn't it just weeks ago that we were debating whether we should see the coffins of the American dead and whether Ted Koppel should read their names on "Nightline"? In "Fahrenheit 9/11," we see the actual dying, of American troops and Iraqi civilians alike, with all the ripped flesh and spilled guts that the violence of war entails. We also see some of the 4,000-plus American casualties: those troops hidden away in clinics at Walter Reed and at Blanchfield Army Community Hospital in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where they try to cope with nerve damage and multiple severed limbs. They are not silent. They talk about their pain and their morphine, and they talk about betrayal. "I was a Republican for quite a few years," one soldier says with an almost innocent air of bafflement, "and for some reason they conduct business in a very dishonest way."
.
Perhaps the most damning sequence in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the one showing American troops as they ridicule hooded Iraqis in a holding pen near Samara in December 2003. A male soldier touches the erection of a prisoner lying on a stretcher underneath a blanket, an intimation of the sexual humiliations that were happening at Abu Ghraib at that same time. Besides adding further corroboration to Seymour Hersh's report that the top command has sanctioned a culture of abuse not confined to a single prison or a single company or seven guards, this video raises another question: Why didn't we see any of this on American TV before "60 Minutes II"?
.
The New York Times reported in March 2003 that Americans were using hooding and other inhumane techniques at CIA interrogation centers in Afghanistan and elsewhere. CNN reported on Jan. 20, after the U.S. Army quietly announced its criminal investigation into prison abuses, that "U.S. soldiers reportedly posed for photographs with partially unclothed Iraqi prisoners." And there the matter stood for months, even though, as we know now, soldiers' relatives with knowledge of these incidents were repeatedly trying to alert Congress and news organizations to the full panorama of the story.
.
Moore says he obtained his video from an independent foreign journalist embedded with the Americans. "We've had this footage in our possession for two months," he says. "I saw it before any of the Abu Ghraib news broke. I think it's pretty embarrassing that a guy like me with a high-school education and with no training in journalism can do this. What the hell is going on here? It's pathetic."
.
The movie's second hour is carried by the wrenching story of Lila Lipscomb, a flag-waving, self-described "conservative Democrat" from Moore's hometown of Flint, Michigan, whose son, Sergeant Michael Pedersen, was killed in Iraq. We watch Lipscomb, who "always hated" antiwar protesters, come undone with grief and rage. She clutches her son's last letter home and reads it aloud, her shaking voice and hand contrasting with his precise handwriting on lined notebook paper.
.
Sergeant Pedersen thanks his mother for sending "the bible and books and candy," but not before writing of the president: "He got us out here for nothing whatsoever. I am so furious right now, Mama." By this point, Moore's jokes have vanished from "Fahrenheit 9/11." So, pretty much, has Moore himself. He can't resist underlining one moral at the end, but by then the audience, crushed by the needlessness of Lipscomb's loss, is ready to listen. Speaking of America's volunteer army, Moore concludes: "They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is, remarkably, their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?"
.
A particularly unappetizing spectacle in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is provided by Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of both the administration's Iraqi fixation and its doctrine of "preventive" war. We watch him stick his comb in his mouth until it is wet with spit, after which he runs it through his hair. This is not the image we usually see of the deputy defense secretary, who has been ritualistically presented in the U.S. press as the most refined of intellectuals - a guy with, as Barbara Bush would have it, a beautiful mind.
.
No one would ever accuse Moore of having a beautiful mind. Subtleties and fine distinctions are not his thing. That matters very little, it turns out, when you have a story this ugly and this powerful to tell.
.
The New York Times (end of article)
I can't wait to see this movie... 😎
BOFH666 said:
I strongly disagree. I think these sites do an outstanding job of exposing Moore for the fraud he is.
The Times review means little to me. Quite frankly, I stopped reading the New York Times after the internal memos regarding it's editorial and employment practices came out. Which, as a life-long reader and New Yorker, was rather painful.
While I'm quite sure that many on this board have as low an opinion of the Wall Street Journal as I do of the New York Times, I would still like to share this recent piece concerning this film, since we're on the subject of it:
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Isn't to Be Confused With Truth Telling WSJ, May 11, 2004; Page A4
By ALAN MURRAY
Walt Disney Co.'s decision to stop its Miramax Films division from distributing agitprop filmmaker Michael Moore's new movie can be called many things. But "censorship" isn't one of them.
Is Walt Disney worried about rupturing carefully cultivated relationships with Republican leaders in Washington and Tallahassee? You bet. Is the company that distributes Sean Hannity's conservative radio show being disingenuous when it says it doesn't want to put out a political polemic in an election year? No question about it.
But Disney officials say they made it clear when the company first invested in the project a year ago that it didn't want Miramax distributing the film. And there's nothing in the First Amendment that compels a company to promote a politically charged movie against its will.
The only harm caused by Disney's decision is to its own bottom line. Mr. Moore's films make oodles of money, and lots of companies will be happy to pick up where the Mouse House leaves off. Moreover, the publicity surrounding all this ensures more people will see "Fahrenheit 9/11," not fewer. That is too bad, because this is a movie that will inflame the nation's political debate, not inform it. It is based, in part, on a false premise, and it would be better if it sinks into obscurity.
To be fair, I haven't seen the film -- Miramax hasn't made it available. And my employers are balking at my proposal to spend the next week in Cannes, where it is being screened at that French resort's annual film festival.
But I have read a synopsis, provided by Miramax. It says the film explores, among other things, President Bush's "close personal friendships and business ties with the bin Laden and Saudi royal families" and culminates "in the decision to allow bin Laden family members to fly out of the country days [after Sept. 11, 2001] without FBI questioning." Mr. Moore makes the same charge in his book, "Dude, Where's My Country?" "While thousands were stranded and could not fly," he writes, "if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in U.S. history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!" This would be a shocking charge...if it were true. But it isn't.
The Saudi flights -- including "Air Laden" -- have been investigated exhaustively by the 9/11 Commission, which carries no water for the president. Staffers found that there were indeed six chartered flights, carrying 142 people, most of whom were Saudi nationals, which left the U.S. between Sept. 14, 2001, and Sept. 24, 2001. But contrary to Mr. Moore's claims, not one left until after commercial airspace reopened and normal flights resumed. Moreover, the Federal Bureau of Investigation screened all passengers to ensure that no one of interest to various terror investigations was aboard.
The infamous "bin Laden" flight left on Sept. 20 with 26 passengers, most of them members of the sprawling bin Laden family. Contrary to Mr. Moore's claim, however, the FBI interviewed 22 of those passengers, and checked all of them against various databases. There was no indication that any of them had been in recent contact with Osama bin Laden, or had been involved in questionable activity. The 9/11 Commission staff ran all 142 names against an updated terror watch list again this spring, and again came up with no matches.
The commission also found no evidence that the flights resulted from high-level Saudi contacts with the White House. They seem to have originated with lower-level contacts with the FBI, which apparently was delighted to have these Saudi nationals located, gathered in one place, made available for questioning and allowed to leave the country. Even Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism official turned White House nemesis, agreed the flights were of no particular concern.
Most of this is public record, readily accessible to Mr. Moore. When I pointed this out to him yesterday, he said: "I'm going to stick with the FBI agent who speaks on camera in my movie. The normal procedures were not followed."
Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey urged his colleagues last week to investigate Disney's actions. He fears too much media concentrated in too few corporate hands could become tantamount to censorship. "It's worrisome as hell to me," he said.
But the "Fahrenheit 9/11" saga proves the opposite. The film will be distributed, no matter how much media magnates like Mr. Eisner kowtow to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas. As the photos of abused Iraqi prisoners now flying around the Internet prove, no one has control of today's media. As long as there are people who want to see films like Mr. Moore's, they will get out.
That is the good news. The bad news is that in today's freewheeling media environment, consumers seem increasingly unable to distinguish truth from fiction, news from polemic, reality from fantasy. The danger isn't that people won't see Mr. Moore's film. The danger is they will see it...and believe it.
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Isn't to Be Confused With Truth Telling WSJ, May 11, 2004; Page A4
By ALAN MURRAY
Walt Disney Co.'s decision to stop its Miramax Films division from distributing agitprop filmmaker Michael Moore's new movie can be called many things. But "censorship" isn't one of them.
Is Walt Disney worried about rupturing carefully cultivated relationships with Republican leaders in Washington and Tallahassee? You bet. Is the company that distributes Sean Hannity's conservative radio show being disingenuous when it says it doesn't want to put out a political polemic in an election year? No question about it.
But Disney officials say they made it clear when the company first invested in the project a year ago that it didn't want Miramax distributing the film. And there's nothing in the First Amendment that compels a company to promote a politically charged movie against its will.
The only harm caused by Disney's decision is to its own bottom line. Mr. Moore's films make oodles of money, and lots of companies will be happy to pick up where the Mouse House leaves off. Moreover, the publicity surrounding all this ensures more people will see "Fahrenheit 9/11," not fewer. That is too bad, because this is a movie that will inflame the nation's political debate, not inform it. It is based, in part, on a false premise, and it would be better if it sinks into obscurity.
To be fair, I haven't seen the film -- Miramax hasn't made it available. And my employers are balking at my proposal to spend the next week in Cannes, where it is being screened at that French resort's annual film festival.
But I have read a synopsis, provided by Miramax. It says the film explores, among other things, President Bush's "close personal friendships and business ties with the bin Laden and Saudi royal families" and culminates "in the decision to allow bin Laden family members to fly out of the country days [after Sept. 11, 2001] without FBI questioning." Mr. Moore makes the same charge in his book, "Dude, Where's My Country?" "While thousands were stranded and could not fly," he writes, "if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in U.S. history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!" This would be a shocking charge...if it were true. But it isn't.
The Saudi flights -- including "Air Laden" -- have been investigated exhaustively by the 9/11 Commission, which carries no water for the president. Staffers found that there were indeed six chartered flights, carrying 142 people, most of whom were Saudi nationals, which left the U.S. between Sept. 14, 2001, and Sept. 24, 2001. But contrary to Mr. Moore's claims, not one left until after commercial airspace reopened and normal flights resumed. Moreover, the Federal Bureau of Investigation screened all passengers to ensure that no one of interest to various terror investigations was aboard.
The infamous "bin Laden" flight left on Sept. 20 with 26 passengers, most of them members of the sprawling bin Laden family. Contrary to Mr. Moore's claim, however, the FBI interviewed 22 of those passengers, and checked all of them against various databases. There was no indication that any of them had been in recent contact with Osama bin Laden, or had been involved in questionable activity. The 9/11 Commission staff ran all 142 names against an updated terror watch list again this spring, and again came up with no matches.
The commission also found no evidence that the flights resulted from high-level Saudi contacts with the White House. They seem to have originated with lower-level contacts with the FBI, which apparently was delighted to have these Saudi nationals located, gathered in one place, made available for questioning and allowed to leave the country. Even Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism official turned White House nemesis, agreed the flights were of no particular concern.
Most of this is public record, readily accessible to Mr. Moore. When I pointed this out to him yesterday, he said: "I'm going to stick with the FBI agent who speaks on camera in my movie. The normal procedures were not followed."
Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey urged his colleagues last week to investigate Disney's actions. He fears too much media concentrated in too few corporate hands could become tantamount to censorship. "It's worrisome as hell to me," he said.
But the "Fahrenheit 9/11" saga proves the opposite. The film will be distributed, no matter how much media magnates like Mr. Eisner kowtow to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas. As the photos of abused Iraqi prisoners now flying around the Internet prove, no one has control of today's media. As long as there are people who want to see films like Mr. Moore's, they will get out.
That is the good news. The bad news is that in today's freewheeling media environment, consumers seem increasingly unable to distinguish truth from fiction, news from polemic, reality from fantasy. The danger isn't that people won't see Mr. Moore's film. The danger is they will see it...and believe it.
LOL - sorry, but any piece that tries to comment on something where this is said:
lacks a certain credibility. In fact, it reminds me of the Catholic Church condeming Kevin Smith's Dogma without even seeing the film when in fact it's one of the strongest works i've seen with regards religion and what the true message is about. Okay, aside from the poop monster, fair enough, I'll give you that one.
One thing that does jump out from this article, and that is quite ironic when you think about it, is that the author is using exactly the same types of tactics that he implies Mr Moore uses. Specifically the author aims at a big target he wishes to discredit ("It says the film explores, among other things, President Bush's "close personal friendships and business ties with the bin Laden and Saudi royal families"") and then focuses on a single part of the issue to discredit the whole. Cheap journalism.
I'd also suggest that at this point ANYTHING that gets people interested in politics is a good thing. I can't recall the exact number off the top of my head, but didn't the winning party have about a quarter of the votes of the population as the turnout was somewhere in the 50% region. And of course Bush had slightly less than that 😉
Mike, I do have one question for you. When you said you "strongly disagree" was that a comment on the validity of the sources you quoted, or on the issues of 'if it makes you think, it's worthwhile' and the simple fact that ALL information presented to the public is biased in some way?
lacks a certain credibility. In fact, it reminds me of the Catholic Church condeming Kevin Smith's Dogma without even seeing the film when in fact it's one of the strongest works i've seen with regards religion and what the true message is about. Okay, aside from the poop monster, fair enough, I'll give you that one.
One thing that does jump out from this article, and that is quite ironic when you think about it, is that the author is using exactly the same types of tactics that he implies Mr Moore uses. Specifically the author aims at a big target he wishes to discredit ("It says the film explores, among other things, President Bush's "close personal friendships and business ties with the bin Laden and Saudi royal families"") and then focuses on a single part of the issue to discredit the whole. Cheap journalism.
I'd also suggest that at this point ANYTHING that gets people interested in politics is a good thing. I can't recall the exact number off the top of my head, but didn't the winning party have about a quarter of the votes of the population as the turnout was somewhere in the 50% region. And of course Bush had slightly less than that 😉
Mike, I do have one question for you. When you said you "strongly disagree" was that a comment on the validity of the sources you quoted, or on the issues of 'if it makes you think, it's worthwhile' and the simple fact that ALL information presented to the public is biased in some way?
BOFH666 said:
If you have a serious question, feel free to share it. But asking if I disagree with the very sources I posted and refer to is at least as cheap as the journalism that you claim to despise. Regarding someone as an idiot wins you few points in debate, and discourages people from taking part in the very dialogue you claim so worthwhile for it's value in 'making people think.' You're boarding on some very transparent hypocrisy.
With regard to the rest of your post, you complain about the author rebutting claims that the film makes. These claims are made by Michael Moore. You need not see the movie to ask about issues that, according to Michael Moore himself, are the subject of the film. It's in the press releases, it's in his interviews. And the author of the article asked him about them. I found Moore's answer quite lacking. So did the author. So what?
MikeMike said:
Huh? Sorry, I was a little unclear in my wording (hey, it's midnight gone on a Sunday night, typo's are going to happen). It should have read
"When you said you "strongly disagree" was that a comment regarding my take on the validity of the sources you quoted, or on the issues of 'if it makes you think, it's worthwhile' and the simple fact that ALL information presented to the public is biased in some way?"
No you do not need to see the movie to ask about the subjects of the film, but I'd suggest you DO need to see the film to make specific criticisms of the points raised and that you cannot discount an entire movie on the basis of one point.
BOFH666 said:
I see. I strongly disagree that these sources are to be discounted out of hand. Really, take the time to read the Hardylaw.net link. He simply illustrates that Moore has lied time and again. He's quite methodical about it.
BOFH666 said:
The author's attacks on the movie strike me as being towards the heart of the film, although you're right, I have not seen it. But with that said, I find Moore's response to this point lacking, and if he can't adequetely defend himself on this issue, and on the basis of what I regard to be a very questionable track record, I'm reluctant to put any stock into this film.
On that note, do you think that most of the pro-Moore folks posting here will be viewing Michael Moore Hates America, the link to which I refered to earlier? Personally, I doubt it.
red indian
2nd Level Yellow Feather
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
- Messages
- 3,442
- Points
- 0
Just for you Cosmo............
......and anyone else who thinks Moore is a" serious documentary maker" This was my take on "Bowling for Columbine"........................."Blimey!......where to start......
.....one thing that really pissed me off right through the film was his tendancy to take the piss out of people he did not aggree with, but allow people he did aggree with to give uninterrupted lectures, free of any flippant interjections, while he nodds sagely in response to their every word. This was very unfair regardless of what point he was trying to make with the film.
His attempt to compare America and Canada regarding levels of crime was very confusing, he made the point that the American media blows any news story about shootings out of all proportion to the reality on the streets, and we are then shown Moore wondering around on the notorious streets of L.A. where the riots took place a few years back, the point being (I assume) that things are not as bad as they are made out, then we are taken to Canada and shown the benign laid back life style there, which contrasts starkly with the terrifying urban jungled night mare of America, and he asks why the Americans can not be more like this? but of course....er......well they ARE more like this because its all just media hype any way and you can walk around the so called danger areas of L.A. with out fear......mmmm yes Mr Moore, I think you just dissapeared up your own arse mate!
His use of statistics was extremely dishonest, we are given the numbers of deaths as a result of gun crime in a given year, for Britain, Canada and Japan amongst others, all of which were in the low hundreds or less, and then.......wait for it........(big drum roll).....America....12000!!!!......wow!!!! no mention of the fact you could probably put the entire population of those other countries on Statten Island.
I found the use of what Moore no doubt thinks is witty urbane irony, very heavy handed and predictable, footage of American marching bands playing Sousa marches at ticker tape carnivals, cut with images of the Vietnam war for instance, has been done to death by much better film makers 30 years ago, and its just boring and felt very second hand. Lets face it chaps you just can not do sarcasm or irony, leave it to us Brits eh?
His attempt to integrate American intervention in Yougoslavia with American domestic gun culture was pathetic, and given that he is supposed to be a man on a mission to seek the truth we could have done with some honest facts about American intervention in the Balkans such as the fact that the entire world community were practically begging the U.S. to go in there and sort out the mess!! total silence from Mr Truth Seeker on this point.
I loved Moores barely concealed dissapointment when the Wall Mart executive announced the ending of ammuntion sales, this was clearly not what he had wanted, another chance to mock and humillate in public people who dont aggree with him had gone up in smoke.
I found his dishonest and cowardly interveiw with Charton Heston very irritating, I just kept thinking "for gods sake man put your fucking cards on the table and GET ON WITH IT!!!" I ended up feeling sorry for Heston, which i am sure was not the idea of the interview
Then of course we get the cloying sentimentality, which even the great truth seeking anti American Mr Moore can not resist, when he leaves the picture of the dead child on Hestons drive. This just made me feel even more sorry for Heston, what ever he is, he is not a child murderer or an advocate in favour of school gun massacres. It also made me think Micheal Moore is a twat."
__________________
Tally Ho!
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
01-18-2003 07:07 PM
......and anyone else who thinks Moore is a" serious documentary maker" This was my take on "Bowling for Columbine"........................."Blimey!......where to start......
.....one thing that really pissed me off right through the film was his tendancy to take the piss out of people he did not aggree with, but allow people he did aggree with to give uninterrupted lectures, free of any flippant interjections, while he nodds sagely in response to their every word. This was very unfair regardless of what point he was trying to make with the film.
His attempt to compare America and Canada regarding levels of crime was very confusing, he made the point that the American media blows any news story about shootings out of all proportion to the reality on the streets, and we are then shown Moore wondering around on the notorious streets of L.A. where the riots took place a few years back, the point being (I assume) that things are not as bad as they are made out, then we are taken to Canada and shown the benign laid back life style there, which contrasts starkly with the terrifying urban jungled night mare of America, and he asks why the Americans can not be more like this? but of course....er......well they ARE more like this because its all just media hype any way and you can walk around the so called danger areas of L.A. with out fear......mmmm yes Mr Moore, I think you just dissapeared up your own arse mate!
His use of statistics was extremely dishonest, we are given the numbers of deaths as a result of gun crime in a given year, for Britain, Canada and Japan amongst others, all of which were in the low hundreds or less, and then.......wait for it........(big drum roll).....America....12000!!!!......wow!!!! no mention of the fact you could probably put the entire population of those other countries on Statten Island.
I found the use of what Moore no doubt thinks is witty urbane irony, very heavy handed and predictable, footage of American marching bands playing Sousa marches at ticker tape carnivals, cut with images of the Vietnam war for instance, has been done to death by much better film makers 30 years ago, and its just boring and felt very second hand. Lets face it chaps you just can not do sarcasm or irony, leave it to us Brits eh?
His attempt to integrate American intervention in Yougoslavia with American domestic gun culture was pathetic, and given that he is supposed to be a man on a mission to seek the truth we could have done with some honest facts about American intervention in the Balkans such as the fact that the entire world community were practically begging the U.S. to go in there and sort out the mess!! total silence from Mr Truth Seeker on this point.
I loved Moores barely concealed dissapointment when the Wall Mart executive announced the ending of ammuntion sales, this was clearly not what he had wanted, another chance to mock and humillate in public people who dont aggree with him had gone up in smoke.
I found his dishonest and cowardly interveiw with Charton Heston very irritating, I just kept thinking "for gods sake man put your fucking cards on the table and GET ON WITH IT!!!" I ended up feeling sorry for Heston, which i am sure was not the idea of the interview
Then of course we get the cloying sentimentality, which even the great truth seeking anti American Mr Moore can not resist, when he leaves the picture of the dead child on Hestons drive. This just made me feel even more sorry for Heston, what ever he is, he is not a child murderer or an advocate in favour of school gun massacres. It also made me think Micheal Moore is a twat."
__________________
Tally Ho!
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
01-18-2003 07:07 PM
General Zod
Level of Triple Jade Feather
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Messages
- 70,462
- Points
- 0
Wonder if he will do Bowling For Waco?
I wonder if Michael Morre will ever do a "Documentary" on the screw up that happened at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas back in 1993 I wonder if that idiot shed any tears for the slaughter of those civilians by the FBI/ATF Or did he think that only if they let the Feds in everything would be ok
I wonder if Michael Morre will ever do a "Documentary" on the screw up that happened at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas back in 1993 I wonder if that idiot shed any tears for the slaughter of those civilians by the FBI/ATF Or did he think that only if they let the Feds in everything would be ok
MrMacphisto
Level of Lime Feather
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2002
- Messages
- 13,908
- Points
- 0
babinsky said:
I noticed this response in the thread earlier and found it to be deeply true. Of course, we can blame human nature for this pathetic tendency. Yeah, I know most of you know I'm the "left-wing loose cannon" type most of the time, but if the quote I'm pointing out wasn't true, then maybe I'd feel more comfortable speaking on more cordial terms with those that are ideologically opposed to me. Granted, venray and a few other conservatives here seem more moderate, and I can communicate with them civilly. As for Buggs and MikeMike, you're the kind of reactionaries that almost make me hope that Bush gets re-elected so this arrogant culture of ours finally takes a well-earned nose dive into nuclear oblivion.
I'm sure Michael Moore makes up a few things in his documentaries, but how is this any different from people like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, or any other morons you people idolize? Not taking everything Moore produces as gospel is a good thing; you're thinking for yourselves by doing so. However, I have a feeling that you people turn around and fall prey to the lies of the ultra-conservatives in the same way that some fall prey to the lies of ultra-liberals. Maybe if more people practiced thinking for themselves and truly did "unbiased" research, we wouldn't have such idiotic leaders in office these days, because we'd actually elect someone intelligent for a change....
