Skip to main content

From the premier movie critic:
"In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."

That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.

That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.

The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God [...]

The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged [...]

Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.

Now comes "Fahrenheit 9/11," floating on an enormous wave of advance publicity. It inspired a battle of the titans between Disney's Michael Eisner and Miramax's Harvey Weinstein. It won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It has been rated R by the MPAA, and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo has signed up as Moore's lawyer, to challenge the rating. The conservative group Move America Forward, which successfully bounced the mildly critical biopic "The Reagans" off CBS and onto cable, has launched a campaign to discourage theaters from showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."

The campaign will amount to nothing and disgraces Move America Forward by showing it trying to suppress disagreement instead of engaging it. The R rating may stand; there is a real beheading in the film, and only fictional beheadings get the PG-13. Disney and Miramax will survive.

Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies.

I'll be on the road when the movie is released, so I may very well be the last person on this site to see it.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 10:21 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Deborah Norville (3.50)
    Deborah Norville uttered some inanity last night about how documentaries are supposed to be "objective."  Luckily, the movie critic she had on pointed out that this definitely was not the definition of a documentary.

    This post is just a preview. Get the full effect at

    by TrentL on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 10:24:31 AM PDT

    •  yeah i saw that (3.50)
      and i don't know where anyone ever got that idea, that a documentary should be objective--it's not journalism after all, it's a film...i've always understood a documentary to be nonfiction instead of fiction, and that's the key difference...nowhere has it ever been said that a documentary can't argue a point...

      "It is the peacemakers, above all, who earn a place in history." --Mikhail Gorbachev

      by southc on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 10:29:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Deb is a shill... (none)
        Deb is a shill.  She is just like the other not-too-bright imbeciles that get on TV and pretend to be experts about things.  She is a cocktail party trollip that heard somewhere that Michael Moore's film is not a documentary because it has an opinion.  She was just repeating her misinformation.  

        There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. --John Adams

        by ScottFanetti on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 11:03:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Objectivity (none)
      Anything that appears in print, on TV or in film should be objective

      unless it hurts Liberals.

  •  Moore's accuracy (4.00)
    I've heard here and elsewhere the comment that Moore isn't the best for accurate facts.  It gets repeated over and over enough I tend to just assume it to be true.  However I haven't every been given a list of what exactly he has gotten wrong.  Anyone out there have some examples?

    Agnosticism is no excuse for indecision, it is a catalyst for action. It demands an ethics of empathy rather than a metaphysics of hope and fear. S. Batchelor

    by Agnostic Oracle on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 10:32:13 AM PDT

    •  I was just about to ask that... (none)
      Ebert says there are numerous facts that have been fudged, etc...  But I've never seen a good list.  Usually that sentence is followed by a Republican (or media whore) rant.  But that's obviously not going to come from Ebert.

      Does anyone know what, exactly, was wrong with BFC?

      George W. Bush: It's the Morning After in America

      by ChicagoDem on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 10:37:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Last night, a trailor was shown of Moore's movie (none)
      where he's grabbing congressmen off the street and asking them when their kids are going to enlist to go to Iraq.  None of them want to talk to him.  Next, (of course, this was FOX) they produce one of the congressman who was grabbed by Moore who happens to have kids enlisted however Moore didn't show his interview.

      Having not seen the movie, perhaps Moore does mention this guy in the movie as being the exception to the rule but doesn't run the footage.  I don't know.  However, Moore needs to wait until all of the criticisms are aired and then publish his response.

      I am not fond of Moore and feel that fighting dirty is not necessary where Bush is concerned.  It's hard enough getting people to understand the travesties being performed upon the people daily by the Bush administration.  We don't need Moore playing into the image the repugs have created for us.

      •  not a factual error (none)
        That isn't a factual error.  It would only be a factual error if say 25% or more of congress people did have children in the military.  It is bias, but not a factual error.

        Agnosticism is no excuse for indecision, it is a catalyst for action. It demands an ethics of empathy rather than a metaphysics of hope and fear. S. Batchelor

        by Agnostic Oracle on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 10:45:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  disagree (4.00)
        While I understand what you are saying...I'm afraid this is the time to fight dirty.  I agree with you that the facts alone SHOULD be enough to bring about the fall of Bush, but this simply isn't the case.  Look at all the crap over the past few days with the 9/11 commission's findings.  Bush and Cheney will just deny everything and keep lying.  Facts mean NOTHING to them. And I'm guessing they mean nothing to 30-40% of the people in this country.

        I think a lot of us forget that this is a film being shown at a movie theater, where most people go for ENTERTAINMENT.  There are many people who will go see this film for fun and to see what all the hype is about.  I don't believe that the majority of American's care about how accurate Moore is or the truth about what is going on in the world.  If we really did, we wouldn't have laid down over the 2000 election and let that asshole screw over the country for the past 4 years.

        Change don't come at once It's a wave Building before it breaks

        by the awful truth on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 10:51:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Rah, Rah, Ree... (none)
          Kick 'em in the knee...

          Rah, Rah, Rass...

          Kick 'em in the...?

          Heck yes, it is time to get down in the gutter. The problem with too many of us is that we fail to recognize how dense the average American is.

          What percentage of America still thinks Saddam played a hand in 9-11? What portion of working class America actually buys into Rush Limbaugh's crap?

          Forget the high road. Forget the intellectualism. It hasn't worked at all for the liberal agenda.

          Instead the Dem Party has to appear tougher, more patriotic, more likeable, more common sensible, than the other side.

          Personally, I have enjoyed telling everyone in New Haven how Barbara Bush, (the twin at Yale) was about to announce her affiliation with the Democratic Party, until Dad stepped in and offered her $250,000/year to work on his campaign. Is this true? Who knows. Is it an argument that plays to our favor in the war against the BFEE? You bet.

          Did I mention the one about GW being a cheerleader at Andover? Hint: He couldn't even make the JV.

          It's Boston Road Rules. If some asshole trys to cut you off you don't respond passively. You respond in kind.

          "What do Repubs Want? -- Armageddon!" "When do they want it? -- Now!"

          by edwardbanderson on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 04:09:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Whaaat? (4.00)
            What the heck? Of course it makes a difference whether an anecdote is true if you're going to go around repeating it. I'm not going to even bring up the ethical issues, since they obviously don't concern you, but pragmatically speaking, telling a story that can't be confirmed kills your credibility. What do you do the next time around? That is, if you are around after digging yourself out of the wreck you got yourself into when you decided to play follow-the-leader with the guy who cut you off.

            "The truth won't hurt you; it's just like the dark. It scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark." - Elvis Costello

            by AlanF on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 04:36:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Since when is a Political Discourse.... (none)
              an Intellectual, or even Honest, Discourse??

              Glad you took the bait on this.

              Since when does any politician depend on credibility. Carter had it in spades, as did Dukakis. As did Gore. A lot of good it did them.

              We are battling for the hearts of the masses. If they had a mind, they'd already be diehard Dems.

              I kind of remember America preferring Reagan and his storytelling resoundingly over Carter's depressingly truthful versions of events.

              "What do Repubs Want? -- Armageddon!" "When do they want it? -- Now!"

              by edwardbanderson on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 04:44:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So that was bait (none)
                No wonder it's full of worms.

                As a matter of fact, Gore was pilloried for a perceived lack of credibility (though in reality the dishonesty was on the media's side). So I don't see how his example proves your point.

                I agree that there is some measure of saturation of the minds of Bush's supporters. The reality of the things that Bush and his cronies do and say is so outrageous that there doesn't seem to be any room to convince the mindless Republicans. So why do you think that turning to stories that may be false is suddenly going to bring them over to your side? Your story about Bush bribing his daughter to be a Republican is a yawn compared to the things we know he's done. It's also a yawn compared to Reagan's welfare queen anecdotes. So why try to beat the masters at their own shady game?

                The reason I think we need to watch our facts is that lies and stories of dubious merit don't work as well for us as they do for the Republicans. The party which has told so many audacious lies for so long has already selected its audience. Those listeners who believed the first, second, and third lies will probably believe the hundredth. But a party who claims (correctly, I think) to be more concerned with the truth stands to lose its constituency if it starts to abandons the strategy. It's inherently more newsworthy when a Democrat tells a lie (call it man-bites-dog), so we also tend to lose the media war.

                So what if the masses chose Reagan's sunny lies over Carter's depressing truth? Were they ever given a choice between depressing lies and sunny truths? I think a big cloud over our lives will be lifted if we can vote Bush out and Kerry in, and we have the chance to make life truly better in many ways. I think that's the optimism we need to bring to the masses. And guess what -- it's all true.

                "The truth won't hurt you; it's just like the dark. It scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark." - Elvis Costello

                by AlanF on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 07:37:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Dude, Babs story is not a yawn... (none)
                  to your average New Havener making less than 35K a year.

                  They understand that Baby Babs has a heart and conscience somewhere. Hell most of us tried our best to like her, despite who her Daddy was.

                  We also know that Baby Babs had many friends on our side. That she was never outspokenly, um,  Republican.

                  We also know that the BFEE couldn't have one of their ilk going rogue, a la Ron Reagan, Jr. And we all wonder what it is that she is getting paid.

                  But we don't wonder is whether her salary is greater than the 20-35K the average New Havener makes. I mean hell, the Lieberman kids were getting 100-125K. Double that for selling your soul to the Republican Party isn't inconceivable.

                  The argument works well, and I relay it to every working New Havener I meet.

                  If you want to take anyone apart on the facts, ATTACK their side. Don't be nice, don't be overly fair, and by all means, don't play the Intellectual Wimp.

                  Repeat after me: GW's Daddy was a Varsity athlete. GW was a cheerleader/intramural drunkard.

                  P.S. Gore lost his credibility when he ran away from the much beloved Clinton. Had he prayed for his wayward soul, yet pronounced him a great President, he would have won. Going Away.

                  "What do Repubs Want? -- Armageddon!" "When do they want it? -- Now!"

                  by edwardbanderson on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 09:58:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Even Bushit (none)
                relies on credibility.

                Without credibility one is not believed -- regardless whether one is lying or telling the truth.

                A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain

                by jnagarya on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 01:14:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for the support (none)
              I was just about to truly throw in the towel.

              We have to stand for something and that something has to be sanity amidst chaos.  We can't be the perpetrators of further chaos by lying.

              Truth against falsehood is a far mightier sword than the hypocrisy of lies that masquerade as fighting fire with fire.

              We can fight tough without fighting dirty.  Once we do that we become like them.  If we become like them - what is the point of having any discussion - what is the point of even voting?

              •  Fact is Bush was a Cheerleader... (none)
                Because he couldn't make the team...

                And yes, I think Money had a lot to do with Baby Bush joining Daddy's campaign. (And who knows what the twins were paid to do so...)

                But U2 in all your sanctimony would rather question me than attack the Bad Guys. Huh? No wonder we keep losing.

                Aggressive spin is not the same as rampant dishonesty. You can be a salesman without completely selling your soul.

                I argue that the majority of people don't vote because they know the rich Republicans aren't for them, but on the other hand they don't begin to trust the smarmy, holier-than-thou intellectualism of the Limousine Liberals leading the Left. (Think ____).

                Clinton was different. He didn't preach, he emoted. He didn't say "Vote for me, I'm smarter", he said "Vote for me, I'll lead the way." It didn't hurt that he was strong as hell, in his own way.

                When, during the debates, Al Gore stupidly played the smartest kid in the class, I knew his goose was getting cooked.

                But please, sleep well in the knowledge that you are in the right. I'll sleep better when I know the People's Party is back in power, by whatever means. (Remember JFK, Daley, LBJ, Texas and Illinois, lol).

                God save us from Ourselves.

                "What do Repubs Want? -- Armageddon!" "When do they want it? -- Now!"

                by edwardbanderson on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 09:43:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  JFK and IL/Daley -- (none)
                  The story about Daley stealing votes for JFK was made up by a pro-Nixon NY newspaper journalist.

                  And for sure I won't join you in deceit.

                  I don't, however, tend to be tactful -- though I can be more "articulate" -- reasoning -- than most.

                  I regularly challenge people I meet -- even those who are already in agreement.  One can shake up those who disagreee with penetrating, multi-leveled "sound-bites".  And one can get those same bits of truth spread by "giving" them to those who agree.  

                  Salesmanship?  Perhaps.  Within limits.  Being engaging -- focused (the false word for which is "intense") -- is the opportunity to persuade.  All that means is: be interesting.

                  Lie?  Never.

                  Tell fictional stories?  Never.  Caveat: if you can't resist sharing an anecdote or story that you aren't sure is true, then you tell it -- including with it an accurate statement about not knowing whther it's true. There's no need to cheat in order to be persuasive.

                  One can be "intellectual" without abandoning ordinary language.  It's in the thinking, not in the vocabulary.  (It's the pseudo-"intellectual" vocabulary which is off-putting.)  Being informed, intelligent -- respecting other's intelligence -- and down-to-earth in language and "humor" is sufficent.

                  A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain

                  by jnagarya on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 01:09:13 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Take it easy (none)
                  No one's attacking you.  I'm speaking philosophically, in general.  Sorry I hit a nerve.  Back off, fella.  You're overreacting.  Afterall, if you re-read the thread I've said nothing personal to you.  However, you certainly have a fixation on what I said.
            •  remember that old yarn about... (none)
              ... the boy who cried "Wolf!"?

              Once you get a reputation for being a liar, it's hard to shake it.
              "He said what?  Oh yeah?  Well I don't believe it because he said bla bla bla before and it was a total fabrication."
              (not to belabor the obvious... OK, sorry, I belabored the obvious).

              Moore says he has about a million people fact-checking this film and vetting its assertions (sounds like he's doing a better job than the CIA did on Iraq).  It'll be interesting to see whether the other side can marshall actual facts to its defense or if it will simply resort to the usual ad-hominem attack tactics.

      •  i saw that story (none)
        with the congressman's response, and if i remember correctly, it wasn't his kids but his nieces and nephews...

        so technically that would make Moore correct, but it's not like the congressman doesn't have close family in the military...

        so i dunno...i think that congressman is in the film, but he was claiming that the part about him saying he had family in the military was cut out...

        don't know, haven't seen it yet  ;)

        "It is the peacemakers, above all, who earn a place in history." --Mikhail Gorbachev

        by southc on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 10:54:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Moore's response (none)

        --- My opinions are my own and not my employer's.

        by Aexia on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 11:24:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's odd (none)
        I'm pretty sure that the only member of Congress or the Senate who has an immediate family member in the military is Sen. Joe Biden.
        •  not just him (none)
          You're right about Biden, thanks to that Ashcroft hearing, I think the whole world knows what his son does :)

          But he's not alone... Congressman Steve Buyer (R-IN) was recently in the news because he is a reservist but the Army refused to send him to Iraq when he asked to go.

          And Lindsay Graham (R-SC) is a reservist in the Air Force.  (his bio says he's the only Senator in the guard or reserves).

          it's hard to google for this sort of stuff, but I think in general, you're right - very low numbers, but not just one person with skin in the game.

          •  There are lots of Reservists (none)
            There are reservists - Ashcroft's son is a reservist - but nobody in the immediate family of anyone cabinet level in the administration or in Congress, Joe Biden excepted, is active duty.  Notice please that the Repugs response to this being pointed out is to use the general term "military," to describe their relatives' involvement, but it's not the same thing.

            As for members of Congress asking to be called up - I'm sorry, that's a total publicity stunt.  The Army's never going to deploy a sitting Congressman or Senator.  Frankly, I think it's pretty ridiculous that either of those people is continuting to collect a paycheck for services they cannot render.

    •  Being Canadian... (4.00)
      Let me say first that I can't wait to see Fahrenheit 9/11. I also really admired both Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine. In the latter, however, Moore bent over backwards to present Canada in a shimmering glow that ignores many chinks in our national armor.

      In one scene of Columbine, Moore interviews someone leaving a hospital emergency room. The impression left with the viewer was that of efficient and 100% free health care delivery. But the facts are that there are hidden costs for many things that you might expect to be covered.

      For example, last month my wife had a C-Section (healthy baby boy, thank you, and no complications), meaning she had a four-day stay in hospital. A semi-private room at this major hospital in Montreal would've cost us $40 a night had I not been covered by my workplace's ensurer. The telephone in the room had a daily fee as well. TV service is provided by a private company and if you want the thing on at any time, you have a bill for that.

      A recent CBC report showed that Optometrists are now typically billing $10 per prescription (it's not covered by the provincial health insurance unless prescribed by an Opthalmologist.)

      Furthermore, if your doctor orders an MRI, there are so few available and such high demand - not to mention the fact there is a near crisis-level shortage of qualified technicians who can read it - you may have to wait weeks or months.

      We also have a chronic shortage of family doctors in Canada.

      The major hot-button issue in every election lately, provincial or federal is who will save our health care system from the evil market forces that threaten to make it "two tier". PM Paul Martin is campaigning against a backdrop that says "shorter wait times" all over it, and every Canadian knows the reference is not about line-ups at the bank machine.

      Then there was Columbine's famous scene of Moore opening the unlocked front doors of home after home in Toronto. Well, there's something to that, but we sure as hell lock it when no one's home because there is no shortage of violent crime in our cities (note: statistics show the rate of violent is much higher per capita in the U.S., but that doesn't mean it don't happen here.

      Toronto has had a gangland war going on this year, complete with drive-by shootings (sorry - maybe someone can find a link?), and the murder rate in Montreal (pop. roughly 3 million) is about 80-110 annually.

      So while it may be better here, I found Moore did a real white-wash of Canada - selectively presenting the facts he needed in order to make his case. And that's too bad because as Ebert noted: it waters down an otherwise good argument.

      •  Response (4.00)
        A semi-private room at this major hospital in Montreal would've cost us $40 a night

        Try $300 a night in my US town, and that's with health insurance.

        Furthermore, if your doctor orders an MRI, there are so few available and such high demand - not to mention the fact there is a near crisis-level shortage of qualified technicians who can read it - you may have to wait weeks or months.

        Weeks here,not months, but still not bad, and most of the time, the insurance companies refuse to pay for MRI's.

        We also have a chronic shortage of family doctors in Canada.

        Same in the US.

        I've heard of problems getting certain types of surgery in Canada, but your gripes don't sway me from thinking that healthcare in Canada is that much worse than what we have in the US.

        •  Interesting (none)
          I guess I sound indignant, but we have much higher taxes in Canada to pay for that public health care system. The real problem is the wait times. My aunt in Ontario had to hobble around in great pain on a bad hip for almost three months waiting for a hip replacement, and the required physio therapy is not insured. She has a one-hour drive to get to it, too, and it's pretty tough on her.

          I guess it's all give and take. You make similar comparisons to University education between our two countries.

          •  Universal (none)
            Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't health coverage there universal?  There are so many millions of Americans who would love to have the "problems" you face with healthcare in Canada, but it's a moot issue because they just have no coverage at all -- if they get in a car accident, they are suddenly several thousand (or tens of thousands, or more) dollars in the hole.  That's a lot of money, and they have absolotely no recourse than to just pay 100% of it back.  I don't care if we're talking about a difference between the average taxpayer putting in 25% of their income or 50% of their income toward universal healt coverage, this is just wrong.  And let's face it -- universal coverage here will not double our taxes, no matter how good it is.  

            Money changes everything -- Cyndi Lauper

            by Tlacolotl on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 01:01:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Don't get me wrong (none)
              From all accounts, I like our system much much better than yours, and so do most Canadians. What we're seeing is a slow erosion of the universality, what with minor user costs creeping into our system all over the place. We don't want to end up with better healthcare for the well-off (catchphrase: "2-tier system") than the poor, so we find these irritants alarming. Your HMO's would love to get into our market, where they smell lots of money to be made if, say, NAFTA were expanded to include more healthcare delivery.

              The original point of my first post was merely to spell out that Canada isn't quite as rosy as Moore depicted in Columbine, and as a matter of fact, we once had a nasty incident much like the Columbine massacre right here in Montreal at the Université de Montréal, where (on Dec. 6, 1989 if memory serves) a mysoginist gunman went on a shooting spree, targeting female engineering students whom he blamed his own miserable existence. Marc Lepine killed 13 women that night before turning the gun on himself. It really left a lasting impresstion on us and we tightened our gun-laws for semi-automatic weapons (although it was a really tough fight that took years).

              •  er... (none)
                make that "misogynist" - sorry.
              •  I remember the Montreal incident (none)
                and no, I'm not innocent to the various horrors of Canadian true crime (see Robert Pickton and the Eastside of Vancouver prostitute killings).  In contrast, what is most shocking about Columbine is the depth of violence perpetrated.  Those two boys had made bombs and grenades and used them during the attack, and no one saw it coming.  It went beyond shooting, it was an act designed to maximize death and destruction.  I just don't see that level of alienation and will to kill in Canadian teens.
        •  Be the Rain.... (none)
          Hey, lapin.  Noticed your tag and had to smile. Another Greendale fan!

          Keep up the good fight.

    •  KKK/NRA (4.00)
      Move America Forward (is that name supposed to sound so ironic?) has a link to this Moore de-bunker that goes through "Bowling for Columbine" pretty throroughly and . . . it's silly.  They say he's got his facts wrong for saying things like how the KKK and the NRA were founded the same year -- when in fact they were founded three years apart from one another.  Never mind that this doesn't really refute his point, even if he maybe could have done a little more thorough research.  They also criticize how not all the footage is "real", i.e., the typical re-enactment footage that documentaries routinely use (what, you want that Civil War footage to be authentic?) is not kosher to them.  Another typical inaccuracy is how Moore claimed that the Columbine killers went bowling the morning of the shooting, when in fact they might not have -- Moore's point that people blaming their crimes on video games or Hollywood films is as stupid as blaming it on the fact that they were on the bowling team (it doesn't really matter if they did bowl that morning) is totally lost on these people.  They're picking at what little scraps they can get, and cannot really refute the bigger picture because Moore is basically correct in everything he says (even if he does go a bit "Hollywood" for my tastes -- but I guess that's sort of his M.O.).

      I do agree with Ebert, however, that Moore better have his shit together fact-wise or he makes us all look bad.  Something tells me he was very careful about what went into this film -- commenting on Columbine and gun culture is one thing, getting deeply involved in the election is another, much more serious thing.  But I have faith in th' man . . . I'm off to go pre-order my tix now . . . and as Al Franken always says, "they make a great gift!" (hint hint)

      Money changes everything -- Cyndi Lauper

      by Tlacolotl on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 12:54:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Television Ad (none)
    I saw the first ad on television this morning (at least in Oklahoma--the buckle of the Bible Belt).

    It shows Bush, on the golf course, speaking "I am calling on all nations to rennounce terrorism, etc., etc.  Now watch this drive."

    I thought it was a very effective way to illustrate his utter disconnection with this Universe and reality.  In my eyes (admittedly not balanced when it comes to the boy king) it really made him look cheap, petty, and arrogant.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

    by BigOkie on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 10:33:39 AM PDT

    •  greetings (none)
      Hey BigOkie, I'm an Okie too, living in New York.

      Will Fahrenheit 9-11 be shown in Oklahoma?  Or is it getting the Last Temptation of Christ treatment?

      •  According to (none)
        According to F911 tix OK results it will be shown in Oklahoma City, and Tulsa.

        Hope that helps.

      •  My sistah (none)
        just told me that it's opening near her (edmonds/OK city area) earlier than most other places.  I'm not sure what she meant, 'cause it's opening next week nationwide, but she heard it on the radio, so it's getting play.  Also, and, there are like 6 theaters showing it in OK-- decent.  
      •  I think (none)
        We are going to get to see it in OKC.  You know how it is here, though.  I am sure that the press will be filming all of us who go to the theater.  What do you expect in a state where even the Democrats wear neocon clothing?

        "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

        by BigOkie on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 07:47:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  no you won't, kos. i don't plan on seeing it. (2.22)
    for one thing, i'm not too keen on the movie industry in general, especially with the whole RIAA/MPAA business, but i'm also not all that interested in propaganda reels. i mean sure, it's anti-bush, but i've already read a fair bit about bush and 9/11 and i doubt moore will make it much worse.

    it's pretty much the same reason i don't watch fox news. i consider myself a free thinker, so i prefer informative content to sensationalism. not that there's necessarily something wrong with it. it's just not my kind of bag.

    •  even if you already despise Bush (3.50)
      You should see F911 for two reasons:
      1. to support Moore's effort
      2. to rightwingers who will criticize it unseen. If you've ssen it, you'll be able to refute every one of their points.
      •  but i never meet right wingers in real life. (1.80)
        they're just some sort of demonic presence online. seems like a straw man to me -- these right wing nuts are a tiny minority.

        and, well, like i said, i think it's propaganda and i don't believe in dishonest discourse. consider me a conscientious objector.

        •  It's not dishonest discourse (3.60)
          Even if Moore only presents what he wants to present, that just makes him the antidote to the Bush administration and the compliant American press.  It's his right to include only what supports his argument.  Our side can't keep being "balanced" while the other side lies, cheats and steals.  We've been doing that for the last 24 years, and they've taken over every branch of government.  I would call Moore on any factual errors, but omission of people who don't support his point is just his right as a filmmaker.
          •  i quite agree. (1.60)
            if it were just a matter of excluding the "right wingers," that'd be fine, but like ebert says, factual errors are not good things and i don't see any reason not to expect them again this time around.

            at the end of the day, i think cool heads will prevail in america which is why i'm not so worried about this film.

        •  sadly... (3.50)
          ...we can't all live in your world.
          •  move up to the northeast! (2.00)
            as long as you stay out of new hampshire, you'll be set!
            •  are you kidding me? (none)
              my girlfriends father and i were shouting through the telephone at each other about Reagan's funeral while my poor girlfriend was stuck in the middle.

              the nuts exist up here, just look at Mitt the Mormon.

            •  bubbleboy :-) (none)
              I live in the northeast and in one of the bluest states and wingnuts abound.  

              We certainly aren't outnumbered but they are here and they are vocal.

              •  sure, if you look for them. (1.50)
                i'm just saying that when i go to work or the bar or whatever, i don't see a lot of them. certainly not ones who are going to get in my face about politics of all things!

                you read about them in the papers sometimes, but they're not that big of a deal.

                •  um... (4.00)
                  i was born in brooklyn. from 3 to 12 i lived in kansas - i was young but people seemed pretty sane. from then i lived on long island, in buffalo, ny and boston, ma. during that time i ran into the following people: a coat check lady at a restaurant i worked at who explained the world was run by 7 men. a store owner who required cashiers to issue a "security alert" when black people entered the store. an assistant manager at a convenience store who got two black cashiers fired for stealing - their drawers were short several hundred dollars; drawers several shifts later were over. a christian co-worker who was a creationist but not for blacks - they evolved. a landlord who was against bussing because black kids case the neighborhoods they're bussed through. that's off the top of my head. no wingnuts in the northeast? open your fucking eyes.
                  •  woah, take it easy. (2.00)
                    yeah, i'm not saying there aren't any, i just don't meet them very often. you have to admit, they're a tiny, tiny minority.
                    •  small world (2.80)
                      you live in a fantasy world. Try educating yourself rather than berating a film for having "factual errors" and being propaganda, when you're not even going to see it.

                      The Bolshevik revolution was done by a "tiny minority" and how many millions of their citizens did they slaughter?

                      I think you're dangerously close to becoming part of the problem rather than the solution.

                      All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

                      by SeanF on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 11:59:50 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  trolls are everywhere. (none)
                        hungry, too. look at the size of the thread this one's eaten already.
                      •  part of the problem? (2.00)
                        i think the problem in this country is the dehumanization that goes on in the name of politics. i think it's dangerous to start calling our opponents nazis, terrorists, nuts, bolsheviks, or what have you.

                        honestly, i don't see why this is such a controversial idea.

                        •  They are no longer just opponents. (none)
                          Opponents meet you for an honest fight.  This bunch lies, cheats and steals.  They've bought the media.  They go out and say "up is down" and the media fawningly reports how clever they are to heve discerned this... then they blame the Democrats for insisting that "up is up and down is down," calling us partisan blowhards, faithless commies and crybabies.  Sadly, the Dems then grudgingly admit that up is, in fact, down, and they have seen the light.  Bush's republicans are instituting a fascist government.  Fascism is simply government by corporation... that's what they're doing.  I'm not for that, and, since they spend lots of money to pass off the notion that they aren't letting corporations govern or that, alternatively, corporations should govern and that is NOT fascism, we really have to fight to get our message out.  So we've started fighting.  And you can't dissuade us.
                        •  not bolshevik (none)
                          I wasn't calling the Repubs Bolsheviks, I was noting how dangerous "tiny minorities" can be. Most all dramatic change is instituted by tiny minorities. Al Qaida, hell, even our founding fathers started out that way.

                          The thing I find most disquieting about your posts (and I'm sure your attitude resonates with lots of less-informed people) is the normalization and acceptance of Machiavellian fascism in our political process. It is not good for our country to go down this path. We will lose everything if we continue like this. Bush I was an honorable conservative (to me anyway). Bush II is toxic to our way of life. Failing to see that distinction is so dangerous.

                          But in any event, kudos for sparking quite a bit of response!

                          All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

                          by SeanF on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 03:08:46 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  wingnuts a tiny minority (none)
                      I hereby wish retirement in South Carolina on you.

                      That is all

                    •  I live in E. MA -- (none)
                      and there are quite a few wingnuts in W. MA.

                      But there are also a substnatial number in E. MA.  Only those who avoid political conversation -- the moment politics come up, they walk away -- can draw the conclusion that they are "a tiny, tiny minority".  

                      That's only a measure of how many you meet.  Unlike you, however, I am politically active -- have been for most of my life.  I take my civil responsibilites seriously; and that means participating and discussing political issues of the day.

                      The apathetic don't really give a shit.  Why do you waste your time here?

                      A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain

                      by jnagarya on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 01:46:17 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  If one doesn't look for them? (none)
                  Let me get this straight: you essentially go out of your way to avid them, avoid all political conversation, and by that means manage to remain unruffled by rationalizing that "everything will work out" and "cool heads will prevail" -- someday.


                  I encounter them with some regularity.  Then again, I don't avoid the issues that have resulted, and continued, because cool heads did not, and still do not, prevail.

                  Why do tou waste your time here?

                  A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain

                  by jnagarya on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 01:41:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  short on wingnuts? (none)
          "...these right wing nuts are a tiny minority."

          where, pray tell, do you live, and is there any property for sale there?

          Here in the heartland, there's no shortage of wingnuts. In raw numbers the actual wingnuts may be a small percentage, but the vast majority of the people, the ones who don't follow politics closely and who are susceptible to the "god/flag/apple pie" of the Republicans, need to be educated.

          Seeing "F9/11" and encouraging others to see it, or at least talking about it and refuting the lies told about it by the right, is a start.

          •  Wingnuts (none)
            I hate to be generalizing people, becuase that's always wrong no matter who's doing it, but to me it's an issue about not what state you live in, but what part of of the state.

            Major cities, college towns, refuges for
            artists, unrepetant hippies and such = BLUE

            Military towns, outlying rural areas = RED

            So while Austin may despise Bush and vote against him, they're held hostage by Houston and Dallas.

            Panhandle Florida and the Miami Cubans = RED
            Central Florida and the Miami Gays = BLUE

            To flip it around, Orange County may have a rep as a bastion of conservatism, but as long Northern Cali is a part of the state is matters little.

            This is why major cities often tend to elect Dems (And African American Dems at that) but higher office often becomes a glass celing. But that's another thread altogether.

            So basically, if you want away from the, er,
            "REDnecks", move to the city.

            One thing about W., he has brought Americans closer to God. Millions are on their hands and knees praying for an end to this nightmare presidency.

            by Jank2112 on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 11:51:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yeah, pretty much. (none)
              but were i am is what you might call rural. maybe it's the high catholic population. actually, if you're from the midwest, maybe a good analogy is toledo, ohio. that's a lot like what my town is, just smaller and less industrial.
              •  New England Catholics (none)
                aren't reactionaries?

                Let me introduce you to Cardinal Law, and his B.C. apologists.

                And some of the statewide Democrats.

                Let me introduce you to the classist "Liberals" of WBUR/NPR.

                Let me introudce you to most of the Boston suburbs.

                A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain

                by jnagarya on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 01:57:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  a little more complicated than that (none)
              I DO live in a city, in a neighborhood with a healthy bohemian scene (bigtime Kucinich crowd). But Louisville is a very mixed city, and even within the city, many of the blue collar folks support Bush because of the god/flag/apple pie factor I keep talking about. I work with these people. The Republicans have SO co-opted the patriotic angle and SO villified the Democrats (and the word "liberal") that it is sunk in like aggression in a pit bull.

              The support for Bush is a mile wide, but I'm convinced it's only an inch or two deep. I think enough coverage of Bush's crimes might stem the tide, and the fact that Kerry served with honor helps. But at the moment, I see a lot of working people who are unwittingly voting against their interests because they think Bush is a "good Christian" and the Dem candidate is a godless commie. It's a perception I'm doing my best to fight, but it's all uphill.

              •  There's a lot of that (none)
                among the MA working class.  Many sound "Liberal," but spend a bit of "nuanced" time and scratch the surface and there's a whole array of intolerances that spill out.

                Most of them usual and predictable.

                For one, Boston is one of the most racist cities in the country.  Boston doesn't like that said, but Boston Red Sox have lost players because of it.  It's only in that last 2-3 years that the Red Sox ownership has semi-addressed that issue.

                And the Patriots have huge support -- most being gung-ho pro-war jocks.  Sure, many of those mimic the attention-getting stupidities they see on TeeVee at other football games.  But that's part of the problem.

                The only way to conclude that wingnuts are a "tiny, tiny" minority is to avoid consequential political discussion altogether.

                A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain

                by jnagarya on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 02:03:34 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  My Dad used to work in the prisons (none)
                  A lot of the anti-death penalty advocates were just concerned about innocent people.  The belief was that the system was corrupt, and we had tosave the innocents, but scratch below the surface, and it was to hell with the guilty.

                  Never mind that the death penalty might be inhumane and barbaric.

                  It's the same with Abu Ghraib.  If they're guilty, if they're the enemy, it doesn't matter how we treat them.  Even Joe Biden, who goes on about protecting his son and other military people by observing the Geneva Conventions misses the fundamental point: torture is barbaric.  It is simply indecent to treat another human being that way, and we demean ourselves when we do it.

                  Sorry for the tangent.  Scratch below the surface of most people on most issues, and it isn't pretty.  It's enough, sometimes, to make me a conservative.

            •  So which red definition do (none)
              Houston and Dallas fit?  Are they military towns?  Rural areas?  Thought not.

              Nashville is always blue and is hardly a hippie town.  And Clarksville houses the 101st Airborne and hovers at pale pink or baby blue, depending on the election.

              Cities tend to elect Dems because cities understand that we have to pool our resources to provide needed services.  Exurbs tend to elect Republicans because that's where all the wealthy white people who aren't interested in educating the poor fave fled.  Rural areas voted Dem until they becamse convinced that saving $10 a month in taxes was somehow preferable to having a good education and health care system.  THAT took a major marketing effort, but it can be undone!

              •  I guess I did (none)
                kind of contradict myself on that one -- but Texas is hard right now simply because Bush is from there. Also I failed to mention that RED can also mean the "bedroom communities" of places like Houston or Dallas. My bad.

                One thing about W., he has brought Americans closer to God. Millions are on their hands and knees praying for an end to this nightmare presidency.

                by Jank2112 on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 08:37:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Wingnuts may be a small minority (none)
            in MA.  But not a "tiny, tiny" minority.

            One of the worst -- most unreasonable -- and misinforming gun-nuts I've dealt with online lives in MA.  

            One could only believe they're a "tiny, tiny" minority if one avoids political discussion at every opportunity.

            All that matters is getting laid, I guess.

            A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain

            by jnagarya on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 01:53:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  in answer to your objections... (none)
              while i'll readily admit that all that matters is getting laid, i submit to you that that is a red herring.

              why am i here? well, i've just found the threads i've had here quite Insightful.

              i didn't say i avoid right wingers. i just find i don't meet many where i live and when i do, i don't badger them about reagan. as such, i don't get into discussion so heated i'd call the opponent a nut.

              pretty simple, really.

              people on the street often stop me and ask, "what does rmg stand for?"

              -- to which i reply, "love, peace, and above all justice!"

              by rmg on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 08:08:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Lucky you (none)
          I think I am the only male in my family who isn't a right wing nut.  I tried talking to my dad, but he gets his news from Michael Savage and his ilk.  All these scandals, well they're just a liberal media witch hunt.


        •  How do you manage that? (3.00)
          Are there no churches in your town?  Do you not work in an office? Any military bases near by?  Do you not have any investment bankers where you live? Is there not a college with a College Republican chapter?  How about a local newspaper editor?  No suburban gated communities?  

          Wingnuts are everywhere, and they come in rather bland packages, too.

          "By focusing fear and hatred on the Tutsi, the organizers hoped to forge solidarity among Hutu." -- Human Rights Watch

          by a gilas girl on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 11:34:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  maybe i'm just non-confrontational. (none)
            i just don't get in a lot of political arguments and when i do, i always try to keep things low-key. yeah, i've met some people who will go off just like that and i'd say they're nuts, but not very often.

            there're churches in my town, though i admit i'm not much of a church goer. it's a pretty small town, mostly working class. fishing and such. mostly pretty liberal/left-of-center... there are some republicans, but they're not nuts (well, most of them).

            to me, people are people. you know, have a drink, talk about whatever... typical small town kind of stuff.

            •  I'm not at all confrontational (3.50)
              but I know not to talk politics around people with whom there's no basis for any common ground.  That means I spend most of my days silent, because every where I go folks are conservative, many of them wingnuts.  The conversation doesn't have to be political for that to be apparent: you can hear the coded racism, the jingoism, the class animosity in everyday comments that people make.  Its pretty clear in the kind of jokes they think are funny.  Those are the times when one just looks away or changes the subject to some other less offensive form of small talk.

              That's a large part of the reason I don't like where I live, its almost impossible for me to really be myself, or to have interesting conversations with the folks around me.   We just keep everything on such a superficial level that we basically say nothing at all.  I mean, even conversations about child rearing, or shopping reveal a person's political orientation.

              "By focusing fear and hatred on the Tutsi, the organizers hoped to forge solidarity among Hutu." -- Human Rights Watch

              by a gilas girl on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 12:26:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  i think this really depends on where you live. (none)
                maybe my view on this wingnut issue is colored by (perhaps unusual) geography and demographics. i can understand how you'd think they're everywhere if you lived in the deep south or whatever, so i hope you can understand why i'd think they're rare given my environment.

                the truth, as usual, is probably somewhere in between.

                •  You need to get out more (none)
                  It's not just the South, it's a large majority of this nation, measured in terms of geographical area. In any case, this whole thread is off on a strange tangent. Whether or not the people in your everyday life are wingnuts or even run-of-the-mill conservative or mildly racist should have very little to do with whether you see this movie.

                  Rather than assume it has factual errors which turn it from a spirited argument to propaganda, why don't you pay attention to what people say after they've seen it (including the wingnuts) to see if they're poking large enough holes in it to make it unwatchable for a free-thinking person such as yourself.

                  Don't understand NY politics? Try The Nor'Easter

                  by jd in nyc on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 03:46:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  true; i live in some very affluent suburbs (none)
                  in metro DC: if I were in the city my neighbors would be different, though in DC, not necessarily any more politically or sociologically compatible.

                  "By focusing fear and hatred on the Tutsi, the organizers hoped to forge solidarity among Hutu." -- Human Rights Watch

                  by a gilas girl on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 08:52:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  hard to live in a red state? (none)
                Interesting, gilas girl. are you in a red part of a red state?  

                i'm thinking about moving back to the red state where i grew up, but to its capital city which is fairly purple. a democrat just took back the mayor's office, there's a big university there and lots of technology companies so there is a bit of variety in viewpoints.

                maybe you can advise me -- is it frustrating being politically active in a state where you know you aren't going to win many (any) statewide or federal offices?  is it enough to be active and elect a democrat to a county superintendant spot or state senate or the mayor's race here and there?  or do you thrive off the challenge?

                •  my political activities (none)
                  don't usually focus on elections, but on social issues, so its expected that most of what one experiences are "losses".  Its an ongoing struggle where one sees progress in defining collective consciousness differently rather than always winning individual battles.

                  I'm living in a supposedly deep blue part of a red state (metro DC VA suburbs) but is pretty affluent.  I think what I have more trouble with than the Red/Blue distinctions however, are the suburban lifestyle questions and how political these seemingly "non-political" dimensions of daily life are.

                  I don't find much satisfaction in discussing the real estate market, interest rates or refinancing.  

                  "By focusing fear and hatred on the Tutsi, the organizers hoped to forge solidarity among Hutu." -- Human Rights Watch

                  by a gilas girl on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 08:57:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't think that this is just a political issue (none)
                    I mean there are a lot of really boring, tiresome people out there.

                    I don't find much satisfaction in discussing the real estate market, interest rates or refinancing.  

                    I agree that can be pretty boring unless you're talking to the reincarnate Keynes.  I happen to think that accounting is absolutely fascinating, in principle, that double-entry bookkeeping was an amazing invention, but there are a lot of really boring accountants out there.

                    My grandfather was a Republican.  (It was a different era.  He died when I was a baby in 1976.)  He was also a Ph.d. historian who worked as the archivist for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  His office was in the basement of the State House, where he was surrounded by political hacks--most of them Democrats--who had never read a book in their life.

                    His mother had been a real bluestocking.  So when he would go with my grandmother to his parents-in-law's summer place in Quebec, it was pure torture to hear the neighbor, some sort of prominent industrialist, talk about nothing but coal.

                    I know that you and he would have had very different political views.  My aunt, the hippy of the family, was really the only one to fight with him in a big way, but he loved books and ideas--and most people don't really care about that stuff.  I'm sure that he would have found interest rates or the real estate market or (heaven forbid) children's soccer excruciatingly boring too.

              •  I'm as far from confrontational as (none)
                one can get.

                But I get nothing from preaching to or from the choir.

                If I have a choice between talking to a person with whom I agree politically -- who's to persaude? -- and one who I do not, I'll choose the latter.

                As analogy: a person who agress with me has nothing to teach I don't already know.

                And much as I hate the role, I often find myself in the position of teacher.  I inform myself; that becomes known; people seek me out for discussion beyond the superficial.

                I've never learned how to do "small talk".  And I would feel I was wasting the other person's irreplaceable time by expecting such of them.

                A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain

                by jnagarya on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 02:13:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  As I suspected and suggested -- (none)
              you avoid discussion of politics.

              "Go with the flow".

              Why hassle.

              Who gives a fuck if the country is destroyed.  I can always get along by avoiding conversation of consequence.

              A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain

              by jnagarya on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 02:08:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  This is (3.00)
      where your trollness becomes absurd. If you were honest and said you will not see it because you believe it is unfair to Bush, that could be debated. However you ACT as if you are on the left, hoping to score points.

      I have no problem with honest Republians. Some of my best friends and favorite debate opponents are honest about their political beliefs. But dishonesty is the path you have taken. I did not respond this question from you because I knew I would have an opportunity to point it out later.

      ugh. (none / 0)

      man, take it easy.
      look, even if we assume i am a troll, what have i done that has had a negative effect on the community here? i mean, if there's nothing (and i'd say there is), then what's the complaint?

      by rmg on Thu Jun 17th, 2004 at 10:24:46 PST

      Thank you for presenting me the opportunity so soon. For those of you who disagreed with Hollywood Liberal and I, is it more appearent now, or do you need more?

      •  sir, (none)
        i most definitely am not a republican. i'm sorry you feel the need, like that hollywood guy, to call people who disagree with you trolls, but i'm no republican and no troll.

        i will say good day to you, sir!

        •  Yep. As expected. (none)
          Why rmg spends time on a political blog, yet has absolutely no interest in discussing politics, is a mystery to me.

          In real life I avoid the non-committal like the plague.

          Moreso, those who know they don't like spinach even though they've never tasted it.

          Getting laid is all that matters, I guess.  And talking politics, or seriously about anything, can blow that opportunity.

          A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain

          by jnagarya on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 02:20:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yep. As expected. (none)
          Why rmg spends time on a political blog, yet has absolutely no interest in discussing politics, is a mystery to me.

          In real life I avoid the non-committal like the plague.

          Moreso, those who know they don't like spinach even though they've never tasted it.

          Getting laid is all that matters, I guess.  And talking politics, or seriously about anything, can blow that opportunity.

          A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain

          by jnagarya on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 02:20:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yep. As expected. (none)
          Why rmg spends time on a political blog, yet has absolutely no interest in discussing politics, is a mystery to me.

          In real life I avoid the non-committal like the plague.

          Moreso, those who know they don't like spinach even though they've never tasted it.

          Getting laid is all that matters, I guess.  And talking politics, or seriously about anything, can blow that opportunity.

          A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain

          by jnagarya on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 02:20:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yep. As expected. (none)
          Why rmg spends time on a political blog, yet has absolutely no interest in discussing politics, is a mystery to me.

          In real life I avoid the non-committal like the plague.

          Moreso, those who know they don't like spinach even though they've never tasted it.

          Getting laid is all that matters, I guess.  And talking politics, or seriously about anything, can blow that opportunity.

          A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain

          by jnagarya on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 02:21:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Good lord, people (4.00)
        While Michael Moore annoys me sometimes, I disagree with rmg and I plan to see the movie on opening day. But that doesn't give me the right to call him a troll and a republican.

        Seriously, let's have some intelligent discourse here, instead of sitting around masturbating each other's beliefs. One of the most important progressive values is public debate and disagreement. If you believe otherwise, you're no better than the people who say disagreeing with the president is unpatriotic.

        •  But you won't get (none)
          debate or discussion from rmg.

          His game is to be non-committal and superficial.

          And to know he doesn't like spinach even though he's never tasted it.  His position isn't reasoned; and he doesn't care that it isn't.

          That's why "cool heads will prevail" even though that hasn't happened since the 2000 election.

          A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain

          by jnagarya on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 02:24:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You won't get (none)
          political debate or discussion from rmg.

          His game is to be non-committal and superficial.

          And to know he doesn't like spinach even though he's never tasted it.  And he won't be engaged in reason about it.

          That's why "cool heads will prevail" even though that hasn't happened since the 2000 election.

          A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain

          by jnagarya on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 02:27:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You won't get (3.00)
          political debate or discussion from rmg.

          His game is to be non-committal and superficial.

          And to know he doesn't like spinach even though he's never tasted it.  And he won't be engaged in reason about it.

          That's why "cool heads will prevail" even though that hasn't happened since the 2000 election.

          A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain

          by jnagarya on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 02:27:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Could be (3.00)

        I loo-ove Eschaton.  I think Atrios is a genius at finding stuff.  I don't spend too much time in his large comment threads anymore though.  I mean after these comments, haloscan feels a bit ... limiting.  Anyway, he sometimes gets infested by somewhat less obvious trolls spewing piles of misinformation.  Atrios will/would sometimes address the more egregious of the lies and then end with...

        "Smarter trolls please."

        What I'm leading up to, is:  I think we have a few of those smarter trolls here on DKos.  Whether rmg is one of them is for each person to decide on his/her own.  It doesn't matter much.  I try not to label as trolls though.  The "smarter" part makes up for a lot in my book.  Plus it helps me to continue to examine my beliefs.  Clearly rmg's belief system and perceptions are incompatible with mine.  That's all the further I take it because I do need to watch my blood pressure a bit.  

        I prefer to skip the comments and diaries of those who -- in my slightly paranoid perception -- I have personally decided are smarter trolls.  If I could have only one thing change on Kos it would be to have the poster's name at the beginning of the comment rather than the end.  There are any number of times I have started to get agitated at reading comments only to find that the name at the bottom is someone that don't want to read anymore.

        I guess what I'm saying Mike S is don't worry too much.  If rmg is a smarter troll then just keep it in mind.

        Having said that.  Anybody know who this Burgundy Advocate is who thinks so highly of rmg?

        It's clearly not a new account but it hasn't been very vocal.  I must admit, I do think the bio is quite clever "I live. I sleep. I hunger.".

        The chips are down. Find your outrage.

        by sj on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 01:14:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You make (2.50)
          my original point in a round about way. I have no problem with honest debate. As a matter of fact it can be a refreshing change from our echo chamber sometimes. But don't lie and say you are what you are not. I found this troll by going through some hiddens the other night and saw hollywood liberal there. That's not very uncommon because he has quite the temper. I saw it was in responce to him calling out a troll. Since smelling out trolls is a specialty of mine, I did a little investigating. I came to the conclusion that he was a troll, and I have never been wrong in the past.

          Merlot supporter is most likely another version of rmg who signed up a long time ago. It has happened in the past where people create different accounts to either agree with themselves or to rate themselves up.

          •  dude, (none)
            this paranoia his gone too far. i first came to this site two days ago. i'm not a republican or a freeper or any of the other things you accuse me of.

            i'm not going to argue with your credentials as far as troll detection goes. i mean, it's a subjective matter -- all you have to do to substantiate your claim is insist you've been right every time.

            nonetheless, you've never presented a cogent argument for this other than your talk about hollywood liberal (who, if you look through his comments, is a pretty caustic character). i don't know what your angle is, but whatever this is about, i'd rather it be out in the open than continue to fester like this. this isn't healthy.

      •  rmg is an obnoxious dude from K5 (3.50)
        rmg "rocketman" is a dude who likes to be obnoxious over at Kuro5hin. In particular
        i've been kicked from every community i was in, other than k5, MBA, HuSi, and outsourcing.
        At K5 he has lots of immitators or alteregos. Here is an example of his typical behavior. What makes K5 unpleasant is tolerance for shitheads like him.
        •  oh lighten up! (1.50)
          that quote is entirely out of context! i was kicked out of several orkut communities for suggesting ayn rand isn't god. do you disagree? good lord!

          i deeply resent your suggestion that i ever owned the "faggot rmg" series. those were owned by Night in White Satin (yes, that's a klan reference), a homophobic, racist slashdot crapflooder and member of the gnaa (don't ask). many of the trolls disliked me because i stood up against the kind of problems you're talking about (harassment, reports to children's services [that's what happened to webwench], photoshopping rusty's wife, etc). i've never engaged in such things.

          to me, it's all in good fun. no harm, no foul.

          please take your hate speech elsewhere.

        •  As one of the few... (2.33)
          ...K5 members worth anything, I would vouch for rmg's special brand of goodness any day. You really ought to trust me on this one, I speak Sanskrit and am voting Democrat in a swing state. Rmg is a liberalist and mathematician, a troll and gentleman. What, sir, are you?
    •  Things we won't see elsewhere (4.00)
      I'm interested in seeing the interviews of the troops on the ground in Iraq. That is stuff we haven't seen so far and aren't likely to see again anytime soon. What do they really think about this war? Do they think about the paradox of being liberators, occupiers, and then aggressors? What is the effect of the stop-loss orders on morale? What do they really think about their leaders at this point?

      On the other hand, I read a day or two ago that there is some pretty bad stuff in there, people getting killed, being abused. I really don't want to see that; I'm not one of the people who needs convincing that this war is a catastrophe, I already know that. But perhaps we need to bear witness to what our country is doing to others no matter what. In any case, I still want to see this movie. I think there is much, much more to it than propaganda.

    •  Interesting (3.50)
      You consider yourself a free thinker, yet you'll leave yourself out of conversation by not having information to talk about the film.

      And your MPAA/RIAA comment - you endorse the theft of copyrighted works?

      •  well, i believe the consumer is getting screwed (none)
        by the riaa with their price fixing and demolition sensible copyright law. i consider it a matter of civil disobedience.

        besides, between a situation in which consumers can freely obtain huge amounts of digital content without fear of reprisal and the one the MPAA is pushing, clearly the former is superior.

        •  unless (none)
          you work in the industry.

          While I'm not a true proponent of the RIAA lawsuits, I do consier them a necessary action at the present until the industry fully adapts. Which it will, because this is a real market driven force & they simply didn't adapt quickly enough. The real money isn't in continuing lawsuits, it's in approaches like Apple's iTunes.

          •  well (3.50)
            not to be OT, but from the consumer standpoint, those companies that make up the RIAA are in this for money.  They are capitalist companies.  We shouldn't have to wait around for them to adapt; in fact, downloading music etc. is the only impetus that they'll have to adapt, and adaptation is the only thing that can keep companies like that alive.  

            I'm not saying that those who break copyright are helping the music industry by prompting adaptation, but it's the natural course of events, and if the RIAA ignores it as they had/have been doing (prior to things like itunes, anyway), they will be left in the dustbin of history.  Or something like that-- I never did take capitalism 101.  

            •  You 100% (none)
              right. It's a classic battle - the consumers got ahead of the curve, while those at the top had no idea what was literally happening in people
              's living rooms, on their computers.

              The stealing wasn't right, but it had the effect of a wholesale change in philosophy for a corporation, which is not easy to do. You can bet a lot of people lost their jobs, and the lawsuits are just a way to buy the corps time to take the black market format mainstream, and put the black market out of business by offering the convenience with superiori sounding product.

        •  I see. (none)
          So stealing from artists because recording companies do is "civil disobedience"?

          Let's pretend that doesn't mean what it does: that you too are stealing from the artist.

          And who cares about the war.  All that matters is playing head games with people.

          And who gives a shit about politics?  Everything's head games.

          A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain

          by jnagarya on Sat Jun 19, 2004 at 02:36:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  diary reprint (none)
    of a reprint from my blog, but hoping to get some involvement here. great way to celebrate Juneteenth, even. So, here goes:

    Posting this here; it's a reprint from The Thorn Papers, the blog I keep. Hoping to generate some interest here. If only a bit. Anyway:

    As I'm sure everyone knows by now, there are at least two concerted efforts under way to try and intimidate theater owners into refusing to show Michael Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 9/11. That was only to be expected of course. Anything that encourages debate must be demonized, blocked, dismissed, or destroyed, after all.

    Every day I've been checking to see if the movie will make it to my little neck of the woods; without much hope, honestly. Mississippi is, after all, Mississippi. And while I'm still waiting for the local theater to work up the stones to bring it in, I see that Malco (a Southern theater chain) is showing strength in their decision to run the film at its Tupelo theater. Here's to Malco.

    I know that Malco will be on the receiving end of some pretty ugly venom for this decision, and I'd like to ask that any of y'all who might feel the urge to do so would please take the time to drop them a little note of encouragement, to let them know that there are indeed those who support them in fostering public debate.

  •  I agree with Ebert (none)
    and I have similar criticisms of Moore.  In this film, of all films, the facts must be absolutely, unequivacably, 100% accurate.  Given the abominations committed by the Bush administration, giving factual information that backs up Moore's politics should be cake.

    However, it is my opinion that Moore shoots himself in the foot, quite unneccesarily.  He's like the painter who creates a work of beauty and then decides, he just has to put a big splotch of misplaced color in just the wrong place.

    •  Be specific (4.00)
      What are your criticisms of Moore?
    •  yeah, seriously - cough up the goods (4.00)
      I am so sick of people regurgitating this crap about Michael Moore's inaccuracies without citing any examples. If you don't like his style, fine, say so. I think he's hilarious, poignant, and have loved his work since "TV Nation." (I saw that before I was able to see "Roger and Me.") He comes from union, working stock people, and cares about people who have to work for a living and doing the right thing by them.

      If he's biased, so what. Who's not? I'll stack his track record of accuracy against O'Reilly and Hannity and drugRush any minute of any day.

      •  Moore innacuracies (none)
        I'm not an expert here, but I believe that one of the often cited innacuracies in BFC was the connection Moore made between the school shooting (was it in Michigan?) and the NRA and Heston immediately descending on the town to hold a rally.  I believe I read that the NRA rally was held quite a bit after the shooting.  To dramatize the point, Moore strings the two incidents together.  If someone has a rebuttal to this criticism, I am definitely interested to see it.

        In Roger and Me, and often cited innacuracy was, again, in his sequencing of events.  He says that in a last ditch effort to save the town of Flint, the tourism board decided to open up a themed convention center about the auto industry.  Moore suggests this all took place AFTER the last plant closed (or very close to the last closings) when in fact, it occured well before the town had reached its breaking point.  The way he presents these events in the movie is hilarious.  It pokes fun at the cluelessness and inefficiency of town beauracracy, as well as viscerally portraying the dire situation they found themselves in.  It's this kind of small "fudging" that opens him up to criticism.  Do his bigger points stand?  Of course.  But he has, unfortunately, given the wingnuts something to scream about.

        "John F. Kerry: More than just a big cock and a nice ass."

        by drjimcooper on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 11:32:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  More from Moore (4.00)
          see Mike's response here

          The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word - read the transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was.

          Why are these gun nuts upset that their brave NRA leader's words are in my film? You'd think they would be proud of the things he said. Except, when intercut with the words of a grieving father (whose son died at Columbine and happened to be speaking in a protest that same weekend Heston was at the convention center), suddenly Charlton Heston doesn't look so good does he? Especially to the people of Denver (and, the following year, to the people of Flint) who were still in shock over the tragedies when Heston showed up.

          As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, when Heston proclaims "from my cold dead hands," this appears as Heston is being introduced in narration. It is Heston's most well-recognized NRA image - hoisting the rifle overhead as he makes his proclamation, as he has done at virtually every political appearance on behalf of the NRA (before and since Columbine). I have merely re-broadcast an image supplied to us by a Denver TV station, an image which the NRA has itself crafted for the media, or, as one article put it, "the mantra of dedicated gun owners" which they "wear on T-shirts, stamp it on the outside of envelopes, e-mail it on the Internet and sometimes shout it over the phone.". Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it?

          •  It is absolutely true (4.00)
            that the NRA went ahead with their proposed convention in Denver, although the mayor and just about anybody else with any decency asked them to stay away.

            You don't need to read Moore's letter. It's public information.

        •  Facts are stupid things (none)
          Give the guy a break. I can't understand how people are saying he has to be deemed 100% factually accurate by even the most partisan critics (they are going to scream anyway).

          100% factual accuracy sounds nice and pure but it's fiction. It's living in the same pure-idea universe where finding a small disagreement with Kerry makes you denounce him and go to Nader.

          I've watched plenty of "pure" documentaries (ethnographical/anthropological films) that just show strange people doing strange things. Are they really doing those things? Yes. Are they bothered by the camera? Possibly. Are the film makers capturing everything? No. Do I understand what is going on? Not without an explanation. Is the explanation already an interpretation of reality? Well, yes. Is the film boring? Yes, unless I know enough of the subject matter OR the film makers paid attention to the demands of film making, possibly tainting their ethnographic cred.

          Making a film is an interpretation of reality. It also depends on practical matters: what kind of shots can you get, do they fit into the flow, etc etc. Especially if it's a commercial film and you want at least to get your investment back so you get to make another movie.

          Yes, facts are stupid things... Sometimes the highlighted reality is more real and memorable than the lived-in reality. And anyway, Moore may have really gotten the sequences wrong in his own conception of the events. So he would be telling the story as he understood it.

          /rant off

        •  I'm actually really surprised to (none)
          hear you say that.  After Columbine, it was a huge thing that the NRA refused to move their convention-- however, you prompted me to look it up.  The Times had three section A stories about it, all past pg 10, and an editorial "An Ill-Timed N.R.A. Meeting", but that's all.  It got more play in the Singapore Straits Times than in the New York Times.  

          Hmmm.  But actually, as everyone above pointed out, it was a really disgusting move on the NRA's part-- they essentially said "screw you" to all the Littleton people-- and as Moore showed, a bunch of them showed up to protest.  I remember it as one of the worst things the NRA has ever done (and that's saying a lot).  

  •  Carson Daly as the voice of reason?! (4.00)
    y'know the world is going to hell in a handbasket if this is what it's come down to...but on the Today show this morning, Matt showed a clip of his interview with Moore--where he again is going after him like no tomorrow...

    then shortly after that segment, Matt interviews Carson and some woman also in entertainment media on the latest things in pop culture...Matt first starts going after Moore seeming to assume that the two of them will chime in, but both didn't play along and the woman point blank said "Moore's a brilliant filmmmaker"...

    Matt looks a little hurt and then changes subject, to Britney's injured knee causing tour cancellations...and Carson Daly pipes up in an incredulous tone "that's news? you're switching from Bush has ties to the Saudis to Britney?"...

    very funny i thought...ahh Matt Lauer is a total toad...i expect tonight's full Moore interview to be excrutiating to watch

    "It is the peacemakers, above all, who earn a place in history." --Mikhail Gorbachev

    by southc on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 10:37:22 AM PDT

  •  Pro-Bush "Film" (4.00)
    That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God [...]

    THAT "film" is called the SCLM.

  •  I'll bet money that GB43 has a movie... (none)
    "in the can." After the "revelations" from Russia.  Imagine a Bush movie released on Halloween, 2004

    Help us fight for every square inch of Ohio! Jeff Hardenbrook for Congress

    by Gator on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 10:38:42 AM PDT

  •  I never thought I'd say this of Ebert, but... (none)
    He nails it here.  

    I have to say that I agree with what he says about Moore.  I agree with most of Moore's issues, but sometimes I think his filmmaking is a bit lazy.

    As for inaccuracies, I would suggest that his very style is one big inaccuracy.  I really, really hated his film "The Big One" where he goes blustering into various corporate headquarters--Nike, for one--and makes a big fuss about demanding the see the CEO and talk sense about third world sweatshops.  

    The natural reaction of any receptionist or security guard at corporations is to NOT let the belligerant heavyweight shove his way into the boss's office and yet this is Moore's big use of dramatic effect.  It sets up a  false conflict in the film.

    One of the inaccuracies in "Bowling for Columbine", I believe, was the length of time necessary for Moore to actually obtain the free shotgun from bank where he opened an account.  There may have been others, as well.

    At any rate, while I'm not a huge fan of Michael Moore himself, I do appreciate his energy and the direction he's focused it because I do, largely, agree with his politics.   I believe it is vitally important that he get the details just right in Fahrenheit 9/11---the whole world will be watching.

    •  See here (none)
      for Mike's responses to criticisms of BFC, particularly the timing of the receipt of the rifle at the bank.


      •  Aw hell (4.00)
        I'll just copy it off of Moore's site so you don't have to clik through

        The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country - "More Bang for Your Buck!"

        There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.

        When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" - that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 - and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") - which I am filling out here for the first time - the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database--which includes all federally approved gun dealers--lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

        Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle (If you'd like to see the outtakes, click here).

        And it is that very gun that I still own to this day. I have decided the best thing to do with this gun is to melt it down into a bust of John Ashcroft and auction it off on E-Bay (more details on that later). All the proceeds will go to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence to fight all these lying gun nuts who have attacked my film and make it possible on a daily basis for America's gun epidemic to rage on.

    •  If you want a dry, balanced (none)
      view, then watch Frontline.  Michael Moore is an anti-Bush view, and he discloses it, so that's fair.
      •  Don't get me wrong (none)
        I'm not opposed to filmmakers having a point of view and expressing that however they want.  I'm not even disputing that Moore falls squarely into the "documentary" category.  

        However, it is entirely up to me whether or not I like or appreciate that style.  In Moore's case, I generally do not.   For me, watching Moore's films are kind of like watching Fox News---the news value, or even the editorial, gets entirely skewed by the crass self promotion blending into infotainment.

        That doesn't mean I don't agree with Moore, just that aesthetically, his films haven't traditionally done much for me.

    •  Fifteen minutes (none)
      It took fifteen minutes to get the gun after he filled out the forms for the account.  Ten minutes for the background check and five minutes more to get the gun into Michael Moore's hands.  

      You certainly can have a beef with Moore's style, I'm not much one for confrontation myself, but you better believe what he puts in his documentaries is 100% accurate.  It's double and triple checked.  

    •  Agree with everything ... (none)
      .... I've said this often about Michael Moore - you agree with him on principle, but he goes way overboard, injects himself into things, and tries to set up these "Gotcha" moments that are nothing more than him being a beligerent.  You put it well -- "false conflict"

      I disagree with you on one thing, however -- your surprise that Ebert "nails it" :-)  He's the best there is at what he does.  He's written some of the best commentaries I've seen - and I believe his philosophies of film critique are spot on.

      •  Ebert (none)
        Sometimes I guess I just shake my head at some of the things that Ebert says he likes.  I dunno, I guess it's just me.

        I do know that I spent many years in film school wading through some fairly fascinating film criticism and theory, so maybe I should just relax and appreciate Ebert a little more.

  •  Rove talking points (4.00)
    All of this stuff about documentaries supposing to be objective and showing both sides, or that this movie won't change any minds are all coming from the Karl Rove/RNC talking points.

    I think the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign is frightened of the impact this will have, particularly on younger voters.  This is not some boring convention speech, it is a movie: vivid imagery, sound effects, evocative scenes.  Think of how a generation who were too young to understand Vietnam have been influenced by the war movies.  

  •  Shocked over partisanship (none)
    Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.

    That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan

    This is the same reaction to the group of 20 or so ex-diplomats and military officials who have recently come out against Bush.  The commentators are shocked that the group of ex-officials are being partisan, when in fact they openly admit that their goal is to defeat Bush, since doing so is the pragmatic way to bring out change.  

  •  bank scene (4.00)
    Actually the bank scene was completely accurate. You could just walk in and get a gun. It was a fairly well known promotion, and reported in the Sun-Times, I believe. The grave "inaccuracy" was Moore calling them a few weeks in advance to tell them he was bringing a camera crew.

    As for "ambushing" Heston, that is just ridiculous. You make a man the president of your organization, and then cry foul when he reveals himself to be a bumbling racist ? The words Heston spoke at the end of the movie echo even truer, given Trent Lott's outburst, about the racist mindset towards blacks in this coutry. That's what people should be outraged about.

  •  Bush is already between Reagan and God (4.00)
    God is in heaven, Reagan is in hell, and Bush is somewhere in between.  He is, however, rapidly updating his resume in preparation for a move south.
  •  I just heard a recent report that... (none)
    apparently Moore's film is being supporter by Hizzbullah for distribution in UAE.  This sounds like a little bit of convenient bullshit spit out by RoveCo, but I bet the freeper repeaters will hold this as gospel.  

    If you are keeping score:
    Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda support John kerry for president.  

    Hizzbullah support's Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911.

    George Soros is a shylock that is evil becasue he is rich.

    liberals are evil.  

    Iraq had nothing to do with 911.  That does not mean that Iraq did not do anything to support the terrorist attacks on 911.  Invading Iraq prevents another 911 even if Iraq and.... of dammit...

    You got that?

    There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. --John Adams

    by ScottFanetti on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 11:20:14 AM PDT

  •  I can't wait! (none)
    I can't wait to see this movie!  Thank G-d it's playing in a theater that's not too far from my house.  It would be nice to see a listing of Moore's "inaccurate" facts in his previous documentaries.  

    In sadder news, I don't know if it's true, but I heard that Paul Johnson was beheaded.  G-d rest his soul.

    GWB: Kickin' names and takin' ass!

    by Dem4Life on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 11:21:53 AM PDT

  •  LIST THEM!!!!! (4.00)
    people keep saying bowling for columbine was inaccurate. they want 100% accuracy from moore, but they don't list anything to back up the assertion that he isn't.

    where is the list?

    here's moore's list.

    and note this comment:

    I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie 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. Trust me, no film company would ever release a film like this without putting it through the most vigorous vetting process possible."

    moore has stood up and tried to shake america awake. to the people who spread republican spin about him with nothing to back up their assertions i have to ask: what have you done?

    so far i've just seen vague statements and an innaccurate statement (the gun was handed over at the bank, and it took about 10 minutes).

  •  This much to say... (1.33)
    The Moore the merrier! Bring It On! MUAHHAHAHA!
    •  I agree, but ... (none)
      This is totally off-topic, but I'm a bit confused about something, Mr Murder ... why did you rate this comment of mine a 2, and then rate my explanation comment below it a 1?  I think you may have misunderstood me -- the comment was simply joking that Cheney was required to make Wyoming a red state in 2000.

      I don't want the world; I just want your half.

      by Finrod on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 04:27:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Moore's facts (none)
    Below is the only criticism I've heard that can't be disproved, and it's still based just on a wing-nut's word.  We all know what that's worth...  Beware the Press' Al Gore syndrome - the GOP is just trying to set up this meme, so they can get the press to go along with multiple spurious attacks.  Don't help them by believing the garbage.


    Filmmaker and author Michael Moore faked an interview in his first best-selling book "Stupid White Men," according to the purported subject.

    Fox News analyst and Weekly Standard Editor Fred Barnes says the interview never happened.

    In his book, Moore wrote he'd once been "forced" to listen to Barnes commenting on the PBS news show "The McLaughlin Group."

    Barnes, according to Moore's account, whined "on and on about the sorry state of American education" and wound up by bellowing: "These kids don't even know what 'The Iliad' and 'The Odyssey' are!"

    In an article in the Weekly Standard, the editor then tells his side of the story:

    Moore's interest was piqued, so the next day he said he called me. "Fred," he quoted himself as saying, "tell me what 'The Iliad' and 'The Odyssey' are." I started "hemming and hawing," Moore wrote. And then I said, according to Moore: "Well, they're ... uh ... you know ... uh ... okay, fine, you got me -- I don't know what they're about. Happy now?" He'd smoked me out as a fraud, or maybe worse.

    The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels. One, I've never met Moore or even talked to him on the phone. And, two, I read both "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" in my first year at the University of Virginia. Just for the record, I'd learned what they were about even before college. Like everyone else my age, I got my classical education from the big screen. I saw the Iliad movie called Helen of Troy and while I forget the name of the Odyssey film, I think it starred Kirk Douglas as Odysseus.

    Barnes said he didn't "scream bloody murder" when the book came out in 2001 because he didn't learn about the phony anecdote until it was brought to his attention by Alan Wolfe, who was writing a review of the book for the New Republic magazine.

    Wolfe's quote, saying not a word of it was true, was sufficient, Barnes thought at the time.

    •  Fred Barnes is to Michael Moore... (none)
      as Bill O'Liely is to Al Franken. If Barnes keeps saying this, it has to be true, just like O'Liely "never said" the stuff about the Peabody awards.

      I'm not sure why Michael Moore would have made up something like this.

    •  goddess bless michael moore, but (none)
      funnily enough i recently heard a story from a fellow who works for a big publishing company that publishes books by both michael moore and ann coulter. he said he dealt with both of them on the phone, and i cant remember his exact words, but he reports moore as being a bit of an asshole, and coulter as being warm and friendly, if you can believe that.

      day shall come again...

      by satansbigredass on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 11:45:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  perhaps... (none)
        that wouldn't necessarily surprise me. Ann(drew) Coulter did go to the finest Connecticut finishing schools after all, and her books are her chief source of income.

        Moore, on the other hand, hasn't been treated particularly well by the publishing world, and probably can make do with his movie and TV career. maybe his "rudeness" is just him not doing the nicey-nice publishing world small talk bullsh!t...

        •  It's not just that (none)
          I've also read that Moore has turned into something of a prima donna.


          The article was called "Michael and Me"  It may just be a reporter who was disgruntled, because he couldn't get his interview.

          "In his desire to be seen as the decent man telling truth to power, he is too ready to blame those less powerful than himself for his shortcomings. He was justly revered in the Palais, but out on the street no one had a kind word to say about him. At Cannes, Moore may have been the star but he was not, it seems, the man of the people."

          From the middle:

          Behind the scenes, however, a different picture was forming. Moore's employers were confronted with ever more regal demands. He insisted that Channel 4 house him at the Ritz when he worked in England on The Awful Truth, a fact he now portrays as the revenge of the working class against corporate might. Meanwhile employees grumbled. 'He's a jerk and a hypocrite and didn't treat us right and he was false in all of his dealings,' said one former worker. His former manager, Douglas Urbanski, has said that Moore 'was the most difficult man I've ever met... he's money-obsessed'.

          Apparently, he's really obsessed with security too.  The whole article is worth reading.  And  the Observer/ Guardian is not exactly right wing FOX.

    •  uh, no, not correct. (none)
    •  Mike's response... (4.00)
      Read it

      On January 18, 1988, I published an interview with Fred Barnes in a publication which I edited at the time, called Moore's Weekly. I interviewed Mr. Barnes about his comments on the January 2, 1988 edition of "The McLaughlin Report," in which he expressed support for then Secretary of the Education William Bennett's theory that high school curriculum should be dominated by courses in classic Greek and English literature.

      I asked Fred to share his views about two well-known classics, "the Iliad" by Homer and Dante's Inferno. Barnes reiterated to me that these books are "what everybody oughta learn. They're easy to read."

      In the course of my interview, I decided to give him a pop quiz. As you can see, Fred didn't do so well. (View Moore's Weekly page one and page two, and the full column on Barnes here.)

      The conservative paper, The Washington Times, liked my interview with Mr. Barnes and the paper wrote about it in their January 22, 1988 "Inside the Beltway" column (you can see it here). The Washington Times is the kind of paper Fred Barnes probably reads before he gets out of bed in the morning.

      Fred Barnes did not complain when I published the interview with him 16-years-ago. He did not complain when the Washington Times article appeared in 1988. It was not until April 2002, when Stupid White Men came out, which recounted the Mr. Barnes interview, that Fox's Brit Hume reported, "Fred Barnes told me today that he never talked to Moore in his life, and that he has read both `The Odyssey' and `The Iliad' cover to cover in college."

      Now that that my movie Fahrenheit 9-11 is receiving significant attention, Mr. Barnes has seen fit to publicly deny the whole thing again, even though I last referenced the interview in a book published two years ago.

      Now, the cynically-inclined might say that Mr. Barnes, who has steadily faded into obscurity as an editor of a small circulation weekly, is trying to take advantage of the moment. I prefer to give Mr. Barnes the benefit of the doubt and credit his belated complaint to a fading memory. We all forget things sometimes, Fred. No hard feelings here.

      Change don't come at once It's a wave Building before it breaks

      by the awful truth on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 11:50:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ha!! (3.50)
        I hadn't seen it.  I knew Barnes was probably full of it - I just hadn't seen the evidence.

        Moore has a story on his website saying he's got a stable of people on hand in a war room, led by Chris Lehane, prepared to take the pugs on in any attack they make on the movie's facts.  Cool!

      •  Oh come on, Mr. Moore (none)
        So Barnes says that Plato was Aristotle's most famous student. Wrong, says Moore. His most famous student was Alexander the Great. Okay, but this doesn't make Barnes an ignoramus. Aristotle was Plato's most famous student. (Of course, Moore doesn't mention this.) Barnes may get the direction of the relation wrong when Moore asks him that question out of the blue, but he clearly knows that the two were teacher and student, even if he got it reversed. And since the fact that Plato and Aristotle were teacher and student is better known than the fact that Aristotle and Alexander the Great were teacher and student, this kind of mistake is entirely understandable. What a cheap trick to play on someone. It reminds me of the Queens' examination of Alice in Alice Through the Looking-Glass:

        `And you do Addition?' the White Queen asked. `What's one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one?'

        `I don't know,' said Alice. `I lost count.'

        `She can't do Addition,' the Red Queen interrupted.

        "The truth won't hurt you; it's just like the dark. It scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark." - Elvis Costello

        by AlanF on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 05:11:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Figuring out this Barnes issue... (none)
      I think maybe I might have figured this out. Moore posts the entire 1988 interview on his site. He never quotes Barnes as saying he'd never read the Iliad and Odyssey. He DOES quote Barnes as saying he never read Dante's Inferno.

      I haven't read Stupid White Men, but it's conceivable Moore got the two confused and misquoted Barnes inadvertently there.

      See here:


      by bcamarda on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 11:57:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Still trying to make sense of this... (none)
        Possibly not, since in the Weekly Standard Barnes denies ever speaking to Moore. But I still suspect that what might have happened was this:

        Moore did the interview in 1988, reasonably accurately.

        Moore carelessly misquoted his own interview in Stupid White Men (quoted by Barnes at

        Barnes forgot the interview and blew up at the misquote.

        The rest is history...?

        Of course, one or both of them could be flat-out lying, but I still suspect there's actually a truth somewhere in between.


        by bcamarda on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 12:30:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Tuesday midnight showing (none)
    They've decide to open Fahrenheit 9/11 on Wednesday in New York (Loews Village VII & Lincoln Square, at least), with a midnight showing at the Loews on Tuesday night (technically Wed at 12:01am)
  •  But Fox News gives F9/11 a VERY FAVORABLE review (none)
    No joke, see for yourselves. Guess Ebert wrote his piece first.

    The two most complimentary passages:

    As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" -- as we saw last night -- is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty, and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.…
    But, really, in the end, not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your first amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. The film does Bush no favors, that's for sure, but it also finds an unexpectedly poignant and universal groove in the story of Lila Lipscombe, a Flint, Michigan mother who sends her kids into the Army for the opportunities it can provide -- just like the commercials say -- and lives to regret it. Lipscombe's story is so powerful, and so completely Middle American, that I think it will take Moore's critics by surprise. She will certainly move to tears everyone who encounters her.

    Bush was up a little in the polls this week, as the Iraqi terrorists mostly shifted from killing our guys to other Iraqis. Past time to hit the Bushies with something else, and this flick might be it.
  •  Moore 9/11 (4.00)
    I don't understand the mentality of some of my fellow lefties. Why quibble about whether Moore stretches the truth and indulges in poetic license- So fuckin what? If he were a right wing filmmaker the rightwingers would be defending him against all criticism. There is a socio-political cultural war in this country and you people had better make a decision what side you're on. To even bother discussing whether Moore or Fred Barnes is telling the truth about something that happened in 1988 is just foolish. Choose sides, fuck Barnes. The right if furious at Moore because they are jealous. They don't have anyone on the Right with the wit, passion and talent of a Michael Moore. That's why everyone on the Left (and that includes Ebert) should be defending Moore and stop parsing his actions and statements. Who cares about precision and ideological purity when you are fighting a war.
    •  Quibbling about the truth... (4.00)
      I understand where you're coming from. Believe me I have moments when I feel the same way.

      But here's why I respectfully disagree.

      If Moore's movie is to do any good, it must convince people sitting on the fence. First, they have to be convinced to go see it. Next, they have to be convinced to believe what they saw.

      When you choose what to believe on a topic you know little about, how do you do it? You do it by deciding whether the person has been credible in the past. If you know that person has lied, you're far less to believe him in the future. Obvious, I know, but that's all those undecided voters have to go on. They're not sitting here in dkos or other left blogs reading up on this stuff. If Moore lied about something that's easy to figure out he lied about, then why listen to him? And a million dollars worth of factcheckers won't change that.  

      We're outnumbered and outgunned. We have few weapons. Moore's one of our most powerful. He can't let himself be discredited through carelessness, when there's so much rock-solid stuff to go after these SOBs with. (That's why I'm right behind him when he says that if he's libeled, he's gonna sue. Go get 'em, Michael...)

      Now, you may say, the fascists amongst us don't debate such niceties amongst themselves: they shoot first. (Sorta like those emails I get from right-wingers that tell me Osama would cut off my head even if I'm against torture in Al Ghraib and therefore must want to hug all the terrorists.)

      Look, we're NOT the fascists. And if we play the game that way, that's a battle we can't win. We can't be louder, more vicious, or more stupid than they are. We're just gonna have to win some other way.

      It's not us putting the Barnes stuff out there: it's already out there. If an actual sensible explanation could have been found -- which on closer inspection looks unlikely -- why not? Especially since all the other Bowling for Columbine criticisms went up in smoke. This was the only one I'm aware of that's still standing.


      by bcamarda on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 01:05:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Moore (4.00)
        Moore is a polemicist, but he's also an entertainer. I suspect a good many "middle of the road" people went to see Bowling for Columbine, and many of them will go to see this film simply for the fact that they can be informed and entertained at the same time. We may be outgunned , but we are not outnumbered, it only feels that way thanks to the SCLM. If we don't play  by the Right's rules we lose. This is not some Unitarian coffee hour where you can reasonably discuss theology and all agree to disagree. I keep coming back to Florida in 2000. It was the hallway outside the Dade County Election Office where the Cheney/Bush Hitler Youth stopped the counting of the ballots. If the Gore people had been in force to   there to knock some heads perhaps the ballot counters could have done there job and Gore would be in the WH. The so-called "people on the fence" are always going to be there. You don't appeal to them with reasoned discourse, because it doesn't matter. It took the Right 40 years to steadily gain control of the public discourse. I don't think the Left in this country can wait 40 years for their turn because by then it's too late. You say we have "to win some other way." We can be as loud as them, and pick our moments to be vicious. The Right will always be stupid, it's in their genes. That's where we have the big advantage.
    •  I do (none)

      "Who cares about precision and ideological purity when you are fighting a war"

      and I believe we all should.

      Bush for the past several months has been running a tv ad saying that Kerry voted against several votes against our troops in Iraq. The ad also shows Kerry saying something to the effect of him voting for the  bill before voting against it. In one form it is trueful, but it does not say that all those votes was actually a single vote; and it does not say what else was in that bill that made him vote against it, and lastly it does not say how the bill changed from one vote to the next.  

      The ad took out pieces of truth that they wanted to use so they could slur Kerry and make the people think things about him that were completely false.  They could not use the straight truth and facts against him so they created pieces of the truth to create a lie.

      This is purposefully misleading the voters.  Its not only immoral (from a President who says he strictly follows the Christian path), it tears at what our country is.  A country by and for the people.  It does this because he (Bush) cares more about winning the election than upholdnig values and making our country better.

      And so I express my outrage at what he is doing. I ask Republicans, independents, and democrats alike if this is the type of man we want as our President?  If he is willing to do this, how can we trust anything else he says or does?

      Moore does the same thing.  Use whatever example you want. The one that comes to my mind is his frequent labeling of Bush as AWOL.  Whatever Bush was by not showing up, whatever type of man Bush is that will allow his dad to hide him the national guard, the facts remain that the United States Military never labeled him AWOL.  And though there is enough truth to keep him (Moore) legally secure, it is misleading.  Moore does this because he simply wants to win in Nov.  

      How credible is the left now?  When we say how decietful and untrustworthy Bush is, what are these people going to say? What does it say that we cannot beat him using the truth?

      I detest such measures.  If we cannot win the election by convincing the public that we are right and that our issues matter, why should we win? If Kerry (and I don't know that he has used such measures yet) uses the same misleading tactics, how do we trust him?  

      The ideology matters because of how we act on them.  

      Simply put: Not acting on good ideology is just as bad as acting on bad ideology.

      If you truely detest the measures the right use and you trully want our ideology (liberal/progressive) to make a substantial difference then you cannot support the use of such measures by "our" side.

      Because in truth, there is no "our side."  We may be one country divided by politics, but at the end of the day we win, lose, and live together.

      This shit causes everyone to lose.

      And if you don't care about all that...

      Then, also realize we it hurts the democrats message. It hurts the crediblitiy.  Swing voters are needed to win elections.  As people like ebert, abc, and fox news produces stories of how misleading it is, swing voters become turned off of the democratic party.  And many democrats that are not as gun-ho as the people who come to these sites hear the same, that dont' know who to believe they dont vote.  Now considering that Repubs tend to be a lot less diverse and generally more loyal....that isnt good come election time.

      my two cents anyway

      •  jeez, this crap again (4.00)
        show me one example of Michael Moore LYING. Please, go ahead. Find me where he's mislead anyone. Either do that, or concede that you're just repeating the crap that the SCLM is feeding you.

        Actually, Moore called Bush a DESERTER, not AWOL. Calling him AWOL is just being polite, because it implies that the perpetrator plans on coming back. Look up the military's definition of "deserter," and Chimpface is it in spades.

        I love your bipartisan spirit, but unfortunately the Republicans by and large are thugs who use thuglike tactics. They need to be pounded over the head right back. The difference is, they use LIES and we use THE TRUTH...

        •  jeez, this crap again redux (4.00)
          Looks like I hit a sore spot. Snookybeh shares my sentiments. The fence sitters always sit on the sidelines. How Moore's film appears to them will be largely determined by the press comments. The Left can't back down from the Right and the lazy effete SCLM. You need a verbal bludgeon with these people. I doubt they can argue about Moore's facts, so they will try to attack his methodology. Being a creative artist Moore has the leeway to arrange facts as he sees fit. If he focuses on Bush reading to school kids for only 1 minute instead of 7 the facts don't change but the interpretation is radically different. Documentaries are not objective,no type of film is objective. As one who went to film school before I got a real job I'm even aware that feature films are full of ideological assumptions that most of us just ignore because the pleasure principle is so strong. I'm just so f-ing tired  tired of people on the Left who try to argue rationally with rightist scum and make goo goo eyes at McCain.
      •  AWOL (none)
        The military didn't label Bush AWOL for the same reason they let him into the TANG in the first place - his father was an extremely powerful congressman.

        Bush was AWOL, that's a fact.  We should be nailing him with that factual label as much as we can.  

        You know, one things that bugs me is when people say "a liberal is someone who won't take his own side in an argument."  It bugs me because there are so many liberals who do fit this bill.  George W. Bush did go AWOL, but we won't admit it because it creates controversy.  That's why our side loses elections to thugs.

        •  Bush was both (none)
          He was AWOL for a great deal of the time he was in the TANG. However, on specific occasions, such as refusing to obey an order to report for his medical exam, that comes really, really close to desertion. Not to mention dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and mutiny.
      •  Lots of idealism; try some more pragmatism! (none)
        PragIdealist, you're being a little naive here, I think.  People here will disagree about how.  The "dirty pool" crew will tell you that it isn't a fair fight if we have our hands tied behind our backs while the right pulls all kinds of Nixonian trickery, so we might as well go ahead and get our licks in as well.  The "clean hands" crew will tell you that there is a market for these kinds of faux-debunkings of people like Moore, and the Right will always contort what he has said as necessary to produce them no matter how careful he is.

        I guess I identify more with the latter group.  As any good postmodernist will tell you, there is no such thing as 100% accuracy in reporting historical or political events.  Everything is an interpretation.  It's just like science, where even gravitation is "just a theory".  (Of course, it's also the best and most consistent way of explaining the way objects behave in everyday life, so it has unanimous support.)  Politics and history are rarely as clear-cut.

        The inescapable corollary is that it is always possible to impeach a "text" (such as a film, speech, or essay) on "factual" grounds.  Of course, the more grasping and far-fetched these criticisms are, the fewer the people who will accept them (and tin are their hats!).  Still, the inexorable demand on the Right for "oppo" guarantees there will be a Luskin for every Krugman and a MoveAmericaForward for every Moore.  The best you can do (apart from abstaining from discourse completely) is to check things over carefully, make sure you remain consistent, and avoid the big, obvious "foot-in-mouth" errors and inconsistencies.  After that, you must allow thinking people to judge for themselves.

        •  I agree, except about gravitation. (none)
          Einsteinian theories about curvature of space-time are better and more consistent. Time to embrace the 21st century (or at least the 20th)!

          "The truth won't hurt you; it's just like the dark. It scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark." - Elvis Costello

          by AlanF on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 07:49:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Aww, Newton's good enough for government work... (none)
            No argument but that Einstein has provided the more complete and generally applicable explanation--which is definitely the acid test for the gauging the utility of theories!  Still, for the layperson who is uninterested in cosmology/astronomy and deals exclusively with macroscopic, earthbound objects whose velocities are negligible in comparison to c, Newtonian mechanics will probably yield a passable rough estimate ;-)
    •  Defending Moore (none)
      We have someone on our side with the talent and brains and money to get a film project like this completed and in theaters before the election  and yet I read comments here like "He's a lazy filmmaker"?

      Ask yourself: how hard am I willing to work on educating the populace about these lying, dangerous, arrogant monsters?

      The enemy is fearless, righteous, and crazed. What are we waiting for? Death threats? Fires? Picket lines like those at abortion clinics?

      Pay the money for the ticket, and walk away if you can't be bothered to view the film. But show some goddam support for our side.

      •  Yup, I called him lazy (none)
        Just because he's on "my side" doesn't mean I have to be slavishly devoted to him or not provide critique where critquing needs to be done.  To not do so would be pretty damn Republican of me.

        Sorry, but I was so offended by the ridiculousness of "The Big One" that my opinion of Moore has been somewhat tainted.  That film convinced me that Moore was far more interested in promoting Moore than he was the issues at hand in the film.  That's lazy to me.

        That said, I do plan on seeing F9/11 on opening day, so Moore will not only have my money, but my support on that score.  I believe that as a filmmaker Moore has probably grown up some--I'd like to see him keep his own cameos down to an appropriate Alfred Hitchcock length.

        But this is only my opinion.

        •  Lazy (4.00)
          At the height of national hysteria involving the demonization of liberals, this guy (Moore) went out and made a film pointing out all the chinks in Bush's armor.  He snags interviews with Congressman and Senators.  He scours the earth for footage no mainstream media outlet would let you see.

          And after all this he's lazy?


          •  Wow. (none)
            It's like none of my comments about Moore's previous filmmaking efforts are taken into context.

            You know what?  I really hope that F9/11 is stupendous.  I really do.  But I haven't seen it yet.  Nor have most--if any--people on this site.  So I think I'll reserve judgement until I get a chance to dig in a little deeper on the subject myself.

            When I called Moore lazy, I have repeatedly pointed to the film which caused me to draw that conclusion in the first place.   And I'll admit, that it nearly put me off Moore for life.  (In the same way that I don't need to keep checking in on Larry King every 5-6 months to know that he's still lame.)    But no one has responded to me in context.   Weird.

            •  Context (none)
              Kind of hard on a medium like this.  I mean it's not like upon reading a post by a dude you're going to scour the rest of the thread for previous quotes about that guy right?

              Anyways, I guess in context your criticisms are a bit more valid.  His confrontational style is one thing, but I still would not necessarily call that lazy.  In his first few movies he relentlessly worked to get interviews with people and that hard work paid off.  I would hardly call that laziness.  And as far as context goes, let's remember the budget he was probably dealing with when he was just a nobody.  I'd say the work-product he put out on such a budget is the opposite of what you'd get out of someone who is lazy.

              I'll agree that Moore's punking bits are what I like least.  There's part of me that likes it a lot, because some of the people he is punking are in need of it.  Pro-war politicians need to have the realizty shoved in their faces.  Charlton Heston deserved what he got.  One of the weaker ones in my mind was when he punked those K-mart executives in BFC.  It took up a lot of time and wasn't really as powerful as the rest of the film.

  •  When do you think it'll be on in france? (none)
    I won't be able to see it, as I'm going away to France for 5 weeks this Wednsday. I wonder if I'll be able to see it over there?

    Got to get a better sig. Applicants can comment below this post.

    by Pluto101 on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 12:48:08 PM PDT

  •  The Elegant Universe (none)
    I'm watching the "documentary" by Brian Greene about superstring theory and I'm disappointed - no, shocked! - that he won't tell both sides of the story.  Why won't he explore the science of biblical creation?  Where is the "documentation" of the possibility that atoms are, in fact, small gnomes that obey God's every whim?

    When are people going to figure out that the only bias that is acceptable is if you are biased toward the truth, i.e., what I believe?

  •  AWOL (none)
    Bush may not have been categorized as AWOL by the military, but by their own definitions he most certainly was. We're talking about a child of privilege, whose Daddy covered up for him, and pressured others to do the same. This includes his woeful military record.
  •  Propaganda (none)
    You know, reading this thread has really been an educational experience in propaganda.

    Some people here are claiming that Moore's works are propaganda.  I suppose that's true in the sense that he's propagating his ideas through some medium.  However, it's pretty overt, and in these modern times we think of propaganda as being covert, and being dishonest.

    So when I say this has been an education in propaganda, I'm not talking about Michael Moore.  I'm talking about all the right-wingers who own gun magazines who set up front groups so that they can go on CNN and look like an independent critic.  These people repeat, over and over, the mantra that Michael Moore is a liar and his movie is riddled with falsehoods.  And it works brilliantly.  It works so brilliantly that you can even get liberals to believe it!  Talk about the ultimate triumph in character assassination through propaganda.

  •  haters (none)
    Here's a link to a site devoted entirely to pointing out innacuracies in Moore's work:

    I haven't really delved into it.  It has detailed complaints on everything he's done.  I would love it some of the more knowledgable of you out there could look into it and assess if their complaints have any validity.


    •  Limosine Liberals (none)
      Well it starts off on a bad note, claiming that Moore is a limosine liberal and therefore have no credibility.  First of all, look at the dude - would a limosine liberal wear the stuff he does?  Would a limosine liberal shave what looks to be once every 3 to 4 days?

      It's a stupid argument even on it's merits.  No liberal is allowed to make money?  If a liberal makes money he isn't actually a liberal?  Someone tell that to George Soros.

      Moore himself debunks several of the criticisms in the Bowling For Columbine section of that site.  Someone posted the link above.  Read that and save the rest of us the time.

      •  haters2 (none)
        Read that and save the rest of us the time.

        Well, though I am interested in reading people's responses to that website's claims, the other reason I posted the link is that several people have asked for "specific charges" against the film.  The website does have a laundry list of those.  And somehow it doesn't seem intellectually rigorous to simply read MM's response to those charges without examining the charges first.

        Anyway, I do understand feeling annoyed at posting the other side's point of view.  So, here's an article examining the accuracy of F9/11, and it's a positive one:

        an interesting graph:

        Moore is readying for a conservative counterattack, saying he has created a "war room" to offer an instant response to any assault on the film's credibility. He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of "oppo," or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation. "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force," Moore said. "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."

  •  Michael Moore on Dateline (none)
    Just watching Moore on Dateline.  Man this Matt Lauer guy is a real dipshit.  No wonder I never watch TV
    •  Transcripts are better (none)
      Michael Moore talks with CNBC

      Moore gives 'em both barrels but they barely flinch --

      Moore: "It's their right. Except here's the difference. It's not government censorship. It's censorship by a corporation. And we're at a point now, Matt, where we have fewer and fewer companies owning all our media. I mean here we are at NBC, which just bought Universal, which is owned by GE. As you have fewer and fewer voices in a democracy, in a free society, it's not good to limit the number of voices."

      * * *

      Lauer: "But a critic would say, hey, send it to the right person a couple of months before these other photos go out and maybe -"

      Moore: "Who's the right person?"

      Lauer: "Send it to the Department of Defense, send it to someone and say, look I've got this, you guys better know about this."

      Moore: "I'm at a point where I don't trust the mainstream media. I'm like most Americans at this point. We don't trust."


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site