Farenheit 911

Tom Tomorrow went to the NY premier of Moore's new move, and lived to tell the story. From what he could tell, O'Reilley couldn't handle the truth and left early.

And speaking of O'Reilley, remember when Republicans were outraged that anyone would use Nazi imagery against their political enemies? Remember how MoveOn.org was an "extremist" organization because of two losing submissions to the Bush in 30 Seconds contest that morphed Bush into Hitler?

Well, funny how the Hitler analogies come easy to the other side.

From the June 10 broadcast of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: Joseph Goebbels was the Minister of Propaganda for the Nazi regime and whose very famous quote was, "If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth." All right? "If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth."

And that's what Stuart Smalley [O'Reilly regularly refers to Franken as Stuart Smalley, a character Franken created on Saturday Night Live], and Michael Moore and all of these guys do. They just run around.

O'Reilly then provided what he claimed to be an example of Franken's alleged propaganda; yet in the example O'Reilly provided, Franken was telling the truth:

O'REILLY: Stuart Smalley is actually telling people in the media that he's beating Rush Limbaugh in New York City on the radio.

I mean, it's -- those of us in the media who know -- all right -- is -- Stuart Smalley can -- why don't you just say you're 6'4"? [laughter] OK? I mean, that's how blatant a lie that is. It's just an absolute lie. And people just stare -- you just stare at that. And he runs around, saying it.

As Media Matters for America previously noted, on May 31, The New York Times reported that, among listeners ages 25 to 54, midday ratings for WLIB-AM in New York, which include three hours of Al Franken's radio program, The O'Franken Factor, have been higher than the midday ratings for WABC-AM, which include three hours of The Rush Limbaugh Show.

O'Reilly concluded by smearing Hollywood celebrities who attended the premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11 as equivalent to Goebbels's credulous followers:

O'REILLY: So who turns out for the screening of this movie [Fahrenheit 9/11] last night? You ready? Now, here are the celebrities that turn out. Here are the people who would turn out to see Josef Goebbels convince you that Poland invaded the Third Reich. It's the same thing, by the way. Propaganda is propaganda. OK?

Billy Crystal. Martin Sheen. Leonardo DiCaprio. Ellen DeGeneres. David Duchovny. Sharon Stone. Meg Ryan. Ashton Kutcher. Demi Moore. Norman Lear. Rob Reiner. Jodie Foster. Chris Rock. Larry David. Jack Black. Matthew Perry. Diane Lane.

On his FOX News Channel show that same day, O'Reilly continued the Nazi analogy by comparing Moore to infamous Nazi-propaganda filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl.

This movie will be big. The Right is afraid. And when they are afraid, they bring out the big artillery.

And seriously, what's a harsher attack than calling someone a Nazi?

I smell fear and desperation.

•  Harsher...

  And seriously, what's a harsher attack than calling someone a Nazi?

  Why calling him an "O'Reilly" of course

  by Dr Dive on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:32:03 AM PDT

  •  Voter Registration

    I made the point in a post that this is a great opportunity to have a voter registration effort outside the theaters showing the film.

    I will be at my local AMC24 thearterplex. I hope others will do the same.

    by Clark04 on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:33:17 AM PDT

    •  Great idea!

      I've been thinking of a good place for tabling with voter registration forms and I'll contact some movie theaters in my area soon.

      Please excuse me.....I feel giddy today.  I giggle spontaneously.  I smile at strangers.  I laugh at the smallest slice of humor.

      If I see a picture of Elizabeth Dole I'll think she's sexy.  It's that kind of day.

      Thank you, Michael Moore.  Thank you! Congratulations on your second Oscar.

      by paradox on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:42:18 AM PDT

  •  O'Reilly

    O'Reilly is an opportunistic bastard and not so much of an idiot that he cannot see that his entire raison d'etre is coming up on a dead end.

    He and his ilk will do whatever they need to to try and keep their gravy trains running. Having bound themselves to Bush and his actions, having been the many headed hydra of Bush's own Geobbels, and seeing now, finally, with what incompetence it has all played out, every one of them is running scared. Ideology or finances the cause of their fear, it makes little difference.

    These are too, it should be noted, the sort of folks who would think nothing of using hateful rhetoric wholly over the edge, enflaming their watchers, listeners, and readers violently out into the streets...before or after the election.

    by mitch2k2 on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:37:14 AM PDT

•  can't wait...

  I so can't wait to see this movie.  I hope it does open somewhere in Miami.. that will be total BS if it doesn't.  

  O'Reilly is so full of shit he doesn't deserve a response.  I love the picture of him on the front of Franken's "Lying Liars" book.. classic!  

  One comment he made does deserve a response.. the continual telling of lies and the Third Reich.. sounds like Bush and Co to me.  I'm not saying that their policies are as evil as that regime... I just think their propaganda and lie machine is!

  Eric

  by esherard8 on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:32:47 AM PDT

  •  Miami

    If you want it to open in your area, call some theaters!  Make some noise!  And if you find one that's playing it, tell them you're bringing a lot of friends.

    by Geheimbundler on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:15:54 AM PDT

  •  You can find theatres here:

    They've got a website up now showing where it'll be playing. F911 Tix

    by ems174 on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:21:02 AM PDT

    •  not playing anywhere near me

       The closest theater playing it is about 50 miles away. The thing is there are a good five or six theaters in my area, some of them with a LOT of screens. Gee, I wonder why it's not playing around here...

      by Jett on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 12:22:48 PM PDT

•  Smalley

  Yeah, Franken was talking about this the other day on his show. OReilly can't even truthfully accuse another man of lying.

  by Zackpunk on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:33:32 AM PDT

•  The Republicans

  know they're toast and Michael Moore is about to take away their precious Reagan death 'bumplet'. boo-hoo.

  by wilfred on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:34:45 AM PDT

  •  You are 100% correct

    The friends of the GOP are doing their best to censor this movie.

    Let's look at history as it actually happened. Once they succeeded in ending democracy and turning Germany into a one-party dictatorship, the Nazis orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to win the loyalty and cooperation of Germans. Viewpoints in any way threatening to Nazi beliefs or to the regime were censored or eliminated from all media. Famous Americans such as Jack London, Ernest Hemingway, and Sinclair Lewis, whose ideas the Nazis viewed as different from their own were not to be read.
    Goebbels was the very person who headed the group responsible for that type of censorship.

    To see O'Reilly trying to turn the table completely around on this one is causing me to piss my pants with laughter ..through my tears (knowing a lot of FOX-lovin' schlumps are going to buy his drivel).

    My story on the right's attempted censorship is here:
    Censorship of Fahrenheit 9/11

    Jude
    

    by Iddybud on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:30:53 AM PDT

    •  I know this is hopeless

      But boycotting is not censorship. If the Bush administration or some mayor said that the movie couldn't be shown, that would be censorship.

      This is just legal protest. They don't like something, they protest. Like we do. Of course, every time they try something like this and it's something we care about, we swamp them.

      (Seriously, how many people cared about that Reagan movie?)

      by Bill Rehm on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:25:43 AM PDT

      •  Semantics

        Actually, the definition of censorship does not necessarily encompass the government's directly disallowing art to be shown.
        The fact that the U.S. has an oligarchical concentration of power through corporations cannot be discounted when those same markets decide what will be marketed and what will be relegated to silence.
        When an extremely influential corporation takes Michael Moore's movie hostage by silencing it, they take the open flow of ideas hostage as well. They take us hostage.  
        The markets are directly responsible for discriminatory acts...Bush and Company can sit back and enjoy their corporate partners doing the dirty work for them.
        What Disney did to Moore was censorship. Disney didn't boycott Moore. They refused to distribute his film. Disney feared governmental rebuke...not a loss of profits. It was censorship. Let's call it like we see it rather than pining over semantics.
        It's very "Founding-father" to understand that a concentration of power in the hands of a few is a dangerous game. Look at the big picture when it comes to the people who are deciding what you'll see and what you won't.

        It's very "Limbaug-ish" to simply say corporations cannot censor.

         

        by Iddybud on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 03:35:58 PM PDT

        •  A reference

          Bill--Congrats on Gracey, by the way.

          I thought you might care to read this:

          The invisible gag: in the privatized, commercialized world we live in, corporations pose a growing threat to freedom of speech and information - examples of organizations attempting to prevent individual freedom of speech

          There's more to censorship than meets the popular standardized definition.
          

          by Iddybud on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 03:46:39 PM PDT

        •  I read the article below

          I should have been more careful in my definition. This is a direct action. It's an attempted boycott.

          I don't think it's accurate to describe boycotts as censorship. Moreovere, I don't think we can really afford it, since it's one of the tools that are still effective when we try to address corporate malfeasance.

          by Bill Rehm on Wed Jun 16, 2004 at 11:53:51 AM PDT

  •  the boycott begins

    Story on http://au.news.yahoo.com/040615/11/pgkt.html

    This group Move America Forward  is boycotting the movie and has a phone/email campaign to try and stop the showings.
    

    by dukestriker on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 12:07:39 PM PDT

    •  The problem is...

      People aren't as afraid here as they were in Germany, at least not yet.  People in small towns in Bush country will be terrorized, but most people live in cities and suburbs where the social ostracism is ineffective.  This is just good luck for us.  If this were the 20s, when most people still lived in small towns and on farms, it would have worked.  The people who won't see this movie ought to see it; but they are in the Red counties.  Sad to say, if you're Red, you're brain-dead.  Not their fault, though.

      The movie will be seen by a lot of people, and nothing that the Limbaugh-Coulter-O'Reilly maven say is going to change that.

      by Knut Wicksell on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 07:19:32 PM PDT

      •  Red

        Now, let me get this straight.

        "Red" states are those controlled and perhaps dominated by Republican'ts.

        And "Red" is a slang synonym for "Commie".

        Does that mean, then, that Republican'ts are "Commies"?
        

        by jnagarya on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 08:27:27 PM PDT

•  Achtung! Spelling Nazi!

  "Fahrenheit".

  by Blue the Wild Dog on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:36:01 AM PDT

•  I saw a commercial for it on the Spike

  Channel. It actually sounds serious and not like Moore's books. I will see it with an open mind.

  I am not a fan of Moore on the whole, but I will see what the man has to say.

  by jiacinto on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:36:38 AM PDT

•  O'reilly isn't *reporting*

  the names of those who attended, he is listing the names.  Lest anyone miss what is going on.

  by Marisacat on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:38:06 AM PDT

  •  Excellent point

    While we're at it (and I am not a fan, but...) can we get the Dixie Chicks to play the Dem convention?

    by Dr Dive on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:45:52 AM PDT

    •  can't happen

      natalie maines is in her 8th month of pregnancy. Better bet for Kerry's Inagaural Ball in January!

      by wilfred on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:24:26 AM PDT

      •  Natalie Maines

        Didn't she just have twins about a month ago?

        by Cracker on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:43:50 AM PDT

        •  nope

          that was one of the sisters.

          by wilfred on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:51:52 AM PDT

      •  That reminds me

        check out this site for a list of musicians backing Kerry.

        Also links to their tour schedule so you can check and see who's in your area if you want them to appear at your fundraiser, along with bios and contact information links.

        Pretty wide range of music styles...

        by Cali Scribe on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:52:42 AM PDT

  •  Taking names

    And you know O'Reilly's loyal audience was ready, pen & paper in hand, to scribble down the names of these un-persons. They know what to do. Boycott "Punk'd"! And "All In the Family" reruns! And whatever damn thing Billy Crystal does these days!

    Seriously, apart from urging theaters to ban the movie, are Moore's critics addressing any of the factual claims? (At least, claims made in advance of the movie's release.) The only one I've heard is incredulity, even among non-wingers, that Bush dawdled for several minutes after he was told the plane crashes were terror attacks.

    I can't wait to see that scene in the movie. I imagine Moore intercuts scenes of 9/11 with the "Pet Goat" reading, in real time.

    by Grumpy on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:49:38 AM PDT

    •  No

      Instead of banning they've issued a rumor that Al Queda is planning to strike movie theaters.  Heard it this AM on FAUX.

      by nolalily on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:21:39 AM PDT

      •  You must be kidding

        This same concept was brought up (in a satirical sense) in a diary last evening.  Do you have a source?

        by lapin on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:41:41 AM PDT

        •  Prediction

          As the heat rises, don't be surprised if Ashcroft announces an Orange Alert, to change the National Topic.

          by Al Rodgers on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:56:52 AM PDT

          •  As I understand it

            Ashcroft doesn't do that, Ridge does. Which is why after the last Ashcroft "the Russians are coming!" moment, Ridge left it at yellow. Somebody asked Ridge about it; reading between the lines I gathered that Ridge thinks a lot of the same things about Ashcroft that we do. If I can find a link I'll post it.

            by nota bene on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 12:02:31 PM PDT

            •  In that instance,

              it was reported that the law requires such announcements be made by the head of Homeland Security -- Ridge.

              I think that means we know how to view such announcements when made by Asscrafty.

              Including that made about the Mad Mall Massacrer who doesn't seem to have done anything but (1) exist, (2) be Muslim, and (3) be accused by the credible Asscrafty.
              

              by jnagarya on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 06:24:33 PM PDT

        •  Sorry to take so long responding

          I wish I had the exact source.  I said FAUX because I have a morning ritual - I listen to C-Span and switch between MSNBC and FAUX.  My memory is photogenic, so when I attempted to remember, I pictured the screen.  FAUX is what I saw.  Sorry.  That's how my mind works so obviously it was one of those stations but the mind is fallable as to exact source but the memory is not.

          by nolalily on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 02:17:49 PM PDT

      •  Gotta go with the fear

        A [proven deterrent!  Makes even the most reasonable-seeming people cower while applying copious amounts of duct tape to surfaces that will be ruined!  And stop talking trash about our president and his administration.  We're at war!

        by Lisa on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:55:15 PM PDT

  •  But wasn't O'Reilly there?

    Doesn't that mean he's on the Enemies list, too?

    I just get so confused.

    by Bill Rehm on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:19:48 AM PDT

    •  No

      And John Ashcoft isn't looking at porn because he enjoys it.  He does it to protect good American children from evil.

      Michael

      by perpetualstudent on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:57:57 AM PDT

      •  Really?

        Then what is all the Crisco for?

        by Bill Rehm on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:30:59 AM PDT

        •  The purpose of the Crisco

          on the forehead is to make it easy for him to shove his head up his ass.
          

          by jnagarya on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 06:26:35 PM PDT

      •  Porn

        I read that Ashcroft established an entire new division at the justice department to monitor porn for illegalities.  There's MANY FBI agents, I forget how many but something like 20-50, who's job it is to spend all day watching porns and documenting illegal acts.  

        I can just see some of the dialogue in this division:

        "Whoa, this one is REALLY bad, you've got to review this one Agent Jackson!"

        "Oh man, this girl is so young!  Agents Andrews and Chandra, I need an age estimate on the leggy blond in this video.  She is YOUNG, I'm tellin' ,ya, YOUNG!  After you review it, make sure Mr. Ashcroft sees it, he likes 'em youn, er...likes to review the really bad ones himself."

        "Can she do THAT?"  "I don't know, Agent Fillmore, I've never see anything like it."  "Agent Orange, get over here and check this out!  Look at this!  It's really BAD!  Do you think that's special effects or is she really doing that?"  "I'm not sure, Agent Rockwell, I'll have to review this one several times to be sure."

        by Subterranean on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:03:45 PM PDT

  •  back to the days of "Red Channels"

    when lives and careers were ruined, McCarthyist power-mongering disguised as patriotism-- and scores of people never worked again. Just because someone like O'R published their names.

      As a matter of fact, isn't that when Reagan's career began?

    by Tulip on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:29:06 AM PDT

  •  My two biggest crushes

    on the same list...Martin Sheen and Ellen DeGeneres...and here I am stuck on the Left Coast.

    sigh

    by Cali Scribe on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:47:43 AM PDT

•  Godwin is a Nazi

  Nevermind, irony is redundant these days nevermind.

  by galiel on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:38:13 AM PDT

  •  O'Really violated Godwin's Law.

    Does that mean he loses the debate?

    by republicans are idiots on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:46:36 AM PDT

    •  Yes

      Too bad he's not on the internet.

      Question: if Moore is Riefenstahl, who's Hitler? (I guess O'Reilly would say Hillary. Duh.)

      by nota bene on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:30:27 AM PDT

•  Just wondering...?

  Why was O'Reilly there?  Why was he invited?

  by Dissento on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:38:36 AM PDT

  •  Because Moore's smart

    And knew O'Lielly would give him the free publicity?

    by Randomfactor on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:19:42 AM PDT

•  I wonder

  You think O'Reilly's Nazi feint is coming from the top? Has anyone else pulled that line yet?

  I also think O'Reilly miscalculated. He is certainly popular, no doubt about it. But so are many of the celebs he named. And by listing them, I think he might convince otherwise uninterested people to catch the movie themselves. I mean, if Chris Rock is watching it...

  by emptywheel on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:38:43 AM PDT

  •  Michael Savage

    uses the Nazi perjorative against Democrats constantly.

    More disturbing to me are Hannity and other wingers on talk radio refering to Democrats as 'rats' and 'demon rats'!
    Frightening to those of us actually familiar with Third Reich propoganda.

    I wonder how popular Savage's show 'The Savage Nation' would be if he used his real last name which is Weiner.

    'The Weiner Nation'!

    by Manix on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:24:08 AM PDT

    •  Weiner Nation

      Well, we can use it, even if he doesn't.

      by emptywheel on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:38:32 AM PDT

    •  Maus

      Hearing the bit about Democrats being equated with rats brought to mind Art Spiegelman's pulitzer prize-winning Maus.

      by kherr on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:13:31 AM PDT

      •  Has anyone forwarded that

        "Maus" screen to Savage?

        And is his last name German or Jewish?
        

        by jnagarya on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 06:30:02 PM PDT

    •  Hmmm

      Would that be pronunced "whiner" or "weener"?  Either works for me.

      by kaleidescope on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:16:58 AM PDT

    •  Political invective can be revealing.

      The Republicans call Democrats 'rats'. The Democrats' supporters call Republicans 'thugs,' or 'rethugs,' or 'repukelicans'... I've seen those terms a lot, even on this site, where the standards of courtesy are considerably higher than, say, the comment threads on Atrios.

      Neither side is being polite. Well, but why would you expect it? By all means shout back, but don't allow your feelings to be hurt. Sticks and stones, you know. They do many worse things that are really worth being upset about.

      by Canadian Reader on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 12:04:11 PM PDT

      •  You left out

        Republican'ts.
        

        by jnagarya on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 06:31:08 PM PDT

        •  My own favorite

          Because I invented it

          Republemmings

          by Knut Wicksell on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 07:22:24 PM PDT

          •  With a bit of propagandistic oscillation . . .

            Republican'ts tell the truth.
            

            by jnagarya on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 08:31:08 PM PDT

      •  Here's

        why being called 'rats' scares me though. Rats are vermin. Dirty, disease carrying rodents which need to be contained and exterminated.

        And 'demon rats'!!! Same as above I guess but with the added perjorative of being posessed by Satan.

        This language is used to incite poorly educated, ignorant white male Republicans who are just a little more prone to violence than your average liberal democrat.

        This is the kind of language that the Third Reich used to justify and implement genocide.

        Calling Republicans 'thugs,' or 'rethugs,' or 'repukelicans' may not sound nice but it's not the language of extermination either.

        by Manix on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 08:26:20 PM PDT

•  Fox News Praises Farenheit 9/11

  Billy Boy is such a deluded horse's ass that it is no longer pleasurable to watch him make a blustering idiot of himself.  I'm numbed...

  What IS enjoyable is reading this little blurb by Roger Friedman from FoxNews.com PRAISING Farenheit 9/11 to the heavens.

  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html

  O' Fudgeface is probably having a conniption....  Well, a bigger conniption than usual.

  Expect Friedman to be fired from Fox on the grounds he is a friend of terror who wants a job booking botox injection appointments for Senator Kerry.

  by CanadavsBush on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:41:22 AM PDT

  •  hmm

    Well, I don't know. Friedman lost some credibility with me when he refers to Charlton Heston as a "helpless target" in "Bowling for Columbine."

    by AggieDemocrat on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:55:42 AM PDT

    •  At the time,

      wasn't he? Wasn't Heston slipping into dementia or Alzheimer's at that point?

      by Bill Rehm on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:21:26 AM PDT

      •  yeah

        Heston was clearly not well. Moore was way too heavy handed with him. I wish he'd gone after LaPierre instead. LaPierre wasn't the president of the NRA at the time but he would have been a lot more fun to tear apart.
        I loathe LaPierre. He's obviously a tool for the Republican party and not a real advocate for gun owners rights.

        Disclaimer:
        I'm a life member of the NRA.

        by Manix on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:30:28 AM PDT

        •  As an NRA member -

          what was your take on Moore's analysis of gun rights and culture?

          I'm usually a huge control advocate, and I have to say I have been carefully re-evaluating my positions after seeing his comparisons of US vs. Canada on gun statistics, gun violence and the culture of fear. Made me pine for a warmer version of Windsor.

          by hyperstation on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:34:01 AM PDT

          •  See

            I thought before I saw 'Bowling for Colombine' that Moore was going to slam guns and gun ownership. But I didn't get that from the film at all. He laid into the NRA pretty good but then so do I.

            I think Moore understands that the problem of "gun violence" in the USA is a factor more of economic disparity than of easy access to guns.

            If we were able to raise the average per capita income in this country to say $50,000 per year we'd see crimes involving guns nearly disappear. I live in a upscale neighborhood (not boasting, it's just where I'm at right now). I can't remember the last time there was a shooting in my town.

            If I lived in Watts, or Compton, or East St. Louis I'd be seeing and hearing shootings constantly, as the residents of those neighborhoods do. If we changed our society so that economic and educational opportunity was available to all and we had a more rational criminal justice system, gun crimes would become extremely rare.

            Passing more gun control laws in the current climate of economic violence in the USA doesn't even make any sense. I think people who are pro gun control (I'm not trying to insult anyone) and support all the BS gun laws that have been passed in the last few years are unwilling to address the fundamental reasons for violence (including gun violence) which are economic disparity and the desperation that goes with it. That and the reality that it's nearly impossible to get good psychological counseling if you need it. Especially if you can't afford it.

            by Manix on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:02:12 AM PDT

            •  x

              Just wanted to add that I think the psychological counseling is key... the poor and lower middle classes have essentially no access to psychological help, generally even if they have other health insurance. Add to that the lack of time off... frankly, sometimes I'm surprised that people don't just mentally & emotionally pop more often than they do.

              I was thrilled to see that Moore's take on guns wasn't the standard left line. I think we make a big mistake on this one, to be honest. But I suppose it would be impossible to address the issue at its core without opening yourself up to charges of class warfare or some such.
              

              by Spit on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:32:06 AM PDT

            •  But what about Canada?

              One of the things I found most impressive about Bowling for Columbine is that it didn't buy into any of the pat theories. Remember: he pointed out that Canada has economic disparity, too, and that they actually had much higher unemployment at the time than the U.S. does.

              The main point of BfC, imho, was that our culture of fear is at fault, and not just for gun violence. We're a society running so scared of virtually everything fundamental to the 21st century that almost all our public policies are motivated by terror, in every sense of the word.

              Moore, again imho, was calling for us all to calm down and begin to deal with our problems rationally. A superpower that is terrified all the time is in fact terrifying.

              by matt n nyc on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:33:21 AM PDT

              •  I agree

                My knee-jerk lefty reaction was always to advocate for stricter gun control. But Moore really got me to reexamine the issue as one that's about fear and not hardware. And of course, a culture of fear conveniently props up Shrub on the last leg he's got to stand on.

                by red87 on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:57:26 AM PDT

                •  It's also about deceit

                  One of the biggest frauds on the US citizenry is that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

                  And -- further -- that there is a "right of revolution," also protected by the Second.

                  And then Neo-Confederate Asscrafty declares by fiat that the "law" is that advanced by the liars -- directly against the consistent and still standing Supreme Courts holdings on both points.

                  It has got to a point that the fraud is given equal footing with the actual law, as if the point is actually "debateable".  

                  Anyone here who believes the lie might be true, read the Constitution from beginning to end.  And notice the consistencies of usage beginning with the plural "We the People".  If you read it carefully, you'll find at least three points in the Constitution that make clear that there is no "right of revolution".

                  As for the direct fraud -- that the Second protects an individual right: the Congressional debates of that which became the Bill of Rights, and the Second, are readily available, and they conclusively refute that fraud.

                  As for LaPierre: his language against the BATF was not only thuggish -- that of which he accused the BATF -- but it helped stir up the fringe that produced and eventuated in Tim McVeigh and the OK City bombing.  I think some must recall that immediately thereafter, there were some on the Reich who praised that mass murder.

                  And their rhetoric was no more extreme than LaPierre's.
                  

                  by jnagarya on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 06:56:54 PM PDT

              •  Canada Emp. Rate

                Just something I can't let slide, though I agree with your broader point

                Canada's unemployment rate is higher than the U.S.'s for one reason-we count EVERYONE who is out of work in our data and not just those "looking for work".  Canada's overall rate of people who are employed versus people who don't work (for whatever reason) is more favourable.

                Not to mention that our spelling of unfavourable is more favourable as well.

                by CanadavsBush on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 12:06:41 PM PDT

                •  Don't doubt that this is true

                  But on a tangent, the one thing I'll always remember about BfC -- the biggest revelation by far -- was the bit about Canadians not locking their doors. If this is indeed true -- and I have to admit, I still find it hard to believe --what better example could there be of a culture that doesn't run on fear?

                  And actually, come to think of it, counting ALL your unemployed is another way that you're a "fearless" -- or at least less fear-filled -- nation.

                  Vive le Canada!

                  by matt n nyc on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 12:18:01 PM PDT

                  •  Always confused me

                    I still haven't seen it, but hearing about this part confuses me. Is he talking about locking your doors when you're asleep or out? We always did that. But when you're there and up, why make a point of locking your door? (One day I was floored by the thought that what surprised Moore might be that Canadians leave their doors unlocked when they're sitting in the living room. Sheesh, what kind of a place must you live if that seems crazy?)

                    by gong on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 12:26:57 PM PDT

                    •  Uh, anywhere in the U.S?

                      I didn't realize that you're Canadian, Gong.

                      But to answer your question, most of the Canadians seemed to be saying that they didn't lock their doors during the day, when they were there. But he also interviewed a woman who didn't lock her doors even at night -- and even though she'd had a break-in one night.

                      There was an extended sequence where Moore just walked into unlocked townhouses in Toronto. I was amazed because I've spent a lot of time in Toronto, and I NEVER would have thought that all those homes I see are unlocked. Maybe I've lived in New York too long but the first thing everyone I know does upon entering their home is to make SURE the door is locked behind them.

                      by matt n nyc on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 12:36:37 PM PDT

                      •  Canadians lock their doors

                        I live in Toronto, and to say that Torontonians don't lock their doors is laughable.  I mean, the crime situation here is probably better than most major American cities, but it is still a problem.  I lock my door every night, and with good reason.  My parents, grandparents, ex-girlfriend and several friends have all been robbed.  My Dad has been car-jacked.

                        Moore overstated his point bigtime in order to underline his broader message.  I liked Bowling For Columbine but his portrait of Canada as an innocent utopia was laying it on thick.  

                        by CanadavsBush on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 12:54:42 PM PDT

                        •  Agreed

                          Moore sugar-coated us big-time. Despite how safe I feel personally, I should note that we have to take precautions against car-theft. You see broken car windows on the sidewalk every day, and my friends had their car stolen from directly in front of their apartment last year.

                          But the point is we don't live in a great deal of fear, I think.

                          by Scott in Montreal on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 01:14:05 PM PDT

                      •  Actually, nowhere

                        I've lived in Ontario, Québec, and now Hong Kong, never the States. (So why d'you spend so much time on dKos? Errr.....) To be honest, I somehow can't remember how we handled this sort of thing in Montréal, and my instincts were probably formed in the suburbs of a medium-sized Ontario city (Kingston), so take me with a grain of salt, if you want.

                        by gong on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 01:14:18 PM PDT

                        •  Kingston , eh?

                          Gotta love the Tragically Hip!!!

                          :D

                          by Motor City Canuck on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 02:35:35 PM PDT

                          •  Well...

                            ...I decided early that every Hip song either sounded exactly like "New Orleans is Sinking" (in which case I loved it), or I didn't like it; they split about 50/50. Not really my thing I guess.

                            by gong on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 02:38:21 PM PDT

                            •  It's funny....

                              since I've moved to the States, I've driven every person crazy, trying to get them to like the Hip. My little piece of Canada I've taken with me to the States.

                              That and the Leafs. :P

                              by Motor City Canuck on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 03:02:09 PM PDT

                              •  "Poets"

                                I love the song "Poets," but that's all I've heard by them

                                by snookybeh on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 03:33:22 PM PDT

                                •  Good God!!!

                                  Get out there and check them out! I recommend starting with Road Apples and working from there.

                                  See? I can't help myself. :D

                                  by Motor City Canuck on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 05:03:11 PM PDT

                    •  My doors stay locked

                      but I don't exactly live in a Republican stronghold, if you get my drift.

                      I used to live in the country, and I didn't lock anything ever. Some folks I know who lived way out in the sticks said they'd leave their car keys in the ignition all the time--nobody around to steal the car. Now that I live right in the middle of a city I'm not inclined to leave anything unlocked.

                      by nota bene on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 12:40:01 PM PDT

                  •  No point

                    in locking the door if you're home. Maybe at night, but I don't usually go to the point of checking that it's locked before hitting the sack.

                    When there's no one home, for sure I lock the door. (I live in a walk-up on a busy street that's mixed commercial/residential and has a few sketchy characters nearby). I even have an alarm, but that's mostly to keep my insurance rates down.

                    In most Montreal neighbourhoods, it's perfectly safe to walk the streets in the middle of the night. On a nice night, I'll walk two miles from downtown after the bars close at 3 a.m.

                    I've heard horror stories from West Hartford friends describing streets that "you just DO NOT go to" and intersections where you're a fool to stop at a red light because someone will approach the car and try to hold you up. (This would be patently ridiculous here - I figured there was at least a bit of paranoia involved).

                    by Scott in Montreal on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 01:10:38 PM PDT

                    •  True enough

                      I lived in Montreal for 4 years. While what you say about the streets on a nice night is absolutely true - especially if you're a man. However, one should definetly lock your doors in Mtl, but not because of violent crime. Rather it is burglary that is a huge problem.

                      Ben P

                      by Ben P on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 01:18:23 PM PDT

                    •  The secret deterent in Canada

                      is the infestation of the language with misspellings.

                      I mean, spelling it "neighbo_u_rhood" is bound to be offputting.
                      

                      by jnagarya on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 07:04:35 PM PDT

                      •  Not wrong - British

                        The Canadian use of the "u" in words like favour and neighbour is a consequence of the influence of British spelling conventions. (This doesn't apply to words like "gaol", however.) Check out the Canadian version of the Oxford English Dictionary, (and the original multi-volume goliath is a great resource too.)

                        We also have more french influence in our usage than in the U.S. E.g.: English-speaking Quebeckers like myself tend to "take" a decision rather than "make" one.

                        Cheers,
                        Scott in Montreal

                        by Scott in Montreal on Wed Jun 16, 2004 at 06:59:51 AM PDT

                  •  It is true

                    And my mother-in-law was murdered because of it.  I lock my doors.

                    by Knut Wicksell on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 07:24:40 PM PDT

              •  Exactly

                I think the scene in Los Angeles where he is interviewing I think the author of "The Culture of Fear"-Gavin DeBecker??- is so telling....here they are on a beautiful Southern California day and they are walking the streets of South Central...I would never have guessed it was South Central.   Moore and the author discuss how really people in LA are more at risk from air pollution, etc. They come upon a news crew that is searching for a shooting somewhere.  Moore asks a cop who is now on the scene about air pollution, the guy just looks at him stupidly, doesn't even get it.  Meanwhile the news crew is asked about air pollution and the guy says no we gotta chase down these gun stories...ratings and all.

                I think the point has been made here that our priorities are totally screwed up in this country, and to add salt to the wound we have a media obsessesed with fear and violence because it makes money.  My impression of Canadian news is that it generally looks something like the News Hour for everyone- not the newstainment we get.  Americans are fed a diet of OJ Simpson, Scott Peterson- which my hometown is by the way hosting the trial-etc.  If I tune into the local evening news I am going to hear about a shooting in San Jose, Richmond and San Francisco, which are all geographically isolated from each other, but in my mind there were three shootings in my backyard- so I better be scared.  After watching that documentary, I completely gave up watching any local news except for the weather and since the SF Bay Area has pretty predictable weather that was not even hard to dismiss.  

                by CharmRWC on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 02:24:15 PM PDT

                •  Yeah

                  Canadian TV news is way better - especially the CBC. Peter Mansbridge is the man.

                  by Scott in Montreal on Wed Jun 16, 2004 at 07:03:55 AM PDT

            •  I don't

              necessarily agree with everything you just said but that was a  4-worthy post.

              I'm still wrestling with the whole idea of gun control. I like how you framed it as "economic violence."

              by nota bene on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:35:32 AM PDT

            •  good on you

              I have a much more nuanced view of guns than most people I know, on either side of the debate, and it sounds like you do too, and a lot of people here.

              One thing which I've found helpful in this regard is JS Mill's megarant "On Liberty" (I have it on my site plus it's avail via google) - not only does he take on the regurgitation system - sorry, education system, the issue of what consenting adults do at home & why the govt should stay out, and the free speech/responsible speech problem,  but he also tackles the problem of govt regulation of dangerous items with legitimate uses. No pushbutton answers, but a lot of clear, rational ways to look at the problem.

              Where I live we have a lot of guns, but comparativley little gun violence. We also ahve the death penalty, but haven't used it in 65 years. It's basically a blue law.  Now thyre threatening to make us use it, and we don't want to, and we don't even have a death chamber - remodeled it into offices decades ago. So this may well push us into getting rid of it at last.

              But the thing is, legally we look more conservative than MA but we don't have a governor pushing for killing more poeple (even though our governor is not a good fellow & his fellow republican officials even call him a "dictator"!)

              So laws on paper have less to do with how good/bad things are, than local culture and environment.

              by bellatrys on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 12:38:17 PM PDT

              •  No sane society

                leaves dangerous substances or objects lying around unregulated.  That's a matter of reason.

                Thus the regulation -- extremists' assertions to the contrary notwithstanding -- of such as guns has been a matter of routine since the earliest of the earliest-founded colony on this continent.

                (New Plimouth [Plymouth] Colony, as example, routinely regulated alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.  ATF.)

                "Even" the Founders and Framers regularly engaged in not only gun regulation and prohibition but also "gun-grabbing".  Had they not, there would have been, as example, a counter-"revolution".

                by jnagarya on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 08:40:20 PM PDT

            •  I don't think we have the answers

              For the most part I'm pro gun-registration. I don't see any problem with licensing guns, it doesn't strike me as the first step to Armageddon. But I don't think we really know what makes somebody take the step to using a gun to settle differences.

              A few years ago there was that story about some kid in Kentucky who decided to sit up on a hill and shoot up his middle school. But what struck me about the reporting then was that this was an area where guns were part of the culture, where any kid probably got his first gun at age 12, and where up to that point they didn't use them to shoot other kids. So it was clear to me that being in a gun-oriented culture didn't automatically lead to gun violence. Something changed leading this kid to make the choices he did. I never got a satisfactory answer as to what. Guns didn't cause it, and gun-control wouldn't have fixed it.

              by rppa on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 01:50:33 PM PDT

              •  The

                problem with gun registration, as I see it, is this:

                Only law-abiding citizens will do it. Criminals with illegaly acquired guns won't. And those with legally acquired guns who have mischief planned won't either.

                Let's say someone registers their gun with the local police Dept. Then let's say they decide to shoot their boss or something. How will registration stop that?

                The only real reason to require gun registration, in my opinion, is to have a list of who has guns and where they live so gun confiscation sweeps will be easier. But when that happens the people who have guns sure as hell aren't going to give them up willingly.

                by Manix on Wed Jun 16, 2004 at 01:34:22 AM PDT

            •  I certainly recognize the economic disparity

              as being a central cause of violence.

              But I also recognize that it is looney to throw guns into the middle of that.

              And then make excuses which avoid the fact that it isn't possible to shoot someone if one doesn't have a gun.

              Does that mean the violence would be done with knives if there weren't guns?  Perhaps.  But I see nothing positive in providing a broader choice of weapons, and then arguing that the cause is anything but the weapons used to commit the violence.
              

              by jnagarya on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 06:45:35 PM PDT

              •  We have lots of guns and

                comparativley little regulation, but the preferred method of offing your relatives or unliked neighbors is still blunt or sharp objects, or just main strength before dumping them in the river.

                I think we've had one drive-by shooting in the city in the last ten years. It was a weird case, in a lot of ways. We've had a couple people shot (by drug dealers?) in iffy situations, and a couple cases where guys shot wives or girlfriends or rivals. There are a very few hunting accidents (accidents?) every year. But you're way more likely to be beat down by a tire iron if you're a guy in a bar fight, or strangled or stabbed if you're a woman in a relationship.

                Around here, gun violence is most likely to take the form of someone shooting up windows with BBs... We're just more "hands on" I guess...
                

                by bellatrys on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 07:09:10 PM PDT

              •  I hear you

                but I'm not sure you've thought out your point.

                But I also recognize that it is looney to throw guns into the middle of that.
                No gun rights advocate advocates throwing guns in anywhere. The idea is that one has the right to own a firearm if they legally qualify to do so. If guns were impossible to get legally do you really believe that gangs and criminals wouldn't get them?

                Cocaine and Meth are illegal. Extremely illegal. In fact Meth has no legal source at all. There's plenty of Meth and cocaine around though. If it were illegal to own or posess a gun do you think the criminals would obey that law? Do you really think they wouldn't be able to get guns?

                And then make excuses which avoid the fact that it isn't possible to shoot someone if one doesn't have a gun.
                Have you considered that it isn't possible to kill someone with a car if one doesn't have a car. More people are killed every year in auto collisions than killed with firearms. 47,000 people last year were killed in auto collisions. But if no one had a car those people would be alive today. Think about it.

                Does that mean the violence would be done with knives if there weren't guns?  Perhaps.  But I see nothing positive in providing a broader choice of weapons, and then arguing that the cause is anything but the weapons used to commit the violence.

                No. Guns would still be the weapon of choice. Why? Because it's sheer fantasy to believe that there's a way to make guns disappear. As stated above, if guns were illegal, the gangs and the criminals would still have them. Why? Because they don't obey laws anyway. Besides, it's insane to argue that 'weapons' cause violence. Without someone wielding the weapon it wouldn't be able to hurt anyone.
                Listen. The causes of violence are the same everywhere: poverty, desperation, lack of education, lack of opportunity......
                Arguing that we should spend any effort in a futile effort to eliminate guns without first addressing the causes of violence is meaningless.

                by Manix on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 08:10:48 PM PDT

                •  Who gives a shit about

                  how many people are killed every year by cars, baseball bats, banana peels, or falling down the stairs.  The issue is guns.

                  One death is too many.  Comparing and contrasting how many are killed by this, that, or another means other than guns is avoidant, irresponsible, and dumb.

                  If you want to defend gun ownership, stick to the issues of guns.  Or else be seen as looney for arguing that there are presently fifteen ways that people get killed, so it's okay to make it sixteen.

                  I've read all the PR junk, horseshit, and outright lying published by the NRA and their bought-and-paid propagandists.  The issue is not everything but guns.  The issue is guns.  If you have to avoid the issue in order to defend the issue, then you've already abandoned reason for the jungles of irrational excuse-making.
                  

                  by jnagarya on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 08:55:11 PM PDT

                •  You're projecting --

                  and putting words in my mouth.

                  Typical irrationality of gun-nuts -- which I and others have been directly confronting for at least 15 years, and shredding their "arguments" for as long.

                  I didn't say guns will "disappear".  But I do thank you for admitting that guns are the "choice" of weapon with which to kill.

                  I assume, of course, you mean "kill" while pretending the real purpose of owning guns is to shoot at targets, rabbits, squirrels, and machine-gunning to death dangerous, wild, attacking chipmunks?

                  by jnagarya on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 08:59:49 PM PDT

                •  Get it through your head:

                  A person cannot shoot a person with a gun unless the person has a gun.

                  The gun does shoot by itself.

                  The looney idea that "it isn't the gun it's the person" ignores the fact that the person at fault of misusing the gun used a gun when misusing the gun.

                  The gun doesn't shoot by itself.

                  Nor are all killings committed by means of guns by the statistically insignifant number of criminals.  Most are committed by "law-abiding" individuals, including children who happen upon a gun and kill someone with it.

                  Again: I couldn't care less how many people are killed by cars, baseball bats, knives, banana peels, or falling down the stairs per year.  Those aren't the issue, they are a dodge.  

                  And get over the nonsense that you have a "right" to own a gun as part of some "revolutionary" fantasy that never happened outside the movies.  There has never been a time when the purpose of the militia was to "oppose tyranny".  George Washington did not lead a "militia" (if you knew militia law you'd know why).  He led a the "Continental Army".

                  Even if we ignore the fact that your little popgun isn't going to do a whole lot to a gov't which has tanks and bombers and nukes.
                  

                  by jnagarya on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:08:13 PM PDT

                  •  Combined response to your responses.

                    Comparing and contrasting how many are killed by this, that, or another means other than guns is avoidant, irresponsible, and dumb.

                    Well I learned in school to compare and contrast as a way of examining an issue. Compare one phenomenon to another in order to understand the issue better. You're the first person I've heard say that it's not a good idea.

                    Or else be seen as looney for arguing that there are presently fifteen ways that people get killed, so it's okay to make it sixteen.

                    Not the point I was going for. People killed for no good reason, that's a terrible loss. No matter what the cause. Perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly..
                    47,000 people killed in automobile collisions, 30 something thousand killed by gun violence, 90 something thousand killed by medical errors, 250 something thousand
                    dead as a direct result of alcohol consumption......

                    All of those deaths are a terrible loss and a terrible tradgedy.  I don't minimize or marginalize any of those deaths. What I was trying to get at is that guns don't cause gun violence. No more than autos cause auto collisions or that scalpels kill people, or that alcohol  jumps out of a bottle and murders a quarter million people a year . Inanimate objects and substances don't kill people. Human intervention is required for that.

                    So, what do we do about the human activity part of this problem? I stand by my original premise that gun violence results from larger societal problems and not from the presence of guns. How do we fix this? Well if we provide a decent standard of living, meaningful employment, secure neighborhoods, good schools, child care, hope  for all of our citizens the desperation and anger that leads desperate and angry people to do desperate and angry things will no longer fuel violence. Gun violence or otherwise.

                    While we're at it let's force the auto makers to make safer autos. Let's put more highway patrolmen on the road to enforce traffic laws. Let's own up to what a terrible toll auto deaths are causing. Let's educate people how to drive safely. And when someone shows that they are not responsible enough to drive a car on a public road, prevent them from doing so.
                    No reason we can't do the same with firearms too.

                    More public education about the deadly effects of alcohol consumption will lead to many fewer deaths from alcohol consumption.

                    That's how we do it. Not by banning these things. Hell we've had a war on drugs for twenty years and zero tolerance laws and now where are we. Drugs are everywhere! Prohibition hasn't worked. Legalize it and  regulate it. This country will be a safer place if we do.

                    Yeah but what about the guns? Look at Switzerland. A safe stable society. A place where people have a social safety net if they fall on hard times. A place where everone gets a good education, has access to health care, a place with little crime. A place with extremely low rates of gun crime. But look! Every able bodied male above the age of 18, and who has a clean criminal record has a military assault rifle! They're REQUIRED to have them! And a few hundred rounds of amuniton! Provided by the Swiss government! The nation is awash with fully automatic assault rifles!.Yet gun crimes there are nill. If guns caused gun violence, the Swiss would all be dead by now.

                    The Second Amendment states very clearly that individuals have the right to posess firearms, contrary to what you believe. If you'd like to discuss it further I'd be happy to.

                    by Manix on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:40:39 PM PDT

        •  And Heston was an arrogant and ignorant

          tool for the NRA, helping advance their Second Amendment fraud.
          

          by jnagarya on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 06:40:34 PM PDT

          •  Heston

            Yeah but did you see him in 'The Omega Man"? Or "Soylent Green"? Those movies were AWSOME!

            by Manix on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:45:48 PM PDT

      •  That's the story - and it seems plausible

        The Heston interview is certainly the most hotly contested point in "Bowling for Columbine." However, regardless of your feelings about Friedman's take on the fairness of that interview, it's a big plus that he urges everyone to see it and says: "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."

        This is not at all what we usually get from Fox, and it may get all but the daily kool aid drinkers to think seriously about seeing the film.

        by hyperstation on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:30:48 AM PDT

    •  How helpless is he?

      He keeps running for NRA president and keeps winning. If you don't want to be questioned then get out of the limelight.

      If heston truly has some form of demetia, it speaks volumes about the NRA and how desperate they are to have a famous front man.  

      by skallas on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:55:02 AM PDT

      •  He is

        their Ronald Reagan.

        by Manix on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:06:15 AM PDT

      •  Wayne LaPierre

        is the president of the NRA, IIRC.

        by Bill Rehm on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:34:42 AM PDT

        •  Nope

          Wayne LaPierre is Vice President and Executive Director of the NRA.  Heston, or whoever the current shill is, is President.  Wayne likes to stay in the  shadows - it's a better shooting position when you're lying in ambush.

          by HollywierdLiberal on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 05:42:05 PM PDT

  •  nice

    he is a friend of terror who wants a job booking botox injection appointments for Senator Kerry

    haha, that's just too perfect

    by BenMurphy on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 12:13:44 PM PDT

  •  Crazy Like A...

    Seeing this praise for F9/11 on Fox got me thinking about something I'd heard long ago concerning Murdock's MO in Britian. For the longest time Murdock's media operation in Britian supported the Tory party with the same blind devotion that Fox News shows the Republicans in this country.  But then the Tories lost their grip on the government and fell into such disrepute that their return to power seemed highly unlikely. Murdock, knowing what side the bread's buttered on, now makes sure all the coverage his papers provide for Labour are very complimentary. Some blogger(can't recall who) suggested a polarity shift of that sort could happen here too, but only if the Republican party were completely discredited and relegated to the status of minority party indefinately. Part of me wonders if Rupert is beginning to consider this a real possibility, and is started to lay down the first foundations of a possible shift.

    by Harry the Hop on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 02:23:11 PM PDT

•  How the right is attacking...

  It is worth noting that Howard Kaloogian, of "the Defend Reagan Committee" which fought to have CBS not air the Reagan miniseries last November is fighting hard to get movie theatres to not show Fahrenheit 911.

  For more information, please check out my blog at Greater Democracy

  by aldon on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:43:42 AM PDT

•  if it weren't so sad, it'd be funny

  That's a good quote by O'Rielly since he's the master of repeating lies and half-truths until people believe them.  

  Physician, heal thyself.

  by Scott Pauls on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:46:33 AM PDT

•  Nazi calling the kettle black

  What's sort of funny is that O'Reilly's comparing people who were at the premiere to Nazis when he himself was at the premiere -- even if he left early. Jawohl!

  by darrelplant on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:52:08 AM PDT

•  I smell assholes and bad breath

  a scrub brush, a barrel of borax, two quarts of listerine and a gallon of lemon fresh mop and glow can't cover up the stench that O'Reily gives off.  

  Dunk him in bleach

  by gaspare on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:53:23 AM PDT

•  Nip Hollywood in the Bud

  Yeah. Don't go to any Demi Moore movies if you truly love your country. Actually, just to be safe, don't eat any Dinty Moore beef stew.

  And actually, since we all know that gay marriage is worse than Nazis, let's presume that she's just a beard for Michael Moore in the Moore-Kutcher coupling. Yeah, and she taught Moore how to use Photoshop to drop those 98 pounds for the ad picture in which W's face is morphed over Kutcher.

  But anyway, no Demi Moore movies. Except maybe that one where she plays a soldier.

  by textus on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:14:49 AM PDT

  •  Geez textus

    That was almost poetic.

    by emptywheel on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:41:16 AM PDT

  •  yeah but

    she challenged authority and tradition, i dont think  people should watch it.  why does demi moore hate america?

    by juls on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:57:30 AM PDT

    •  Because ...

      ... she used to be married to Bruce Willis, who shot up all the bad guys in those Die Hard movies.

      by Donald Koelper on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 04:44:36 PM PDT

•  Let me get this straight...

  ... the Bushists claim their Dear Leader has dictatorial powers... they wage aggressive war, round up civilians in the conquered country and torture them... and we are the Nazis.

  What does that make the Bushists?  What's a Nazi to a Nazi?

  by grytpype on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:17:54 AM PDT

  •  I think we have to assume...

    ... that the Admin is Weimer Germany, what with deliberately week currency, hiding the malfeasance of rich industrialists, and so forth.

    by textus on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:20:32 AM PDT

•  all of the rats

  have their backs up...they're running scared, but never forget that all animals are their most deadly dangerous when scared this way.
  

  by mitch2k2 on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:19:17 AM PDT

•  Controversy? What Controversy?

  I can't wait until the 25th to see this film! Here's a link to a very funny movie poster:

  http://dave.typepad.com/dave/2004/06/best_movie_post.html

  by mhtims on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:23:40 AM PDT

•  what's up o'really?

  name-calling? engaging in disputes over who has the highest ratings? throwing around nazi references? damn o'really, i thought you were a "serious journalist". c'mon, man, how are you going to rack up any more Peabody's when you're running around acting like some kind of hack?

  by scottesposito on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:23:57 AM PDT

•  Best of the best are worse than Abu Ghraib

  The Army's elite Delta Force is accused of routine torture worse than Abu Ghraib at a secret facility at Baghdad Airport, according to a May 20 report by NBC News correspondent Campbell Brown:

  "...sources say the prisoners there are hooded from the moment they are captured. They are kept in tiny dark cells. And in the BIF's six interrogation rooms, Delta Force soldiers routinely drug prisoners, hold a prisoner under water until he thinks he's drowning, or smother them almost to suffocation."

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5024068/

  by galiel on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:28:44 AM PDT

  •  It's called "water boarding"

    Central Intelligence Agency's use of coercive interrogation methods against some high-level leaders and operatives of Al Qaeda produces concern inside agency about abuse; at least one agency employee reportedly has been disciplined for threatening detainee with gun during questioning; Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, thought to have helped plan 9/11 terror attacks, was strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown; that and other techniques were authorized by set of secret rules for interrogation of high-level Qaeda prisoners that were endorsed by Justice Dept and CIA...

    link

    by lapin on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 12:41:31 PM PDT

    •  Apparently the detainees

      at/near Baghdad Airport are the upper echelon, including Tariq Aziz.  

      I wonder if the German Nazis tortured upper echelon detainees and POWs.
      

      by jnagarya on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 09:19:03 PM PDT

•  Amazing!

  Of course the movie is going to be effective.  But what I didn't count on was how effective the ad campaign for the movie would be.  It amounts to neg ads against Bush that can run without regard to any of the campaign finance laws.  I think that this has the potential to have an even bigger impact than the movie itself.

  by SW on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 10:33:11 AM PDT

  •  could it be banned because of that?

    Is there any way that the wingnuts could find a way to ban this film's distribution based on some violation of campaign laws?

    by abbri on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:26:21 AM PDT

    •  Don't think so

      They'd have to write a new law.  No, I think this is a loophole that they will scream bloody murder over.  But they