Fahreneit 9/11 Redux

[Pure]

Jeez, Lord wakes from his snooze in the ole' Republican rocking chair and delivers an opinion-- with no evidence as usual. Dozes off again; all's right in his dream world.

Tell me Lord, on election day, for President, why should Democrats vote in Republican stronghold states (like Mississippi) ---let's say, those states have been polled to confirm this, just prior to election. *Under the electoral system, state by state, these votes simply go down the drain.

----

Lest it be said I'm counselling apathy: A better strategy for Dems in the south is to go to the 8 or 10 swing states, like Ohio, and work like hell for Kerry, there.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

An article in the Op-Ed section of the Chicago Tribune of Sunday, 7/18, has just reiterated what I’d said originally regarding the flick: that by bundling his criticism of the Iraqi war and the War on Terror with his ad hominem attacks on Bush, Moore has alienated those parts of the public that he should have been trying to reach. I should mention that the Tribune, long a Republican paper, has been unusually harsh on their criticism of Bush’s foreign policy and on the war in general, so this is not just a knee-jerk editorial response to the film on their part.

I think Colly as a perfect case in point. She might have gone to see the film had it been based solely on fact and excluded the gratuitous Bush-bashing, but as it is, she can dismiss the whole things as Democratic agitprop, tossing the baby out along with the bathwater.

There are very serious and legitimate questions about the whole Iraq operation and the direction the country is headed in with this Orwellian “War on Terror”, and they really need to be laid before the public objectively and without bias. Moore had a chance to do that, and in my opinion he blew it.

It’s difficult almost to the point of impossibility to provide people with the opportunity to stand back and take an objective look at what their nation has done and is doing in the world. “My country, right or wrong” is still the philosophy of most Americans, and no one wants to look at a war that Americans have fought and died in and have to even consider the possibility that it was a mistake and that lives were simply wasted to no good purpose. You can see their reaction to that suggestion here and on numerous other threads.

Moore had a chance to objectiviely present the facts but he didn’t, and I think that’s a tragedy, and a good example of why ad hominem attacks should always be avoided.

---dr.M.

 

[cantdog]

Yeah, never call the hyena a hyena if you want to keep the discussion rational. Describe the behavior of a particular hyena as having a particular effect.

I think Colly as a perfect case in point. She might have gone to see the film had it been based solely on fact and excluded the gratuitous Bush-bashing, but as it is, she can dismiss the whole things as Democratic agitprop, tossing the baby out along with the bathwater.

There are very serious and legitimate questions about the whole Iraq operation and the direction the country is headed in with this Orwellian “War on Terror”, and they really need to be laid before the public objectively and without bias. Moore had a chance to do that, and in my opinion he blew it.

It’s difficult almost to the point of impossibility to provide people with the opportunity to stand back and take an objective look at what their nation has done and is doing in the world. “My country, right or wrong” is still the philosophy of most Americans, and no one wants to look at a war that Americans have fought and died in and have to even consider the possibility that it was a mistake and that lives were simply wasted to no good purpose. You can see their reaction to that suggestion here and on numerous other threads.

Moore had a chance to objectiviely present the facts but he didn’t, and I think that’s a tragedy, and a good example of why ad hominem attacks should always be avoided.

Or sit at home and do nothing, sometimes. The pundits and spin folks who tell these people what to think will call you a hyena. The fellow in the weapons search team in Iraq who objectively reported what he'd found and dared to suggest that Chalabi had never had good information was vilified in the op-eds for weeks for being in Saddam's pocket. Ad hominem.

Nader is described as a neurotic with a Narcissus complex. Casually, as though this were an objective fact.

You're right, Zoot. Let's leave the ad hominem to the righties. If you want to change things, you have to play by the Queensberry rules, stick strictly to facts! The other side may ignore that and by the way also manage to sway public opinion, but let's be strictly truthful, detached, factual and dry, you and I, and lose.

King's speech in Washington (I have a dream today...) didn't stick strictly to the facts but it did sway public opinion. He cast aspersions on the people of a whole state in that.

But we got mighty high standards. We don't go around pointing fingers at lying, torturing hyenas and attacking them for it. Panderers to the oil industry will receive only well-documented upbraidings from us.

And the country at large will ignore us and believe the rabid attacks and deliberate slurs of the defenders of these filth.

Sorry, in a bad mood.

 

[cantdog]

An article in the Op-Ed section of the Chicago Tribune of Sunday, 7/18, has just reiterated what I’d said originally regarding the flick: that by bundling his criticism of the Iraqi war and the War on Terror with his ad hominem attacks on Bush, Moore has alienated those parts of the public that he should have been trying to reach. I should mention that the Tribune, long a Republican paper, has been unusually harsh on their criticism of Bush’s foreign policy and on the war in general, so this is not just a knee-jerk editorial response to the film on their part.

But they seem to be wrong when they say that, according to the reports received about actual people who saw the film. Check shereads' post again, about the reactions to the film in Oklahoma, Peoria, and whatnot. The impression of the film's alienation of the very people... is distinctly lacking when you go ask what effect the film has on real viewers, instead of spinning op-ed columns comfortably at your desk without asking if what you say reflects anything but your own secret wishes.

cantdog

 

[GratefulFred]

Only way to make republicans change...

...is by showing them how much fun they are missing out by keeping to their repressive conservative religious values. Bill Clinton, 4 years removed, the truth of the matter is not being bashed by republican guys for his stance on certain issues (which all politicians do flip flops) but the fact that he got a blow job, fooled around, smoked some stuff and had that Kennedy cool about him and most republican guys inwardly think of him as a stud but outwardly they attack him since the marketing effort of this religious right has been to brainwash people into believing that they alone set the standards for morality. This election is not based on truth for the majority of republican guys and their go along females, but on people accepting a repressed (but they call a moral) society as being better then a free (but they call immoral) society.

Thus MM's film has little impact. Only by a flush of films or other media that shows all the fun us liberals have will this wall of ice be broken and a true shift emerge. "The Passion of Priests" would first be a wake up call that the religious establishments have been abusing kids thus creating the first doubts, and then a bunch of summer beach films where dems get laid and republican are the stereotypical nerds. Only this way will America move ahead socially.

Of course my rock opera addresses all these issues. But who is little Freddy in the big scheme of things anyways?

By the way I did also write a short tale Farenheit 411 which is pending approval. Just a satirical piece like many I write and take not at all serious since life is too short but thank god some things are not (boing).

That's my two italian lira for ya. Please don't spend it in too many places and no converting to euros while I'm not hooking.

 

[Pure]

Good points, cant.

I've said the film is too Bush centered, and that's a problem in terms of explaining the attack on Iraq. But the criticism that the film is a 'personal attack' don't have much validity. And, as you say, the impact on viewers is misassessed, imo.

The film does not just say, "Bush is an idiot; a jerk; a crook." Almost all of the film is clips, either 'real events' of history, or 'staged, *but real* events, like approaching congresspersons.'

Bush's mumblings, blank stares, playful looks, etc are real events, and I believe have an impact. Even admirers must grit their teeth. I love the part where Bush is trying to state a supposed Texas saying "You trick me once, you're a fool; You trick me twice, _I'm a fool."

It's easy for op ed persons to claim some part of audience is 'alienated' THAT COULD HAVE BEEN WON OVER. But no proof is ever offered. The counterargument is that the film is so devastating on Bush, that only the diehards will write it off; those who would vote for him, if he was on videotape fucking his daughters.

Mab, I like to see any proof that a revised Moore wouldn't be written off by Colly.

I would like to see *evidence as to the effect on 'independents' and break down Republican leaning and Democrat leading. "Independents" like amicus and 'wildman-ky' do not count, in my book.

By the way, mab, the new film on al jazeera ('the control room') is supposed to be more calm, and very effective. Seen it? Anyone?

 

[shereads]

But they seem to be wrong when they say that, according to the reports received about actual people who saw the film. Check shereads' post again, about the reactions to the film in Oklahoma, Peoria, and whatnot. The impression of the film's alienation of the very people... is distinctly lacking when you go ask what effect the film has on real viewers, instead of spinning op-ed columns comfortably at your desk without asking if what you say reflects anything but your own secret wishes.

cantdog

Thank you for pointing out that Moore's failure has resulted in packed theaters in military towns and Middle America just as it has in Blue State cities; and more importantly, that it's led to open public discussion of the actions, inactions and conflicts of interest that his critics, including Disney/Miramar, worked so hard to keep buried. What an enviable way to fail.

Edited to add: Have I been rude? You're right, I have. That's what happens when I see people killing and dying for trumped-up reasons, in my name, with my tax dollars; when I watch the world dragged into an abyss by an idiot and his greedy handlers; when I see one of their minions conducting a campaign to strip the Constitution of the things that give it meaning; and when the reaction to it all is anger at a filmmaker for calling them on it, and sarcasm directed at the people who care. Rudeness is the most positive response I can muster. I've lost hope.

 

[cantdog]

The man is so badly damaged by a few candid live moments that his supporters call it personal attack. Letting people watch him for even ten minutes makes him look so abysmal they want to shoot the man with the camera.

Sadly, this fragile shell is sitting in the leader's chair this week. Even sadder, many people want his puling infantile face in that office much longer.

 

[shereads]

Do any of y'all (Perdita excepted) realize how rude you've just been to Colly?

I was rude, yes, but I don't believe Pure's initial response was rude at all. He simply pointed out that the accusations about Moore's film from a factual perspective have nearly all been refuted, which elicited a comment about "the fan club," which i guess means those of us who defend the film.

If I didn't already know this was futile, I'm reminded when I see Lord Dragonwing's response to the ongoing plans in Florida to disenfranchise black voters: an unblinking assurance that yes, every vote counts. Screw evidence to the contrary. Those votes do count, they really do! This is America!

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I believe this country needs an enema.

 

[cloudy]

I was rude, yes, but I don't believe Pure's initial response was rude at all. He simply pointed out that the accusations about Moore's film from a factual perspective have nearly all been refuted, which elicited a comment about "the fan club," which i guess means those of us who defend the film.

If I didn't already know this was futile, I'm reminded when I see Lord Dragonwing's response to the ongoing plans in Florida to disenfranchise black voters: an unblinking assurance that yes, every vote counts. Screw evidence to the contrary. Those votes do count, they really do! This is America!

If you'd read her posts, you'd have realized the "fan club" she was referring to was her roommates. She was sincere in thanking everyone for helping her to make an informed decision, and received rudeness in return.

 

[shereads]

If you'd read her posts, you'd have realized the "fan club" she was referring to was her roommates. She was sincere in thanking everyone for helping her to make an informed decision, and received rudeness in return.

I never reply to a post I haven't read. I took a different meaning than you did, which is not unheard of in this medium.

Neither is it fair to assume that Pure, because a lot of us argue with him, is not worthy of a polite response when he offers one. He got a rude response. I took exception.

 

[cloudy]

I never reply to a post I haven't read. I took a different meaning than you did, which is not unheard of in this medium.

Neither is it fair to assume that Pure, because a lot of us argue with him, is not worthy of a polite response when he offers one. He got a rude response. I took exception.

I, too, have learned a lot from reading this thread, but I'll refrain from thanking anyone, just the same.

If I was rude to Pure, it was because he has the habit of debating everything, and tried to turn a statement I'd made into a debate.

Think what you like, that's fine.

I rather agree with Dr. M. above. I might have had the urge to see the film, but have no urge to see bashing of another human, distasteful as his acts may be.

I'm rather tired of the whole "Michael Moore as Genius" thing. Debate the film, sure.....but it's not the truth from on-high.

 

[shereads]

Every vote does count. Unless you leave a chad hanging of course. Then we need a recount.

That's less amusing than you think it is. Thousands of people were disenfranchised in this state and it has cost us our faith in the democratic process.

WTF am I doing here? What is the point of trying to stress the seriousness of what's happened to this country, to people who think it's just dandy to list people as felons and not even tell them about it until they show up to vote? Your boy won, so all is right with the world.

 

[shereads]

My apologies. The current state of politics, and my current dose of Celexa must have a toxic interaction. This is not a good feeling. I can't discuss this crap anymore.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

All in all, I'm more likely than not to re-elect him, this time around.

 

[shereads]

Of course you will. He's doing a fine job.

You follow your conscience, Joe. But when you get to Iraq, don't do anything dangerous just to be a hero, okay?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Good advice.

 

[Clare Quilty]

“My country, right or wrong” is still the philosophy of most Americans

In a perfect world, these people would be summarily rounded up and shot--for their own good.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Minor Point

First off, let me state again for the record that I think this Michael Moore idolatry is sickening and leading to schisms of relationships that have hitherto been well kept. The man is not a genius, not by ideological standards, not by cinematography standards, not by talent standards.

Now, my point. The Trans-Afghani pipeline that Moore has so poorly tried to prove is real. It does exist, Karzai worked for Unocal which was the company backing it. Clinton did stop the plans for it and the negotiations with the Taliban and Buush did reopen said plans. There are still meetings trying to make the pipeline a reality. Read Gas War by Ted Rall for the whole story.

 

[KarenAM]

I find myself in an odd position vis-a-vis this film. On the one hand I hope it is wildly successful, because I feel that for the sake of America and the world Bush and his administration need to be removed in November. I'm extremely troubled by the rhetoric that Bush's defenders seem so fond of adopting, that if you oppose the war in Iraq you are opposed to America and freedom and all that, as if the Bush administration was the sole representative of such values in the world. I'm also troubled when I read veterans telling me that my opinion is less valuable than theirs because I haven't been in combat. I remember a time when people didn't resort to such things to defend their position but rather presented arguments based on actual information, not fear tactics, slander, and a patronizing attitude.

But I won't go and see this film (sorry, Sher). On the surface this country and the world are in a world of trouble because of the immdieate threat of Bush and his Christian Apocalyptic thinking, because starting with Reagan (sorry, Colly) conservatism began to be identified with an increasingly paranoid us-vs-them mentality that pandered to Christian extremists rather than American values, but the problem is much deeper than that. It exists in a national state of delusion that has poisoned the political scene.

Moore is a hate monger, so far as I can tell, just like Franken and Coulter and Hannity and Limbaugh. His message is accurate, to the best of my ability to check such things; Bush is crooked and the Iraq war a waste meant only to enrich the powerful who are close to the White House, and it is illegal (has anyone checked to see if the UN resolutons that Saddam violated contained provisions for an invasion as a response?). But the fact that Moore is successful just as Limbaugh is successful tells me that the American political consciousness is sick indeed. Americans don't want facts, we want packaging, slick sound bytes. We don't want politics unless it is as exciting as the latest exploits of Brittany Spears or Reality TV. We want pundits and "experts" to tell us what to do and what to think, and our mass marketing and mass media systems provide these for us, provided we are willing to fork over our Visa cards, which we don't honestly think we're ever going to have to actually pay off (the national debt is I believe now at about 7 trillion dollars, and consumer debt at 1 trillion). We are, in fact, spoiled, like it or not. And when things fall apart, which they are beginning to do and which they will do much more quickly if Bush is elected (or manages to get reappointed), this country is going to suffer like it hasn't suffered since the Great Depression or even the Civil War. All that Kerry and Edwards would be able to do is damage control.

I think we're screwed, people, and the rest of the world is going to be screwed right along with us, sorry to say.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Clare Quilty
In a perfect world, these people would be summarily rounded up and shot--for their own good.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.

 

[Pure]

Karen AM said,

Moore is a hate monger, so far as I can tell, just like Franken and Coulter and Hannity and Limbaugh.

This is utterly inaccurate. I might add it's based on NOT seeing the film. Coulter and Limbaugh lie and name-call and accusing of traiter-dom all the time.



His message is accurate, to the best of my ability to check such things;

Maybe I misread you in terms of the rest of the sentence. BUT if you mean, he's accurate, then he's not simply a 'hatemonger.'

As I pointed out to Colly, the man's mood is irrelevant. It's as if I say, "Karen, you're wrong about Limbaugh being on TV" and you reply, "But pure, you hate me."

Perhaps you mean, "His message may be accurately summarized as follows, so far as I know:"

Bush is crooked and the Iraq war a waste meant only to enrich the powerful who are close to the White House, and it is illegal (has anyone checked to see if the UN resolutons that Saddam violated contained provisions for an invasion as a response?).

Well, that might pass as a kindergarten summary, but you made it at that level. The thesis that war only enriches a powerful few, is an old marxist/anarchist one (among others) and is generally true. The *quality* (of arguement) issue is in proving the details, as the Marine general did in his article I posted a while back. HOW much did these and these companies make? WHY these and these companies? (in this case, oil).

I might point out that the last of your post shows a clear inconsistency.

And when things fall apart, which they are beginning to do and which they will do much more quickly if Bush is elected (or manages to get reappointed), this country is going to suffer like it hasn't suffered since the Great Depression or even the Civil War. All that Kerry and Edwards would be able to do is damage control.


IF, as you--as a good liberal, afaik-- believe, the country will fall apart "MORE QUICKLY" if Bush is elected, then clearly "hate monger" Moore, in saying, "Vote Bush out." is doing a public service. By your own argument.

----
PS. No one is saying Moore is essential. In fact there is little new in the movie, other than weaving and juxtaposing. So, if you don't see the movie, I trust you'll read Unger, and Woodward, Plan of Attack, and the memoirs of some of Bush's former colleagues; likely you have much of the info, in any case.

 

[shereads]

I rather agree with Dr. M. above. I might have had the urge to see the film, but have no urge to see bashing of another human, distasteful as his acts may be.

The amazing thing about Bush supporters is that they consider it insulting to show him as he is, doing what he does and saying what he says. But his critics are fair game for insults. The man hasn't even committed adultery as far as we know, yet people like Michael Moore feel free to "bash" him because he accidentally started a war with the wrong country.

Debate the film, sure.....but it's not the truth from on-high.

The debate in favor of the film is based on this argument: every one of its main points are demonstrably true.

It didn't require a creative genius to do accomplish that. From a creative standpoint, it's far from Moore's best film.

It did take courage, though. You may have noticed that people who criticise this president are not exactly the flavor of the year with patriotic Americans. Most of us traitors stay under the radar, though. The ones who make themselves too visible do so at substantial risk.

Only the White House can inflict the kind of revenge that Ambassador Wilson was subjected to - and Wilson was someone Bush I once called "a real American hero." Think about this: If you came into possession of damaging information about Bush/Cheney - knowing that when they outed Wilson's wife they not only ended her usefulness as an undercover agent, but put informants and other agents at risk - how willing would you be to go public with what you knew?

That's why I admire Moore. Not because he speaks from on high or even pretends to do so, and not because I think he's a genius. I admire him because injustice doesn't just anger him, it compels him to take action. How many of us can say the same?

The essence of Farenheit 9/11 is told in the words of its major characters: George W. Bush, soldiers in Iraq, soldiers who've come home with missing body parts and are gravely disillusioned with the support they're getting now that they're no longer needed - and most significantly to this thread, a military mom from a family of staunch Bush supporters, who is first seen telling Moore why she hates protesters. By the end of the movie, she is one. Her son dies in Iraq and his last letter home is about how unwelcome our presence is in Iraq, how vague his mission is, how disappointed he is in "George."

She goes to Washington on business and visits the White House "because I needed a place to focus my anger." This grieving mother is accosted by a tourist who accuses her of lying about her son and staging "an act."

It's sickening to see this woman confronting her own disillusionment and pain, and being attacked for it by someone who can't face the truth.

 

[Tanuki]

Doc, I don't think Moore set out to criticize the war. He wants to get Bush out of office, and judging by the film's huge success, he has probably helped that cause. After all, the war is just a symptom of Bush's mentality, not the source of Moore's anger at Bush.

I thought the movie was too humorous and tongue-in-cheek to be considered hateful. Moore is funny, sarcastic, and even thoughtful.
He's not really an educated guy - he criticizes in his own way, which means he's rather loose with the facts.

I know a number of conservatives, and all refuse to see it - the movie is not meant for them.