OT and politics: Getting back to Aisling on MM
Vorlonagent
Republican he *did* like." and Aisling challenged me to learn a little more
about Moore. Most of what I knew then was third-person hearsay, albeit from
people who usually make sense to me. I back-burnered this after Richard
Biggs' death because politics can be so petty and factious at times. I'm
back into the swing of things now and I have finished looking over
michaelmoore.com and decided what I think of the guy from his writings. I
made a point to avoid the anti-Moore sites. I knew I was walking in with a
negative view and didn't want to add any more prejudice to the results. I
did try to look past my existing opinion of the man. I think I succeeded,
but anyone who cares to read this can make up their own mind. I have more
extensive analysis of what I wrote but I see no need to post it. I there is
a call for it, I will.
I read three writings from Moore:
1. His Oscar Speech
(http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/reviews/oscarspeech.php )
2. The free chapter from his book "Dude, Where's my Country"
(http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/dudewheresmycountry/freechapter/ind
ex.php )
3. Moore's essay, "Three Easy Pieces for Any Decent American (from Michael
Moore)"
(http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2003-09-15
)
I admit that I have felt some reflexive partisan hatred towards Moore and
that reading Moore has pretty much eliminated that. Hatred of any sort if
never a good thing so I am that much to the good.
Given that Aisling seemed to think highly of the man, I came in expecting to
find I had bought into a limited view of Moore. A controversial figure like
Moore can often be reduced to a shallow stereotype of who he really is. If
it makes sense: I expected to find unexpected depth to the man.
The picture of Moore that emerged was definitely one of a True Believer in
the liberal cause. The way he throws out facts and figures bespeaks an
ability to crunch and organize a massive amount of media input, too.
The damning part is that's all I found.
Moore's writings were singularly empty of deep, incisive or independent
thought. I found one of two small bits of thought in "Three Easy Pieces",
exceptions that only proved that rule. By his writing, Moore is
pure-partisan mouthpiece and nothing else. To the point where I seriously
wonder if his politics have overwhelmed his individuality.
All this serves to move Moore from a "demon of the left" to something more
like a political addict. He loses presence and gains pathos. He doesn't
have the stature in my mind anymore to be worth the bother of hating. He's
just an obscure documentary-maker who is going through his 15 minutes of
fame.
What confuses me is why anyone would bother to give Michael Moore their
respect. Could someone (Ais?) explain to me what's so great about this guy?
Maybe I didn't pick the right material. Could someone point to something I
missed? Does he speak with a different voice in his documentaries?
--
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent
"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."
John C. Anderson
<< A while back I said something like "I don't think Michael Moore ever met a
Republican he *did* like." and Aisling challenged me to learn a little more
about Moore. >>
Good for you for following up on this. Although I disagree with your assesment
of Moore, I find it admirable that you decided to inform your opinions directly
from the source.
<< Moore's writings were singularly empty of deep, incisive or independent
thought. I found one of two small bits of thought in "Three Easy Pieces",
exceptions that only proved that rule. >>
But the exception doesn't prove the rule, it invalidates it. That's one axiom
that's best forgotten.
<< By his writing, Moore is
pure-partisan mouthpiece and nothing else. >>
Except that Moore has gone on record criticizing the Democratic party, it's
congressional leadership, Clinton and Gore. He is, without question, a
Bush-Hater. He is, absolutely, an anti-corporate Populist. He certainly wants
Bush defeated. But I've seen nothing that suggests he acts out of Party loyalty
to the Democrats.
<< He's
just an obscure documentary-maker who is going through his 15 minutes of
fame. >>
Actually, Moore has been fairly well known since his first film, "Roger & Me",
a decade ago. Since then he has made a short-lived tv series, several popular
books and more films; including last year's Oscar-winning documentary "Bowling
for Columbine".
<< Does he speak with a different voice in his documentaries? >>
To some extent, yes. I would recommend "Bowling for Columbine", no matter what
your views on guns and gun-violence are. It isn't what I expected, and it
doesn't jump to the conclusions one might think.
"I'm here to kick your ass!"
"We have evolved beyond the need for asses!"
-Futurama
Aisling Willow Grey
(in article <baadnQ3nXvA...@sti.net>):
>
> What confuses me is why anyone would bother to give Michael Moore their
> respect. Could someone (Ais?) explain to me what's so great about this guy?
> Maybe I didn't pick the right material. Could someone point to something I
> missed? Does he speak with a different voice in his documentaries?<<
I don't really want to get into a huge thing about this, because obviously if
you're conservative, you're not going to like most of what Moore has to say,
even if you make your darndest effort to evaluate him without partisan bias.
So, rather than have the conservatives and liberals here on the newsgroup
have yet another opportunity for a shouting match, I won't engage any of your
specific complaints, and will instead only answer your question to me.
Here's my most simple, boiled-down answer as to why I like and respect him:
Moore is one of very few people in the media telling us things that (nearly)
no one else in the media is willing to tell us.
Having said that, I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night, and it's the only film
I've attended in recent memory (with the exception of the LotR trilogy) where
people cheered and jeered in various appropriate places throughout the film.
It was great to see the audience (which was diverse in age range and
socioeconomic status) so engaged in the material. I hope you all have a
chance to see it.
Aisling
--
http://www.zongoftheweek.com
Free and legal downloads of fun, original songs
This week's zong: "One Terabyte Drive"
Aisling Willow Grey
(in article <20040626035348...@mb-m28.aol.com>):
> << From: "Vorlonagent" jNOt...@otfresno.com >>
>
>
>
>
> << By his writing, Moore is
> pure-partisan mouthpiece and nothing else. >>
>
>
> Except that Moore has gone on record criticizing the Democratic party, it's
> congressional leadership, Clinton and Gore. He is, without question, a
> Bush-Hater. He is, absolutely, an anti-corporate Populist. He certainly wants
> Bush defeated. But I've seen nothing that suggests he acts out of Party
> loyalty
> to the Democrats.<<
Very true. When speaking of the new film, Moore has said outright that he
hopes it helps to get Bush out of office, but he added that if Kerry _does_
get into the White House, his cameras will absolutely be trained on him.
Vorlonagent
met a
> Republican he *did* like." and Aisling challenged me to learn a little
more
> about Moore. >>
>
>
> Good for you for following up on this. Although I disagree with your
assesment
> of Moore, I find it admirable that you decided to inform your opinions
directly
> from the source.
Thank you.
> << Moore's writings were singularly empty of deep, incisive or independent
> thought. I found one of two small bits of thought in "Three Easy Pieces",
> exceptions that only proved that rule. >>
>
>
> But the exception doesn't prove the rule, it invalidates it. That's one
axiom
> that's best forgotten.
I believe my generalizations about Moore are still valid. All the
exceptions did was prove they're not absolutes.
Any rule I can create based on Moore's prose must encompass the entire work
I read. In general, my experience was that Moore contributes prose style
and little else. I haven't finished reading your reply and you have already
put more off your thought-process and perspective into your post than Moore
did in all three examples I read combined.
> << By his writing, Moore is
> pure-partisan mouthpiece and nothing else. >>
>
> Except that Moore has gone on record criticizing the Democratic party,
it's
> congressional leadership, Clinton and Gore. He is, without question, a
> Bush-Hater. He is, absolutely, an anti-corporate Populist. He certainly
wants
> Bush defeated. But I've seen nothing that suggests he acts out of Party
loyalty
> to the Democrats.
I do not doubt you, but I haven't seen that. All I've seen is lockstep with
the DNC. But then liberalism and the DNC are rarely out of step. You could
have put your finger on one such occasion.
IIRC, Clinton/Gore did come under some friendly fire for co-opting
conservative stuff and/or not pursuing liberal stuff as hard . Was Moore a
part of this or did he have original or unique criticisms of his own? Moore
in my mind is a rebroadcaster of what he hears. He does not add content.
If he expressed a unique perspective that would be of interest. I would
expect him to be a voice in the chorus.
> << He's
> just an obscure documentary-maker who is going through his 15 minutes of
> fame. >>
>
>
> Actually, Moore has been fairly well known since his first film, "Roger &
Me",
> a decade ago. Since then he has made a short-lived tv series, several
popular
> books and more films; including last year's Oscar-winning documentary
"Bowling
> for Columbine".
I sit corrected. I guess it's just that *I* never heard of him until
"Bowling for Columbine."
> << Does he speak with a different voice in his documentaries? >>
>
>
> To some extent, yes. I would recommend "Bowling for Columbine", no matter
what
> your views on guns and gun-violence are. It isn't what I expected, and it
> doesn't jump to the conclusions one might think.
OK. I'll take a look. You're right in one thing you haven't said, but
occurred to me also: A view of Moore isn't really complete without viewing a
film of his.
--
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent
"Methane martini.
Shaken, not sitrred."
Vorlonagent
if
> you're conservative, you're not going to like most of what Moore has to
say,
> even if you make your darndest effort to evaluate him without partisan
bias.
> So, rather than have the conservatives and liberals here on the newsgroup
> have yet another opportunity for a shouting match, I won't engage any of
your
> specific complaints, and will instead only answer your question to me.
> Here's my most simple, boiled-down answer as to why I like and respect
him:
> Moore is one of very few people in the media telling us things that
(nearly)
> no one else in the media is willing to tell us.
"Obviously"...
Okay, I'll leave it here as far as you're concerned.
--
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent
"Methane martini.
Shaken, not sitrred."
Matt Ion
"John C. Anderson" <tala...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040626035348...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> << Does he speak with a different voice in his documentaries? >>
>
>
> To some extent, yes. I would recommend "Bowling for Columbine", no matter
what
> your views on guns and gun-violence are. It isn't what I expected, and it
> doesn't jump to the conclusions one might think.
I haven't seen it yet (we have it, just haven't had the time) but from what
I've heard, MM does a fairly even job of tweaking BOTH sides of the gun
debate in Bowling for Columbine. It's been both applauded and denounced as
slanted by both pro- and anti-gun factions.
Alex Thorpe
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
On 2004-06-26 14:48:19 -0500, Aisling Willow Grey
<ais...@fjordstone.com> said:
> Having said that, I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night, and it's the only
> film I've attended in recent memory (with the exception of the LotR
> trilogy) where people cheered and jeered in various appropriate places
> throughout the film. It was great to see the audience (which was
> diverse in age range and socioeconomic status) so engaged in the
> material. I hope you all have a chance to see it.
I saw it this afternoon with my parents, and I agree. But I've written
enough about it already, on my blog and on alt.politics. Darned good
movie.
--
-Alex
Common Sense Ain't.
LK
<jNOt...@otfresno.com> wrote:
>Moore's writings were singularly empty of deep, incisive or independent
>thought. I found one of two small bits of thought in "Three Easy Pieces",
>exceptions that only proved that rule. By his writing, Moore is
>pure-partisan mouthpiece and nothing else. To the point where I seriously
>wonder if his politics have overwhelmed his individuality.
LOL as are all die-hard Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Catholics,
Libertians,..<fade to black as the narration continues)
For that matter the same can be said of many married couples.
Plus, I recently read within the past 7 days a Netscape headline
saying people's political views and personal opinions tend to change
to reflect the party's line rather than the party changing or
representing the people's views when they first join.
>
>All this serves to move Moore from a "demon of the left" to something more
>like a political addict. He loses presence and gains pathos. He doesn't
>have the stature in my mind anymore to be worth the bother of hating. He's
>just an obscure documentary-maker who is going through his 15 minutes of
>fame.
>
>What confuses me is why anyone would bother to give Michael Moore their
>respect. Could someone (Ais?) explain to me what's so great about this guy?
>Maybe I didn't pick the right material. Could someone point to something I
>missed? Does he speak with a different voice in his documentaries?
I don't find his writing all that great. But his documentaries make
you think and laugh--uncomfortably at yourself at times. If you
haven't viewed his documentaries then start at the begriming with
"Michael and Me" --hope I got the title right. It's the true story of
a factory town devastated by early shipping of auto construction jobs
out of the USA. The celebration of the new prison is particularly
telling. (PBS last year _quietly_ broadcast a documentary on class in
the USA which immediately reminded me of Moore's work and of family
"tribalism".)
If your grew up in a working class family, you'd get it, understand
the film, especially if you lived through something similar. Working
class families are totally forgotten in political campaigns today
which causes me to recall the words of John Dickenson, I believe, who
said "Never forget most people would rather protect the possibility of
becoming rich rather than face the reality of being poor." Or
something like that.* In other words being a Wal-Mart associate is
actually more working class but the money is better so the numbers
look toward lower middle-class.
JMS is probably a liberal--and that is not a sign of Satanic
infleunce--and an atheist. He still makes you think and _feel_ and
understand even if you don't agree or _condone_ something. Blanket
dismissal and hatred does far more harm than disagreement. It's
difficult to negotiate when you or others refuse to acknowledge the
validity of that person's or group's viewpoint. It is at least valid
to them even if it is born of fear.
--Of course that viewpoint may be flawed scientifically or
spiritually. And that is where forced discomfort comes in. Some
decisions and situations _require_ discomfort and unease. Refusing to
acknowledge or accept that fact, that truth is what makes a moral and
an ethical person. That truth also _requires_ accountability. And
whether you are a leader of a town, a family, or a nation
accountability is a requirement.
If you cannot be like Londo and live with your "sins" and mistakes
then you have no business being in charge of or acting on anything.
--Including your own life
..
Moore does the same as JMS. People are not faceless numbers/consumer
whose lives are juggled around by, I'm almost tempted to say Nazi-like
bureaucrats who are only doing their jobs by taking care of
"problems". --That's a little more harsh than I want be but I do hate
being constantly label a consumer rather than a citizen or a person.
Moore is also an editorialist and kind of editorial cartoonist. I
didn't need him to tell me about the current administration because I
heard the symptoms and a few of the goals in between the lines in his
2000 campaign speeches. Too many others didn't. But Moore still
reminds me that the failure of a town like Flint, Michigan, missing
the cues of murderous children in at a high school are not merely bad
luck. (USA does have its on neo-Nazis as well as White Supremacist
militias and terrorist-inclined groups that have seemed to been
ignored or back-burnered with the focus on Al-Queda, etc.)
Agitators and annoying people are needed by everyone lest we be so
self-assured that we think the patent office of the mind and heart are
no longer necessary and ought to closed for lack of work and lack of
faith and curiosity.
I'd like see Moore, Ellison, JMS, and Asimov--Ojui board needed--or
maybe Clarke or Bill Moyers get together and argue some things. And
maybe David Brooks as well.
And wandering afield and yet to the point, is who are the Michael
Moores in your community and region? The person/people who are saying
and poking fun, and crying out "Hey, pay attention to this!" They, we
are all a part of self-determination. And political parties and other
groups sometimes show signs of being Shadows and Vorlons: fight/argue
because we tell to fight and argue and quibble for us. It keeps
run-of-the-mill people from paying attention. --And do so-called
reality shows. ...Anyway.)
My true anger and disappointment, verging on contempt, is for those
who have forgotten the Constitution of the United States of America
does NOT say "We the political parties of...". The Constitution does
NOT say "We, the Corporations of...". The Constitution DOES say "We
The People...".
Mr. Moore does seem to remember and remind us of that fact.
And I think JMS was alluding to that philosophy as part of "Crusade"
and as a background of B5 universe. --Even before Ellierson make the
statement. ("Infection" is where IPX and it's covert nature are first
mentioned.)
LK
* Get a DVD copy of "1776" and listen to the commentary. It tells of
President Richard Nixon requesting a significant scene in the movie be
removed, and it was, and the negatives of that scenes be destroyed
because it was offensive to people of Conservative persuasion.
Fortunately, the negative wasn't and has been restored.
Even the USA eagle, as JMS has written, needs a Right and a Left wing
to fly.
P.S.: I misspelled "political" first time through and the spell
checker suggested the correct spelling as "polecat".
Another word for skunk.
LK
<jNOt...@otfresno.com> wrote:
>A while back I said something like "I don't think Michael Moore ever met a
>Republican he *did* like." and Aisling challenged me to learn a little more
>about Moore.
I goofed. The First documentary is "Roger and Me".
LK
Thunder v.2.0.0.4
work is that he's saying what a lot of people were thinking but didn't
have the courage to say publicly (i.e. after 9/11 there was this
conservative idea that it was "unamerican" to oppose anything the
government suggested, no matter how dangerous it could've potentially
been). He even admits himself that he's just presenting static facts and
stating his own opinion along with them, which is honest (much more so
then many politicians can do). Although I'm not a fan of his per se and
I don't believe he's necessarily that great... he makes his points but
he's not one of the great thinkers of our time neccessarily.
t.k.
Aisling Willow Grey
(in article <upudnTGEhu7...@sti.net>):
>
> OK. I'll take a look. You're right in one thing you haven't said, but
> occurred to me also: A view of Moore isn't really complete without viewing a
> film of his.<<
Good point. I'm jumping in on this part of the thread for two reasons,
though.
First is that I should also have thanked you for making good on looking into
Moore. I'm not sure that many on either side of the fence would have gone to
such trouble to give the other side the benefit of the doubt. So, good on
you, and thanks much for that.
Second is, if you're going to watch one film, I'd recommend the current one,
"Fahrenheit 9/11," instead of Bowling for Columbine. I thought that was a
great film, and important enough that _everyone_ should see it, but I'm also
aware that there are volumes written by conservatives and neo-cons about what
they perceive as factual distortion in that film, and my feeling is that it
would be hard not to have your opinion of the film tainted by the surrounding
furor, if you're a conservative.
Of course, the problem with "Fahrenheit 9/11" is that I already know from
another thread that your position on the war differs completely from Michael
Moore's. So that's a problem, too. But what I like about "Fahrenheit 9/11"
is that it's really quite an artful effort, and speaks to how Moore has grown
as a filmmaker. I can see why they gave him the Palme D'Or at Cannes this
year.
Aisling Willow Grey
(in article <wqqdnVEBT4j...@sti.net>):
John...honestly, I'm not trying to pigeonhole you or anything, but are you
saying that you don't consider yourself a conservative of any stripe?
Den
news:k9bod0pj7qluuq640...@4ax.com:
> * Get a DVD copy of "1776" and listen to the commentary. It tells of
> President Richard Nixon requesting a significant scene in the movie be
> removed, and it was, and the negatives of that scenes be destroyed
> because it was offensive to people of Conservative persuasion.
>
> Fortunately, the negative wasn't and has been restored.
never seen it, but what was the missing scene about?
Aisling Willow Grey
(in article <Xns9515A6FC58...@216.168.3.44>):
Oh yes, do tell! I'm a big fan of "1776," and would love a reason to buy the
DVD.
Lilbase
"Aisling Willow Grey" <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BD030B44...@news.verizon.net...
I saw the movie last night, as well. I have mixed emotions about what I
saw. The only major flaw with the movie was that you saw bits of this and
pieces of that, which were pieces of news real footage. but instead of
seeing the whole news story, the pieces were craftfully edited and the voice
overs did not match with what you were seeing. At one point, I found that e
ven though what was shown was true, what was shown, was made into something
that forced you to look on the subject negatively, no matter which side of
the political spectrum that you are on.
Everyone has their own perspective of events. And I am glad that different
people are being allowed to show there political and moral points-of-view.
Over all, one thumb up and one thumb down. Some of the shots were very
moving and others seemed to push a political agenda from Moore that
contradicted other parts of this documentary. My advice is watch the movie
for yourself, and make your own opinion of it.
LK
wrote:
In the original release of the movie and the VHS release there's a cut
that doesn't work where the Declaration supporters leave to rally
support for their cause and Franklin, Adams, and Chase go Maryland to
observe the state of Gen. Washington's troops, It suddenly cuts to the
outside of the building where the "Leather apron" character says:
"How'ja like to borrow a dollar off of one of them?"
>From the original script excerpts from the song "Cool Considerate
Men", which these days would receive far worse flak. (I don't have
the book in front of me and can't locate it under the painting tarp.)
John Dickenson, lawyer, a member of the PA delegation.
John Hancock, business man and well known smuggler, from MA and
President of he Continental Congress
"Conservative" members of the congress who are not convinced that
declaring independence is a great or _necessary_ idea.
Dickenson [singing]:
Come ye cool, cool considerate men
Our like may never ever be seen again.
We have land
Cash in hand
Self command
Future planned
Fortune thrives
Society survives
In neatly order lives
With well endowered wives.
[The Conservative members of Congress begin a stately minute, sing a
chorus, then in here, if memory serves, is where the Courier from Gen.
Washington comes in and the Secretary reads the dispatch about the
state of the Continental Army while the Congress dances, including a
visual pun of dancing only in one direction, ignoring the reading of
the message. After the Courier leaves they sing again.]
....What we do we do rationally
We never ever go off half-cocked, not we.
Why begin until we know that we can win
And if we cannot win why bother to begin?
We say this game is not of our choosing
Why should we risk losing?
.... [spoken-sung dialog during the stately minute]
Dickenson: Mr. Hancock why do you not join us in our minute? Why do
you persist in dancing with Mr. Adams? Good Lord, sir, you don't even
like him.
Hancock: That is true. He annoys quite a lot but still I'd trot to
Mr. Adams' new gavotte.
Dickenson: Why Mr. Hancock? For personal glory? For a place in
history? [Be careful, sir] history will brand Mr. Adams and his
followers as traitors.
Hancock: Traitors? To what, Mr. Dickenson? The British Crown? Or
the British half-crown?
Dickenson chuckles.
Hancock: Fortunately there are not enough men of property in
America to dictate policy.
....
[In the ending verse...]
To the Right
Ever to the Right
Never to the Left
Forever to the Right
Let us hold to our gold
Tradition that is old
Reluctance to be bold....
<another chorus and end song>
The whole scene, which is restored on the DVD, is very much about
economic status and economic class concerns. White men of property,
white male aristocrats seeking to keep their property and power. If
you didn't know, back then even being male and white wasn't enough to
be able to vote because you had to own a certain amount of property
before being granted voting status. IIRC it was acreage. Business
owners weren't always considered to have enough property to vote. And
that varied by region. And a female landowner, usually a widow, or a
business owner or running the business while your "menfolk" were at
sea was not enough to confer voting status in most places. I would
think that in some seaports non-white men may have had voting status.
If one owned enough land or a large enough business, it conferred
influence but not voting and certain little talk of voting rights
because there was no Bill of Rights for the non-Union of colonial
America, though some individual states had such legal documents.
Throughout the play economic, occupation, and class status is an
undercurrent of the discussions and debates.
I could go on, but I won't because I'd go too far afield.
G'Kar's Declaration of Principles has history. The United Nations
website has many of these on-line.
One also must consider the big picture in that focusing on what my be
a "dig" at one's philosophy there for a reason. Generally, the reason
is reminder of others and consequences and not to stomp on those who
do the digs, for the stomping is frequently remembered far longer than
the perceived "dig".
LK
Aisling Willow Grey
(in article <m540e0l4neimv3p9a...@4ax.com>):
<snipping stuff about restored scene in "1776">
Brilliant. Thanks a bunch, LK. I'll be sure to grab that DVD!
LK
<ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:02:10 -0400, LK wrote
>(in article <m540e0l4neimv3p9a...@4ax.com>):
>
><snipping stuff about restored scene in "1776">
>
>Brilliant. Thanks a bunch, LK. I'll be sure to grab that DVD!
>
>Aisling
You're welcome. And me, too. I haven't picked up a copy yet.
I was first introduced to it by a summer job roommate through the
Original Cast album and then I bought the book of the script. (I
think the DVD also restores the discussion of states rights versus
centralized government that was cut from the movie release. --But was
only a page or two of dialog rather than a musical number.)
You also learn that Ron Holgate who played Richard Henry Lee won a
Tony for his performance and played Milas Gloriosus Broadway original
cast of "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum." Both over
he top roles.
LK
P>S> NY Times stated Sunday a movie of the musical version of "The
Producers", with Nathan Lane reprising his role, goes into production
in March 2005.
Vorlonagent
> another thread that your position on the war differs completely from
Michael
> Moore's. So that's a problem, too. But what I like about "Fahrenheit
9/11"
> is that it's really quite an artful effort, and speaks to how Moore has
grown
> as a filmmaker. I can see why they gave him the Palme D'Or at Cannes this
> year.
I'll consider that. I don't have that much moviegoing time available to me
(I haven't seen "Troy" yet) and to be honest, based on his prose, I am
somewhat loathe to put a dime in Moore's pocket.
Unlike most supporters of the war, I have never had a problem with dissent
concerning the war. I do ask that there be some thought behind it however,
which is where Moore and I part ways on the issue of prose.
If you read my own posts, you will see a certain amount of dissent coming
from me, in point of fact. To my mind, the willingness to post even mild
critiques of Bush such as I have posted here would have me tossed out of the
Pureblood-Conservative club long ago.
Which is fine by me. I'm not a "joiner."
Matthew Vincent
><snipping stuff about restored scene in "1776">
>
>Brilliant. Thanks a bunch, LK. I'll be sure to grab that DVD!
I just asked a local store about whether they had the movie, but
unfortunately they don't. I might have to buy it over the net if I'm
not able to hire it locally instead.
This whole thing about offending conservatives is pretty silly. It's
not appropriate to democratic processes for exceptions to be made to
freedom of speech based on the risk of offending people on whatever
point of the political spectrum. If anything, it's even more crucial
that freedom of speech remain intact when the material concerned is
politically sensitive.
I'm quite happy for Ann Coulter's freedom of speech to remain intact
when she refers to liberals as traitors, and for Falwell and Robertson
to have freedom of speech for their various antics, etc. Surely
nothing in '1776' is anywhere near as liable to offend. I'm guessing
that the reason why some conservatives may find the movie inconvenient
is that it challenges some of the fallacies that they rely on.
Matthew
Wendy of NJ
young (it opened in Washington, DC before going to Broadway, IIRC).
Thanks for sharing!
.... Adding "`1776" to the DVD list...
-Wendy
Den
news:5YSdnYGPiL2...@adelphia.com:
> The only major flaw with the movie was that you saw bits of this and
> pieces of that, which were pieces of news real footage. but instead
> of seeing the whole news story, the pieces were craftfully edited and
> the voice overs did not match with what you were seeing.
Heard the latest bruhaha? A rep website used real footage of various dems
(elected or supporters) speaking, and seems at the end they included that
infamous anti-bush ad with hitler at the end (the one that some unknowns
produced, was put on the moveon website, and yanked). Same idea to make
some kind of political statement. But in this case some who had no problem
with others doing this (like the subject of this thread) are shocked,
shocked I tell you, that another would have the nerve to use previously
filmed footage and reedit it to support republicans. What goes around comes
around.
Rob Perkins
> At one point, I found that e
>ven though what was shown was true, what was shown, was made into something
>that forced you to look on the subject negatively, no matter which side of
>the political spectrum that you are on.
Not gonna bother, if it's like that. I had my taste of Moore back with
TV Nation, and some of his essays. He's a marvelously entertaining
guy.
But I don't like to be manipulated the way you've described. I get
very put out when I discover it, and I don't have time to subject
myself to such things these days.
Not when there's so many fun movies I could pay eight bucks to see
instead!!! ;-p
Rob, who doesn't make it to the movies more than twice a year anymore
Vorlonagent
"LK" <fountai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k9bod0pj7qluuq640...@4ax.com...
> >Moore's writings were singularly empty of deep, incisive or independent
> >thought. I found one of two small bits of thought in "Three Easy
Pieces",
> >exceptions that only proved that rule. By his writing, Moore is
> >pure-partisan mouthpiece and nothing else. To the point where I
seriously
> >wonder if his politics have overwhelmed his individuality.
>
> LOL as are all die-hard Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Catholics,
> Libertians,..<fade to black as the narration continues)
I know. :(
The breed is way too common and too easily manipulated.
> For that matter the same can be said of many married couples.
That is simply survival (or so I'm told).
> Plus, I recently read within the past 7 days a Netscape headline
> saying people's political views and personal opinions tend to change
> to reflect the party's line rather than the party changing or
> representing the people's views when they first join.
<sigh>
True, I suppose.
We sacrifice individuality and autonomy when we do this to ourselves.
> I don't find his writing all that great. But his documentaries make
> you think and laugh--uncomfortably at yourself at times. If you
> haven't viewed his documentaries then start at the begriming with
> "Michael and Me" --hope I got the title right. It's the true story of
> a factory town devastated by early shipping of auto construction jobs
> out of the USA. The celebration of the new prison is particularly
> telling. (PBS last year _quietly_ broadcast a documentary on class in
> the USA which immediately reminded me of Moore's work and of family
> "tribalism".)
I'll agree with you about his writing. Beyond that I have no informed
opinion.
> If your grew up in a working class family, you'd get it, understand
> the film, especially if you lived through something similar. Working
> class families are totally forgotten in political campaigns today
> which causes me to recall the words of John Dickenson, I believe, who
> said "Never forget most people would rather protect the possibility of
> becoming rich rather than face the reality of being poor." Or
> something like that.* In other words being a Wal-Mart associate is
> actually more working class but the money is better so the numbers
> look toward lower middle-class.
Middle-class, suburban upbringing, but I can still empathize.
> JMS is probably a liberal--and that is not a sign of Satanic
> infleunce--and an atheist. He still makes you think and _feel_ and
> understand even if you don't agree or _condone_ something. Blanket
> dismissal and hatred does far more harm than disagreement. It's
> difficult to negotiate when you or others refuse to acknowledge the
> validity of that person's or group's viewpoint. It is at least valid
> to them even if it is born of fear.
I agree. I also understand my own capacity for this, which is why this
thread exists.
I think there is a distinction to be made though. The person deserves
respect, regardless of what they believe, which means I treat them with
respect when discussing their views.
The actual opinions, however, have to earn it. It's hard keeping the two
separate sometimes.
Being a liberal is by no means evidence if anything wrong. Being a
brain-dead-propagandist is a different story. Moore's prose reads like a
brain-dead propagandist.
JMS' prose does not.
A case in point is that JMS, an atheist, expresses great respect for
spirtuality. You could not view B5 and easily figure JMS' spiritua; beliefs
based on the way he treats both earthly and non-human religion.
Contrast this with Moore. Anything that isn't liberal seems to earn either
dismissal or contempt.
> --Of course that viewpoint may be flawed scientifically or
> spiritually. And that is where forced discomfort comes in. Some
> decisions and situations _require_ discomfort and unease. Refusing to
> acknowledge or accept that fact, that truth is what makes a moral and
> an ethical person. That truth also _requires_ accountability. And
> whether you are a leader of a town, a family, or a nation
> accountability is a requirement.
*Refusing* to acknowledge or accept? Are you sure? Could you expand on
that?
Agreed on accountability.
> If you cannot be like Londo and live with your "sins" and mistakes
> then you have no business being in charge of or acting on anything.
> --Including your own life
Indeed, it's almost impossible.
> Moore does the same as JMS. People are not faceless numbers/consumer
> whose lives are juggled around by, I'm almost tempted to say Nazi-like
> bureaucrats who are only doing their jobs by taking care of
> "problems". --That's a little more harsh than I want be but I do hate
> being constantly label a consumer rather than a citizen or a person.
I understand "Farenheit 9/11" is *designed* to try to turn people against
Bush for the election.
Does Moore treat Bush as a "person" or one of the nazis?
I don't dount that Moore has compassion for the people that his films might
champion, but all you need to be is halfway competent to do that.
Compassion for your enemies, that's harder.
B5 shows moments of that compassion. I strongly suspect that Moore's films
do not.
> Moore is also an editorialist and kind of editorial cartoonist. I
> didn't need him to tell me about the current administration because I
> heard the symptoms and a few of the goals in between the lines in his
> 2000 campaign speeches. Too many others didn't. But Moore still
> reminds me that the failure of a town like Flint, Michigan, missing
> the cues of murderous children in at a high school are not merely bad
> luck. (USA does have its on neo-Nazis as well as White Supremacist
> militias and terrorist-inclined groups that have seemed to been
> ignored or back-burnered with the focus on Al-Queda, etc.)
You prose seems to blame your entire list of issues on the Bush Admin, when
some of the events occurred before Bush ever got into office, such as
Columbine. If blame should go to a Prez for that one (and I would
personally not assign any), it would be Bill Clinton.
You also seem to equate all brands of terrorist. I question that. Not
saying that Neo-Nazis and White supremecists are trivial things, you
understand, but they didn't pilot airliners into major US buildings. We're
at war and we have to prioritize.
> Agitators and annoying people are needed by everyone lest we be so
> self-assured that we think the patent office of the mind and heart are
> no longer necessary and ought to closed for lack of work and lack of
> faith and curiosity.
True, but even there, some people deliver quality annoiance and others are
just annoying. Lacking a feel form Moore's film work, he's just annoying:
emptily partisan with no unique perspective to make up for his slavish
devotion to liberal politics.
> I'd like see Moore, Ellison, JMS, and Asimov--Ojui board needed--or
> maybe Clarke or Bill Moyers get together and argue some things. And
> maybe David Brooks as well.
You'd hardly get a balanced view of things with that panel by themselves. I
would add Jerry Pournelle, Larry Niven, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Rielly and by
Ojui board, Robert Heinlein, give me a second board and I'd add Joseph
Cambell. NOW you have a balanced panel. (If you want Rush off the panel
you have to boot Moore)
Now you have a first class debate session.
> And wandering afield and yet to the point, is who are the Michael
> Moores in your community and region? The person/people who are saying
> and poking fun, and crying out "Hey, pay attention to this!" They, we
> are all a part of self-determination. And political parties and other
> groups sometimes show signs of being Shadows and Vorlons: fight/argue
> because we tell to fight and argue and quibble for us. It keeps
> run-of-the-mill people from paying attention. --And do so-called
> reality shows. ...Anyway.)
Remember, what you say goes for Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity
as well as Michael Moore... :)
> My true anger and disappointment, verging on contempt, is for those
> who have forgotten the Constitution of the United States of America
> does NOT say "We the political parties of...". The Constitution does
> NOT say "We, the Corporations of...". The Constitution DOES say "We
> The People...".
Amen to that.
> Mr. Moore does seem to remember and remind us of that fact.
Not if you read his writing, he doesn't.
He may be of a different mind with his documentaries, but I somehow suspect
that Farenheit 9/11 won't bear this out. :)
> And I think JMS was alluding to that philosophy as part of "Crusade"
> and as a background of B5 universe. --Even before Ellierson make the
> statement. ("Infection" is where IPX and it's covert nature are first
> mentioned.)
You may be interested to watch the japanese animae "The irresponsible
Captain Tylor". It's a lot of fun and the last or second to last episode,
some character talk about this.
> LK
>
> * Get a DVD copy of "1776" and listen to the commentary. It tells of
> President Richard Nixon requesting a significant scene in the movie be
> removed, and it was, and the negatives of that scenes be destroyed
> because it was offensive to people of Conservative persuasion.
The scene was removed as a courtesy to the President. I fail to see your
point.
> Even the USA eagle, as JMS has written, needs a Right and a Left wing
> to fly.
Agreed.
Now but tell that to Michael Moore. His writing paints the pcture of an
absolute partisan, something JMS is not.
Get on michaelmoore.com and read the free chapter of "Dude, Where's My
Country?".
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/dudewheresmycountry/freechapter/index.php
The man who wrote those lines does not seem to see anything good that is not
liberal and nothing liberal that is not good.
> P.S.: I misspelled "political" first time through and the spell
> checker suggested the correct spelling as "polecat".
>
> Another word for skunk.
Appropriate... :)
--
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent
"Methane martini.
Shaken, not sitrred."
Aisling Willow Grey
(in article <Xns9517ABDAE1...@216.168.3.44>):
1. It's not on just some "rep website." It is on the official George W.
Bush website.
2. It's not just footage on a website; it's a political ad that they are
actually airing.
3. Regarding your "previously filmed footage" comment: there is a large
difference between using "previously filmed footage" of actual current,
living public figures in politics saying actual things about current events
that are relevant...and using "previously filmed footage" of a proposed
political ad made by an amateur filmmaker for a contest, that contains images
of a long-dead political figure from 60 years ago and another country. The
two situations are as different as apples and silly putty.
Aisling
--
http://www.zongoftheweek.com
Free and legal downloads of fun, original songs
This week's zong: "Repossessed"
Wendy of NJ
I hear ya. I'm spending *my* 8 bucks on Spidey 2 with the matrix
animator CGI. (I'm convinced the graphics designer did the squids on
Matrix and the bad guy on Spiderman - they look too darned close to be
otherwise.)
Den
> The
> two situations are as different as apples and silly putty.
except that there are people I know that think its great when such things
are used to make a political statement against a candidate they dont
like... but is bad when used against one they do like. thats politics for
ya ;o)
The Nuclear Marine
news:Xns9519C80BA5...@216.168.3.44:
The side that brings up Nazi Germany admits defeat. Works for Usenet,
let it work for politics.
Judging from the smiley face, I presume you don't agree with the tactic
either way. Personally, I found it funny that RNC website hosted the two
Hitler ads longer than anything (was that even legal? did the creator
give up control RNC?).
I can't complain about Disney's Song of the South then post the entire
movie to demonstrate my displeasure. Eh, the desperation that's showing
from both sides in this political race is more erratic than my writing.
Nuke
The Nuclear Marine
news:jeb9e094f44rov9r4...@4ax.com:
>>Rob, who doesn't make it to the movies more than twice a year anymore
>>
>
> I hear ya. I'm spending *my* 8 bucks on Spidey 2 with the matrix
> animator CGI. (I'm convinced the graphics designer did the squids on
> Matrix and the bad guy on Spiderman - they look too darned close to be
> otherwise.)
>
Wonder if it was Soren Ragsdale? He does the RMCS website in his
freetime, but he's a CG creator (Evolution, Matrix Revolutions and Spidey
2 that I recall). Have to wade through his blog or write him to find
out.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/tongodeon/
soren#monkeydyne,com
Nuke
Pelzo63
<< 3. Regarding your "previously filmed footage" comment: there is a large
difference between using "previously filmed footage" of actual current,
living public figures in politics saying actual things about current events
that are relevant...and using "previously filmed footage" of a proposed
political ad made by an amateur filmmaker for a contest, that contains images
of a long-dead political figure from 60 years ago and another country. The
two situations are as different as apples and silly putty. >>
and the use of the footage is just as different. the original use of the
footage was in a context that compared Bush to Hitler. the context of the
footage on Bush's site is in the context of "we're up against people who
compare us to hitler." which is a very legit statement when they actually have
footage of people claiming just that. and it's not "being aired"(at least as
of the last time i checked, yesterday), it's more of a rally-cry ad being sent
to hard-core supporters to "make sure they understand" what they are up
against. also a vastly different purpose than to sway swing voters like most
ads are for. that said, i think the ad could have referenced people who call
bush hitler in some way other than using footage of hitler himself(a headline
of "website removes ad that compares bush to hitler" would suffice).
...Chris
People like you make me want to access your brain, and type rm -r -f /
Den
news:Xns9519DFB8E2...@68.6.19.6:
> Judging from the smiley face, I presume you don't agree with the tactic
> either way.
Quite right. Neither should have used the footage. But there are too many
self-righteous people around that will give their side a pass and demonize
the other. But what else is new?
As for 'official' and 'private' sites, given modern campaigns the line
seperating them seems much more blurred today... to the point where its
getting harder for voters to tell the difference. I wonder what it will be
like in 2008... or 2012.
Aisling Willow Grey
(in article <Xns9519DFB8E2...@68.6.19.6>):
> Den <etran...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9519C80BA5...@216.168.3.44:
>
>> Aisling Willow Grey <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote in
>> news:0001HW.BD09D42A...@news.verizon.net:
>>
>>> The
>>> two situations are as different as apples and silly putty.
>>
>> except that there are people I know that think its great when such
>> things are used to make a political statement against a candidate they
>> dont like... but is bad when used against one they do like. thats
>> politics for ya ;o)
>>
> The side that brings up Nazi Germany admits defeat. Works for Usenet,
> let it work for politics.
>
> Judging from the smiley face, I presume you don't agree with the tactic
> either way. Personally, I found it funny that RNC website hosted the two
> Hitler ads longer than anything (was that even legal? did the creator
> give up control RNC?).<<
See, I wondered about this, too. If it _had_ been a legitimate political ad
run by the DNC, then the RNC could have used it under the aegis of "fair use"
(using an excerpt as commentary/critique or even in this case as a kind of
news). But this was something that appeared (briefly) on MoveOn.org's site
as a contest entry, and while the creators certainly had to give up certain
rights _to MoveOn.org_ as a function of their entering the contest (e.g. they
gave up the right to collect a fee for the use of the ad on MoveOn.org's own
website), they certainly wouldn't have been required to relinquish _all_
rights to _all_ parties, and effectively release their film into the public
domain.
But see, I think that the RNC knew this, and only planned to run the ad long
enough to stir up some controversy and get a lot of people to visit their
website to stream the ad. Containing infringing material like that, they'd
_have_ to pull the ad after a short time.
Aisling Willow Grey
(in article <Xns9519C80BA5...@216.168.3.44>):
They're still not comparable. MoveOn.org ran a contest, and the two Hitler
submissions were among hundreds. When they were discovered, MoveOn.org
removed them from the website as being in poor taste. So this was posted
briefly on a political action group's website, created by contest entrants
who weren't on staff at MoveOn.org, and then removed when brought to
MoveOn.org's attention.
The Bush use of the Hitler imagery is in connection with an official
Bush/Cheney ad, and is running on Bush's official website (and probably
elsewhere, too, but that's the only source I know of).
Aisling Willow Grey
(in article <20040702014554...@mb-m01.aol.com>):
> aisling wrote:
>
> << 3. Regarding your "previously filmed footage" comment: there is a large
> difference between using "previously filmed footage" of actual current,
> living public figures in politics saying actual things about current events
> that are relevant...and using "previously filmed footage" of a proposed
> political ad made by an amateur filmmaker for a contest, that contains
> images
> of a long-dead political figure from 60 years ago and another country. The
> two situations are as different as apples and silly putty. >>
>
> and the use of the footage is just as different. the original use of the
> footage was in a context that compared Bush to Hitler. the context of the
> footage on Bush's site is in the context of "we're up against people who
> compare us to hitler." which is a very legit statement when they actually
> have
> footage of people claiming just that. <<
No, they are _not_ "up against people who compare us to Hitler." Bush and
the RNC are "up against" John Kerry and the DNC. And, Kerry and the DNC have
no affiliation with the amateur filmmakers who entered that contest and made
the decision to use the Hitler footage. Do you mean to tell me that if the
RNC opened up a contest to amateur filmmakers, _no one_ would send in
anti-Dem entries of questionable taste? You obviously have more faith in
your fellow man than I do.
Wesley Struebing
Plus the point about the earlier footage coming from a video that
moevon rejected. Even that group has standards. The point being that
some poeple realized the footage was beyond the pale, and then the
official GWB website picks it up, splices it together with some fine
(and I mean that sincerely) rhetoric by various Dems - and mostly
shhots themselve in the foot. It was disgusting enough that the the
extreme liberal-bent moveon.org passed on it, but it's good enough for
our shrub's website?
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Wendy of NJ
Well I saw the movie - very good, indeed. But I didn't see Ragsdale on
the credits list (but wasn't look extremely closely).
I *did* see *John Dykstra's* name for visual effects however! That
was a very pleasant surprise. I'm glad he's doing films again. I think
that's because the arms were actual models in a lot of shots, and were
probably operated by pupeteers.
-Wendy
Pelzo63
<< No, they are _not_ "up against people who compare us to Hitler." >>
<< Bush and
the RNC are "up against" John Kerry and the DNC.>>
and moveon.org, who posts an ad that they clearly saw before they posted it,
and then, after someone said "that's in bad taste", said "oh, you're right,
let's take that down, i sure hope no one saw it" <wink wink>
that's the kind of faith i have in anyone running any political ad.
if you truly think that no one who is against bush/cheney has ever compared
bush to hitler, there is nothing more that can be said. and even if you
don't, i'm not going to argue it with you anyways, the facts are there, my
participation in this discussion is over.
Aisling Willow Grey
(in article <20040703013045...@mb-m04.aol.com>):
>
> if you truly think that no one who is against bush/cheney has ever compared
> bush to hitler, there is nothing more that can be said. <<
No, the point was that Bush/Cheney and the RNC are "up against" Kerry and the
DNC. _Not_ MoveOn.org. Because then you'd have to allow that Kerry/DNC are
"up against" every reactionary right-wing organization who organizes
letter-writing campaigns to tv stations or boycotts against Disney for having
Gay Day (etc.) out there. And you'd have to agree that Bush/Cheney/RNC are
responsible _themselves_ for everything these nutball organizations do,
simply because they are opposed to the liberal candidate.
Lacking any personal knowledge otherwise, all we can say for certain is that
someone at the level of volunteer web monkey at MoveOn.org allowed those
videos to be posted. Obviously, when someone of discernment and
responsibility _saw_ them, they were pulled.
Den
> They're still not comparable. MoveOn.org ran a contest, and the two
> Hitler submissions were among hundreds. When they were discovered,
> MoveOn.org removed them from the website as being in poor taste. So
> this was posted briefly on a political action group's website, created
> by contest entrants who weren't on staff at MoveOn.org, and then
> removed when brought to MoveOn.org's attention.
This is the part I dont really buy. They way it was spun, it was made to
sound like someone could have put up a Jenna Jameson clip and they would
not have known about it until someone complained. Actually, if a porno
clip were put up in addition to the Hitler ones, I would believe them
simply because nobody in their right mind would have allowed it. But these
ads were politically shocking enough that the proper people said 'show
it'. And that goes for the reps ad as well.
Cynical person that I am, I believe the comment about whether or not the
reps had the legal authority to use the footage is absolutely correct.
Just like the other guys they probably figured they could get it up quick,
cause a ruckus, then take it down... and everything else be damned
> The Bush use of the Hitler imagery is in connection with an official
> Bush/Cheney ad, and is running on Bush's official website (and
> probably elsewhere, too, but that's the only source I know of).
All I can say about this is that the various guests on the news networks
(plural) commenting on all this should shut up because they all look two-
faced.
Welcome to the new millenium
LK
<jNOt...@otfresno.com> wrote:
>
>"LK" <fountai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:k9bod0pj7qluuq640...@4ax.com...
>
>> >Moore's writings were singularly empty of deep, incisive or independent
>> >thought. I found one of two small bits of thought in "Three Easy
>Pieces",
>> >exceptions that only proved that rule. By his writing, Moore is
>> >pure-partisan mouthpiece and nothing else. To the point where I
>seriously
>> >wonder if his politics have overwhelmed his individuality.
>>
>> LOL as are all die-hard Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Catholics,
>> Libertians,..<fade to black as the narration continues)
>
>I know. :(
>
>The breed is way too common and too easily manipulated.
>
>
>> For that matter the same can be said of many married couples.
>
>That is simply survival (or so I'm told).
Doesn't speak much of the marriage if that is the case.
Probably why he doesn't do political stand up comedy.
>
>JMS' prose does not.
>
>A case in point is that JMS, an atheist, expresses great respect for
>spirtuality. You could not view B5 and easily figure JMS' spiritua; beliefs
>based on the way he treats both earthly and non-human religion.
>
>Contrast this with Moore. Anything that isn't liberal seems to earn either
>dismissal or contempt.
That's your problem right there. Auto-lableing something as liberal
or as conservative. I rarely label. I just consider the problem and
the a variety of consequences. When someone pushes a solution it
still demands consideration. If you only label it then you're using a
butterfingers to decide what to do.
(I'm feeling rather weary to be kind.)
>
>
>> --Of course that viewpoint may be flawed scientifically or
>> spiritually. And that is where forced discomfort comes in. Some
>> decisions and situations _require_ discomfort and unease. Refusing to
>> acknowledge or accept that fact, that truth is what makes a moral and
>> an ethical person. That truth also _requires_ accountability. And
>> whether you are a leader of a town, a family, or a nation
>> accountability is a requirement.
>
>*Refusing* to acknowledge or accept? Are you sure? Could you expand on
>that?
My previous comment is part of the answer.
>
>Agreed on accountability.
>
>> If you cannot be like Londo and live with your "sins" and mistakes
>> then you have no business being in charge of or acting on anything.
>> --Including your own life
>
>Indeed, it's almost impossible.
>
>
>> Moore does the same as JMS. People are not faceless numbers/consumer
>> whose lives are juggled around by, I'm almost tempted to say Nazi-like
>> bureaucrats who are only doing their jobs by taking care of
>> "problems". --That's a little more harsh than I want be but I do hate
>> being constantly label a consumer rather than a citizen or a person.
>
>I understand "Farenheit 9/11" is *designed* to try to turn people against
>Bush for the election.
Yes. It is op-ed as Moore himself has said. It claims to reveal. It
balances against what has not been widely covered and it a few of the
claims have been unsupported by the 9/11 commission.
>
>Does Moore treat Bush as a "person" or one of the nazis?
Banal face of evil has been talked about a lot since Hussain (sp)
trail began.
I thnk Bush was misdirected on many things but no one has been held
accountable. I was reading that a few of his advisors IIRC Rumsfeld
were also in the Regan adminstration but Regan didn't pay attention to
them because they wer determined to close off the US and first stirke
at the USSR or something like. It was in the NY times during Regan's
funneral week or last week and I've lost the link.
He was better than I expected for teh first few months but then wnet
down hill. I cannot speak for Moore's view.
>
>I don't dount that Moore has compassion for the people that his films might
>champion, but all you need to be is halfway competent to do that.
>Compassion for your enemies, that's harder.
>
>B5 shows moments of that compassion. I strongly suspect that Moore's films
>do not.
First, not all "enimes"--this lableing of yours is driving me nuts--
not all those we disagree with diserve compassion in the conqueneces
of their actions or lack of action.
Second, you keep going on about Moore's films but you haven't seen any
of them. ...So there is really not all that much to say to respond to
you.
>
>
>> Moore is also an editorialist and kind of editorial cartoonist. I
>> didn't need him to tell me about the current administration because I
>> heard the symptoms and a few of the goals in between the lines in his
>> 2000 campaign speeches. Too many others didn't. But Moore still
>> reminds me that the failure of a town like Flint, Michigan, missing
>> the cues of murderous children in at a high school are not merely bad
>> luck. (USA does have its on neo-Nazis as well as White Supremacist
>> militias and terrorist-inclined groups that have seemed to been
>> ignored or back-burnered with the focus on Al-Queda, etc.)
>
>You prose seems to blame your entire list of issues on the Bush Admin, when
>some of the events occurred before Bush ever got into office, such as
>Columbine. If blame should go to a Prez for that one (and I would
>personally not assign any), it would be Bill Clinton.
And you amze me because you assume that I have no awareness of time
passing. And again you insist on talking about blaming an
administration for a very home based problem as in the Columbine
tradgedy.
>
>You also seem to equate all brands of terrorist. I question that. Not
>saying that Neo-Nazis and White supremecists are trivial things, you
>understand, but they didn't pilot airliners into major US buildings. We're
>at war and we have to prioritize.
This is true. Oklahoma City bombing was only on Hilter's birthday IIRC
and there were ties to the USA=based neo-Nazi and White Christain
supremist groups.
What you assume I "seem" are way off the mark and based on rather thin
"evidence".
>
>
>> Agitators and annoying people are needed by everyone lest we be so
>> self-assured that we think the patent office of the mind and heart are
>> no longer necessary and ought to closed for lack of work and lack of
>> faith and curiosity.
>
>True, but even there, some people deliver quality annoiance and others are
>just annoying. Lacking a feel form Moore's film work, he's just annoying:
>emptily partisan with no unique perspective to make up for his slavish
>devotion to liberal politics.
>
ANd some people hate pink.
>> I'd like see Moore, Ellison, JMS, and Asimov--Ojui board needed--or
>> maybe Clarke or Bill Moyers get together and argue some things. And
>> maybe David Brooks as well.
>
>You'd hardly get a balanced view of things with that panel by themselves. I
>would add Jerry Pournelle, Larry Niven, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Rielly and by
>Ojui board, Robert Heinlein, give me a second board and I'd add Joseph
>Cambell. NOW you have a balanced panel. (If you want Rush off the panel
>you have to boot Moore)
>
>Now you have a first class debate session.
>
I don't want a balnaced debate in that group. Just some different
input and a few bar fights. That is pure personal pleasure, not a
national commmision. Debate sloves little. Discussons are more
likely to bring awareness and compassion and discussion knows there
are few things in life that are decided once and for all.
I'd like to something about about a few of those people who are
loud-montuths and insist on stirring people up rather than talking.
Even a few prominent conversvatives them out ofr that reason.
>
>> And wandering afield and yet to the point, is who are the Michael
>> Moores in your community and region? The person/people who are saying
>> and poking fun, and crying out "Hey, pay attention to this!" They, we
>> are all a part of self-determination. And political parties and other
>> groups sometimes show signs of being Shadows and Vorlons: fight/argue
>> because we tell to fight and argue and quibble for us. It keeps
>> run-of-the-mill people from paying attention. --And do so-called
>> reality shows. ...Anyway.)
>
>Remember, what you say goes for Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity
>as well as Michael Moore... :)
No. I've listened to the Rush-man and his excusers. I've read
Coulter and her "reasoning" is beyond me except to blame people. The
last indivdual I've never even heard of that's probably for the best
considering my heart comdition.
I'll invite him to a barbeque.
>
>Get on michaelmoore.com and read the free chapter of "Dude, Where's My
>Country?".
Some other time. I'll lock the link, but I don't think I'll enjoy or
agree with Moore because his writing doesn't really speak to me. The
films starring real people are better.
LK
wrote:
>Aisling Willow Grey <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote in
That's not politics, that's being an idiot.
LK
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
<snip>.
>
>Welcome to the new millenium
>
"...same as the old Millenium..."
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
<snip>
>
>This is true. Oklahoma City bombing was only on Hilter's birthday IIRC
>and there were ties to the USA=based neo-Nazi and White Christain
>supremist groups.
>
by Dylan and Kliebold. Don't know whether Okla Cty was a day early or
what...)
<snip>
Vorlonagent
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 13:19:24 +0000 (UTC), "Vorlonagent"
> <jNOt...@otfresno.com> wrote:
> >A case in point is that JMS, an atheist, expresses great respect for
> >spirtuality. You could not view B5 and easily figure JMS' spiritua;
beliefs
> >based on the way he treats both earthly and non-human religion.
> >
> >Contrast this with Moore. Anything that isn't liberal seems to earn
either
> >dismissal or contempt.
>
> That's your problem right there. Auto-lableing something as liberal
> or as conservative. I rarely label. I just consider the problem and
> the a variety of consequences. When someone pushes a solution it
> still demands consideration. If you only label it then you're using a
> butterfingers to decide what to do.
Only if I allow that definition to drive my acceptance or rejection of the
solution.
People do congregate in groups and those groups have names and characters.
You blind yourself to a whole dimension of politics if you watch the game
and avoid seeing the teams or players.
> >> Moore does the same as JMS. People are not faceless numbers/consumer
> >> whose lives are juggled around by, I'm almost tempted to say Nazi-like
> >> bureaucrats who are only doing their jobs by taking care of
> >> "problems". --That's a little more harsh than I want be but I do hate
> >> being constantly label a consumer rather than a citizen or a person.
> >
> >I understand "Farenheit 9/11" is *designed* to try to turn people against
> >Bush for the election.
>
> Yes. It is op-ed as Moore himself has said. It claims to reveal. It
> balances against what has not been widely covered and it a few of the
> claims have been unsupported by the 9/11 commission.
....So what happens when Moore has his facts wrong?
> >Does Moore treat Bush as a "person" or one of the nazis?
>
> Banal face of evil has been talked about a lot since Hussain (sp)
> trail began.
>
> I thnk Bush was misdirected on many things but no one has been held
> accountable. I was reading that a few of his advisors IIRC Rumsfeld
> were also in the Regan adminstration but Regan didn't pay attention to
> them because they wer determined to close off the US and first stirke
> at the USSR or something like. It was in the NY times during Regan's
> funneral week or last week and I've lost the link.
Don't worry. I don't accept the Times as unbiased reporting.
> He was better than I expected for teh first few months but then wnet
> down hill. I cannot speak for Moore's view.
Fair enough.
Bush moved too slow for my like (still does) but the made he made were the
ones I wanted him to.
> >I don't dount that Moore has compassion for the people that his films
might
> >champion, but all you need to be is halfway competent to do that.
> >Compassion for your enemies, that's harder.
> >
> >B5 shows moments of that compassion. I strongly suspect that Moore's
films
> >do not.
>
> First, not all "enimes"--this lableing of yours is driving me nuts--
> not all those we disagree with diserve compassion in the conqueneces
> of their actions or lack of action.
Look at Moore's prose. Seriously. *He* certainly doesn't give much
compassion. *He* certainly seems buy into very harsh definitions of freind
and foe.
Moreso than me.
> Second, you keep going on about Moore's films but you haven't seen any
> of them. ...So there is really not all that much to say to respond to
> you.
I go on about Moore's prose and extrapolate his films based on his prose.
You will note I never use definitive terms when discussing his films.
Example: I ask IF Moore treats Bush as a nazi, I do not SAY Moore does. I
don't make the assumption. Sure it doesn't seem much of a stretch, but I
give Moore the benefit of the doubt. You might not be free of freind/foe
thinking if you aren't picking that up. :)
> >> Moore is also an editorialist and kind of editorial cartoonist. I
> >> didn't need him to tell me about the current administration because I
> >> heard the symptoms and a few of the goals in between the lines in his
> >> 2000 campaign speeches. Too many others didn't. But Moore still
> >> reminds me that the failure of a town like Flint, Michigan, missing
> >> the cues of murderous children in at a high school are not merely bad
> >> luck. (USA does have its on neo-Nazis as well as White Supremacist
> >> militias and terrorist-inclined groups that have seemed to been
> >> ignored or back-burnered with the focus on Al-Queda, etc.)
> >
> >You prose seems to blame your entire list of issues on the Bush Admin,
when
> >some of the events occurred before Bush ever got into office, such as
> >Columbine. If blame should go to a Prez for that one (and I would
> >personally not assign any), it would be Bill Clinton.
>
>
> And you amze me because you assume that I have no awareness of time
> passing. And again you insist on talking about blaming an
> administration for a very home based problem as in the Columbine
> tradgedy.
You wrote "missing the cues of murderous children in at a high school", not
me. What should I take this as a reference to, if not to Columbine?
Since it looked like you were calaloguing failures of the Bush Admin, it
seemed a reminder was in order as to who was Prez at the time.
> >You also seem to equate all brands of terrorist. I question that. Not
> >saying that Neo-Nazis and White supremecists are trivial things, you
> >understand, but they didn't pilot airliners into major US buildings.
We're
> >at war and we have to prioritize.
>
> This is true. Oklahoma City bombing was only on Hilter's birthday IIRC
> and there were ties to the USA=based neo-Nazi and White Christain
> supremist groups.
In my view, 9/11 signalled a willingness on the part of islsmic terrorists
to take their work to a new plateau of lethality and destruction.
What's more, I assumed that was obvious.
I therefore draw a definite distinction between Islamic-brand terrorists and
homegrown variety.
As an aside, I would expect that our homegrown terrorists would be pretty
happy with current situation. Our own tend to be an isolationist and
anti-UN lot. Whatever else you may think of Bush choosing to invde Iraq
despite international pressure, givin the UN the finger is pretty likley to
register well with the home crowd.
> What you assume I "seem" are way off the mark and based on rather thin
> "evidence".
Citing the Oklahoma City bombing as you did sure looked like you're arguing
for equating American and Islamic terrorists.
As that was what you "seemed" to be doing last time around, I rather think
I'm batting 1000.
If you had a different purpose for referring to Oklahoma City, please
explain.
> >> Agitators and annoying people are needed by everyone lest we be so
> >> self-assured that we think the patent office of the mind and heart are
> >> no longer necessary and ought to closed for lack of work and lack of
> >> faith and curiosity.
> >
> >True, but even there, some people deliver quality annoiance and others
are
> >just annoying. Lacking a feel form Moore's film work, he's just
annoying:
> >emptily partisan with no unique perspective to make up for his slavish
> >devotion to liberal politics.
> >
> ANd some people hate pink.
True. Your point?
> >> I'd like see Moore, Ellison, JMS, and Asimov--Ojui board needed--or
> >> maybe Clarke or Bill Moyers get together and argue some things. And
> >> maybe David Brooks as well.
> >
> >You'd hardly get a balanced view of things with that panel by themselves.
I
> >would add Jerry Pournelle, Larry Niven, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Rielly and
by
> >Ojui board, Robert Heinlein, give me a second board and I'd add Joseph
> >Cambell. NOW you have a balanced panel. (If you want Rush off the panel
> >you have to boot Moore)
> >
> >Now you have a first class debate session.
> >
>
> I don't want a balnaced debate in that group. Just some different
> input and a few bar fights. That is pure personal pleasure, not a
> national commmision. Debate sloves little. Discussons are more
> likely to bring awareness and compassion and discussion knows there
> are few things in life that are decided once and for all.
But if everybody has the same viewpoint you miss a lot of ideas, don't get a
lot of potential mistakes caught.
> >> And wandering afield and yet to the point, is who are the Michael
> >> Moores in your community and region? The person/people who are saying
> >> and poking fun, and crying out "Hey, pay attention to this!" They, we
> >> are all a part of self-determination. And political parties and other
> >> groups sometimes show signs of being Shadows and Vorlons: fight/argue
> >> because we tell to fight and argue and quibble for us. It keeps
> >> run-of-the-mill people from paying attention. --And do so-called
> >> reality shows. ...Anyway.)
> >
> >Remember, what you say goes for Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean
Hannity
> >as well as Michael Moore... :)
>
> No. I've listened to the Rush-man and his excusers. I've read
> Coulter and her "reasoning" is beyond me except to blame people. The
> last indivdual I've never even heard of that's probably for the best
> considering my heart comdition.
Then Moore get the same treatment from me.
For the same reasons as you give for Ann Coulter.
I have no love for Ann Coulter's work. And Rush neither turns me on or off.
But if you're going to argue for the value of dissent, then tolerance has to
be equilateral. The alternative is the hypocrisy of "tolerating" those
whose dissent you already agree with and rejecting dissent from those that
you don't.
> >> Even the USA eagle, as JMS has written, needs a Right and a Left wing
> >> to fly.
> >
> >Agreed.
> >
> >Now but tell that to Michael Moore. His writing paints the pcture of an
> >absolute partisan, something JMS is not.
>
> I'll invite him to a barbeque.
Let me know what he says.
Rob Perkins
>Well I saw the movie - very good, indeed. But I didn't see Ragsdale on
>the credits list (but wasn't look extremely closely).
>
>I *did* see *John Dykstra's* name for visual effects however! That
>was a very pleasant surprise. I'm glad he's doing films again. I think
>that's because the arms were actual models in a lot of shots, and were
>probably operated by pupeteers.
Well, *I* just got back from Spidey 2 yesterday. I took my
brother-in-law on an anti-Dilbertesque guys-night-out kind of thing,
and bought him a ticket. His workplace is a pit of vipers these days;
he really needed the decompression.
The MOVIE was so good that I forgot about the robot arms and the
spidey powers and the goofy villian names and the corny suits and saw
the *people* and the *story*. All cylinders, this one. Good writing,
good-enough acting, good-enough directing, above average editing and
Better-than-the-Matrix-Reloaded special effects.
I think we'll buy this one.
Rob
John C. Anderson
Just to chime in briefly:
<< Citing the Oklahoma City bombing as you did sure looked like you're arguing
for equating American and Islamic terrorists. >>
I suspect that there are a lot of families in the Oklahoma City area who would
do just that, and IMHO rightly so. It's a tricky thing to say the terrorist
murders of a few hundred innocent people isn't as signifigant as the terrorist
murders of a few thousand other people.
<< As an aside, I would expect that our homegrown terrorists would be pretty
happy with current situation. Our own tend to be an isolationist and
anti-UN lot. Whatever else you may think of Bush choosing to invde Iraq
despite international pressure, givin the UN the finger is pretty likley to
register well with the home crowd. >>
Which by itself should be an indictment of Bush's policies. When the Neo-Nazis
and the KKK are with you, you're probably going the wrong way.
"So! The rubber band's on the other claw now!"
-Zoidberg
Aisling Willow Grey
(in article <8ZOdnYxmib5...@sti.net>):
>
> "LK" <fountai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:r4bde0t2k10rqioov...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Yes. It is op-ed as Moore himself has said. It claims to reveal. It
>> balances against what has not been widely covered and it a few of the
>> claims have been unsupported by the 9/11 commission.
>
> ....So what happens when Moore has his facts wrong?<<
>From http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/, dated July 4, 2004:
>>In the next week or so, I will recount my adventures through the media this
past
month (I will also be posting a full FAQ on my website soon so that you can
have all the necessary backup and evidence from the film when you find
yourself in heated debate with your conservative brother-in-law!). For now,
please know the following: Every single fact I state in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is
the absolute and irrefutable truth. This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly
researched and vetted documentary of our time. No fewer than a dozen people,
including three teams of lawyers and the venerable one-time fact-checkers
from The New Yorker went through this movie with a fine-tooth comb so that we
can make this guarantee to you. Do not let anyone say this or that isn't
true. If they say that, they are lying. Let them know that the OPINIONS in
the film are mine, and anyone certainly has a right to disagree with them.
And the questions I pose in the movie, based on these irrefutable facts, are
also mine. And I have a right to ask them. And I will continue to ask them
until they are answered.<<
So in about a week or so, you can check back on Michael Moore's site with any
questions you may have regarding the facts.
The Nuclear Marine
news:r4bde0t2k10rqioov...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 13:19:24 +0000 (UTC), "Vorlonagent"
> <jNOt...@otfresno.com> wrote:
>>
>>You also seem to equate all brands of terrorist. I question that.
>>Not saying that Neo-Nazis and White supremecists are trivial things,
>>you understand, but they didn't pilot airliners into major US
>>buildings. We're at war and we have to prioritize.
>
> This is true. Oklahoma City bombing was only on Hilter's birthday IIRC
> and there were ties to the USA=based neo-Nazi and White Christain
> supremist groups.
>
> What you assume I "seem" are way off the mark and based on rather thin
> "evidence".
No, Oklahoma's bomb date was thought by the FBI to be picked for the
anniversary of the Waco, TX Branch Davidian fire
http://www.cnn.com/US/9804/19/okc.waco/
It was a political statement against government actions on the date. I
guess since McVeigh never made an official statement about the matter,
it's all supposition. My fear: McVeigh's feelings stem from his
experiences as a soldier in the first Gulf War, so how many McVeighs are
we creating with this second one (15 month long police action)?
Either way, for three towns, April 19 & 20 mark dark days.
Nuke
Rob Perkins
>So in about a week or so, you can check back on Michael Moore's site with any
>questions you may have regarding the facts.
Of course the facts aren't in dispute. Moore is relatively careful
about raw data. It's his interpretation of the facts, his editing, and
his presentation that gall people who are galled.
Moore appeals to motives, induces in a sloppy way, and injects appeal
to emotion all over the place, if what I've read of his work since "TV
Nation" still holds true (and it was certainly true for "TV Nation" at
the time). His essays I've read don't sway me, because he doesn't
present good support for his arguments, or because our premises are so
divergent.
Moore is a remarkably good distractor. That's what entertainers do.
Rob
Rob Perkins
>Which by itself should be an indictment of Bush's policies. When the Neo-Nazis
>and the KKK are with you, you're probably going the wrong way.
No...
That's *fallacy*. (Circumstantial ad hominem; We've been discussing
this...) The endorsement of otherwise ideological enemies to a policy
is not automatically its death knell. There are far more ways the KKK
and the N-N's oppose Bush's policies than there are ways they support
them.
Rob
Cheryl Martin
Just to add some info to the part of the discussion relating to
Michael Moore's current movie. I found an very interesting review via
a friend's livejournal.
Check it out here:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-3-1988.jsp#
Cheryl
--
*Moderator: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated,sci.space.moderated *
*Personal webpage: http://www.grumpywitch.org *
*Vital to my existance are chocolate, hugs and the occasional *
*tummy rub *
Den
news:slrncej0ha...@zaphod.deepthot.org:
> Just to add some info to the part of the discussion relating to
> Michael Moore's current movie.
another interesting thing, in the paper this morning. The movie is already
making the rounds on p2p networks. The article says the guy didnt mind
people downloading (refering to past films I figure) his movies. Im sure
the studio/distributor will think otherwise. Will be kinda fun to see if
the same venom used against the subjects in his movies will be used against
them.
Jms at B5
>be equilateral. The alternative is the hypocrisy of "tolerating" those
>whose dissent you already agree with and rejecting dissent from those that
>you don't.
There's a misperception about how such arguments should be phrased in the
popular media, however. The problem is the attempt to create tolerance through
supposed balance...and they're not the same thing.
One person gave a great example...if Bush said the world was flat, the papers
would rush out and get other opinions, then run articles entitled "Bush,
Democrats Differ On Shape of World."
It's balance of a point of view, but it's not an accurate portrayal of the
facts.
I've seen Moore's film, and my sense of it is this: about 70% of the film
consist of very solid and well-researched facts that have been reported and
confirmed by a variety of respected sources, then further vetted by a battery
of attorneys.
The remaining 30% is the analysis of those facts. You may or may not agree
with some of those analyses.
But the facts themselves are damning enough. That 70% is one hell of a 70%.
And I'm sorry, but to argue about the merits about Moore's film without
bothering to see it is about as asinine and ignorant as anything I've ever
seen. You can't just cite his "prose" in an ambiguous way and come to
conclusions about something you haven't deigned to see.
As Harlan says, you're not entitled to your opinion...you're entitled to your
INFORMED opinion. If you haven't bothered to be informed about something, to
be properly educated -- in this case by seeing the thing you're discussing --
then sorry, but your opinion is less than worthless. It may serve for your
amusement, but that's all.
There's the story of a group of philosophers who were sitting around debating
how many teeth were in the mouth of a donkey. A kid sitting nearby suggested
they simply go out and count the teeth. They booted him out and went back to
speculating in a vacuum because somehow that was purer.
But history has shown who was truly the ass in that discussion.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
Stewart W.
> I've seen Moore's film, and my sense of it is this: about 70% of the film
> consist of very solid and well-researched facts that have been reported and
> confirmed by a variety of respected sources, then further vetted by a battery
> of attorneys.
> The remaining 30% is the analysis of those facts. You may or may not agree
> with some of those analyses.
> But the facts themselves are damning enough. That 70% is one hell of a 70%.
Your 70%/30% breakdown is missing something.
As a filmmaker, you know better than any of us how to convey
impressions and emotions without words. Such visuals, as well as
musical cues, are neither factual nor analytical. But they have an
undeniable impact.
Michael Moore is a talented filmmaker. By using (or misusing) his
art, Moore can mislead viewers, without actually putting into words a
lie for which he might be held legally accountable.
Here's TV critic Jeff Jarvis (who is absolutely not a Bush supporter),
describing some of Moore's techniques:
"Moore shows scenes of Baghdad before the invasion (read: liberation)
and in his weltanschauung, it's a place filled with nothing but happy,
smiling, giggly, overjoyed Baghdadis. No pain and suffering there.
No rape, murder, gassing, imprisoning, silencing of the citizens in
these scenes. When he exploits and lingers on the tears of a mother
who lost her soldier-son in Iraq, and she wails, "Why did you have to
take him?" Moore does not cut to images of the murderers/terrorists
(pardon me, "insurgents") in Iraq... or even to God; he cuts to George
Bush. When the soldier's father says the young man died and "for
what?", Moore doesn't show liberated Iraqis to reply, he cuts instead
to an image of Halliburton."
The whole review by Jarvis is well worth reading. See
http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_06_24.html#007356.
--Stewart
SmileOfTheShadow
who at least tries to look at things from a good perspective. Too bad everyone
in hollywood is a liberal communist anarchist from hell ;) I'll try not to
hold it against ya. heh.
Michael
> I've seen Moore's film, and my sense of it is this: about 70% of the film
> consist of very solid and well-researched facts that have been reported and
> confirmed by a variety of respected sources, then further vetted by a battery
> of attorneys.
>
> The remaining 30% is the analysis of those facts. You may or may not agree
> with some of those analyses.
>
> But the facts themselves are damning enough. That 70% is one hell of a 70%.
Excuse me mr Straczynski, but your "sense of it is this" do you just
take everything you hear from Michael Moore as absolute truth without
researching what he says.
After researching what Michael Moore says in his movie, you find out
that about 35% is out right lies, 35% are distortions of the facts,
and 30% is analysis of of those lies and distortions.
You say that the movies "facts" have been "confirmed by a variety of
respected sources." Can you name even one of those respected sources.
Can you name one independent source, a source that doesn't come from a
left wing ideologe point of view. No you can't, because it doesn't
exist.
A good source to uncover all of the lies and distortions in Michael
Moore's movie is <http://moorewatch.com/> there you can see how
everyting in Michael Moore's movie is either a lie or a distortion of
the truth.
Michael Hansen, First Lieutenant, USAF
Iain Odlin
>I've seen Moore's film, and my sense of it is this: about 70% of the film
>consist of very solid and well-researched facts that have been reported and
>confirmed by a variety of respected sources, then further vetted by a battery
>of attorneys.
Indeed?
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
-Iain
Robert Kaiser
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote
> As Harlan says, you're not entitled to your opinion...you're entitled to
your
> INFORMED opinion. If you haven't bothered to be informed about something,
to
> be properly educated -- in this case by seeing the thing you're
discussing --
> then sorry, but your opinion is less than worthless. It may serve for
your
> amusement, but that's all.
Harlan Ellison writes "...Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have
them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is
entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are
not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions.
Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing.
It's just bibble-babble..."
Robert Kaiser
James Bell
news:20040708060424...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> >But if you're going to argue for the value of dissent, then tolerance has
to
> >be equilateral. The alternative is the hypocrisy of "tolerating" those
> >whose dissent you already agree with and rejecting dissent from those
that
> >you don't.
>
> There's a misperception about how such arguments should be phrased in the
> popular media, however. The problem is the attempt to create tolerance
through
> supposed balance...and they're not the same thing.
>
> One person gave a great example...if Bush said the world was flat, the
papers
> would rush out and get other opinions, then run articles entitled "Bush,
> Democrats Differ On Shape of World."
I don't see that sort of thing happening in the popular media, Joe. The
papers would run articles such as: "Bush's Flat World Lie Exposed," "Bush's
Sanity Questioned by Dems After Flat World Statement," or "Scientists Debunk
Bush's Extremist Conservative Flat World Comment."
As for the rest of the discussion, I'm out of it. Whenever I get into a
political thread in this group, I end up leaving the group for weeks or
months afterwards due to frustration. I'd rather just stick around and talk
about the show.
I'm re-watching right now. Around 3/4 through Season One. It's still as
great as ever!
Jim
Paul Harper
wrote:
>The remaining 30% is the analysis of those facts. You may or may not agree
>with some of those analyses.
>
>But the facts themselves are damning enough. That 70% is one hell of a 70%.
Well, it opened in the UK today, and I and several hundred other
people in the cinema clapped it at the end (which silly though it
sounds, is *not* usually something that happens in the UK cinema!)
Anyone who can sit through that and not come out with some pretty darn
serious questions is not mentally wired up properly.
A *killer* documentary, and much recommended.
Paul.
--
. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
. JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.
Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long."
. EMail: Unless invited to, don't. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.
Pelzo63
<< Michael Hansen, First Lieutenant, USAF >>
anyone in the military, or has family there should be familiarized with the
following quote.
" I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began
and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood
has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive
us in the end."
Jerry Falwell? nope. Michael Moore. April 14th, 2004
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14
The Nuclear Marine
news:80d284ac.04070...@posting.google.com:
> jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote in message
> news:<20040708060424...@mb-m07.aol.com>...
>> I've seen Moore's film, and my sense of it is this: about 70% of the
>> film consist of very solid and well-researched facts that have been
>> reported and confirmed by a variety of respected sources, then
>> further vetted by a battery of attorneys.
>>
>> The remaining 30% is the analysis of those facts. You may or may not
>> agree with some of those analyses.
>>
>> But the facts themselves are damning enough. That 70% is one hell of
>> a 70%.
>> > jms
>
> Excuse me mr Straczynski, but your "sense of it is this" do you just
> take everything you hear from Michael Moore as absolute truth without
> researching what he says.
>
> After researching what Michael Moore says in his movie, you find out
> that about 35% is out right lies, 35% are distortions of the facts,
> and 30% is analysis of of those lies and distortions.
>
Hmm, Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote (fact check on
google, yep). Gore presided over the Senate and did not accept of the
Representatives objections (video of fact, check). Bush spent 42% of his
first 8 months on vacation (Washington Post fact, check), Bush went on a
photo op after hearing a plane crashed into the World Trade Center
(statement on Google, yep), Bush spent seven minutes in the classroom
after being informed America is under attack (video evidence in movie,
check). Military makes half to a fifth of what government contractors
make in Iraq (check). So these facts that only scratch the surface of
what is in the movie are distorted?
Where are the lies? Come on, you said 35% so you can go on for 30
minutes worth of writing covering all the lies. My guess is you're
regurgitating a radio talkshow line.
Moore's convoluted look at the Saudi connection reveals what is accepted
reality, power and wealth buys connections. No lies in there, any
supposition by Moore begins with "I wonder". His Iraq skit showing happy
people demonstrate that the Iraqis are not demons. We killed civilians
over there to liberate them. It was a nice contrast to Rumsfeld trying
to show how nice and neat the war was going (surgical accuracy I believe
the term is).
The one abuse of facts occur when Moore uses percetages when talking
about Bush's military funding. The percentages given reflect reducing
combat pay back down to 150 dollars from 250 dollars. The 40% sounds
better than 100 dollars. Doubling prescription costs sounds better than
8 dollars. You get the idea. Facts but gives a misleading opinion.
Rumsfeld goes on goodwill mission to Iraq post Saddam gassing people
(video and google check, yep).
Did the movie mention Valerie Plame, Abu Gharib, Post-war Afghanistan,
> You say that the movies "facts" have been "confirmed by a variety of
> respected sources." Can you name even one of those respected sources.
> Can you name one independent source, a source that doesn't come from a
> left wing ideologe point of view. No you can't, because it doesn't
> exist.
Ah, see, you can't just go and say "I don't trust that newspaper cause
they don't insult the left enough". By the way, Washington Post, US
Army, US Navy, Department of Defense, CNN, Fox, NBC all provided footage
to the movie (it was a documentary after all). Any of those acceptable
to your standards?
> A good source to uncover all of the lies and distortions in Michael
> Moore's movie is <http://moorewatch.com/> there you can see how
> everyting in Michael Moore's movie is either a lie or a distortion of
> the truth.
>
> Michael Hansen, First Lieutenant, USAF
Charles Applin, Second Class Petty Officer, US Navy
Nuke
The Nuclear Marine
news:8v7re0hbcpkmb2gap...@4ax.com:
Nice site actually. Well, he keeps adding "deceits" but some have
nothing to do with what's in the movie. Ad hominems on Michael Moore,
though fun and enlightening, do not take away from what's in the movie
and out in the world.
Need to have a site that lists deceits, lies, facts and good speculation.
Should be heavy on the facts and the deceits. He seemed very careful to
keep out any lies though. Even that site didn't seem to list any lies.
Nuke
Aisling Willow Grey
(in article <80d284ac.04070...@posting.google.com>):
> jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote in message
> news:<20040708060424...@mb-m07.aol.com>...
>> I've seen Moore's film, and my sense of it is this: about 70% of the film
>> consist of very solid and well-researched facts that have been reported and
>> confirmed by a variety of respected sources, then further vetted by a
>> battery
>> of attorneys.
>>
>> The remaining 30% is the analysis of those facts. You may or may not agree
>> with some of those analyses.
>>
>> But the facts themselves are damning enough. That 70% is one hell of a
>> 70%.
>>> jms
>
> Excuse me mr Straczynski, but your "sense of it is this" do you just
> take everything you hear from Michael Moore as absolute truth without
> researching what he says.
>
> After researching what Michael Moore says in his movie, you find out
> that about 35% is out right lies, 35% are distortions of the facts,
> and 30% is analysis of of those lies and distortions.<<
You know, if you were a journalist and printed that remark in your
publication, Michael Moore would sue you. It's _precisely_ remarks like that
which caused him to so thoroughly check, double-check, triple-check, and vet
his facts for this film.
>> You say that the movies "facts" have been "confirmed by a variety of
> respected sources." Can you name even one of those respected sources.
> Can you name one independent source, a source that doesn't come from a
> left wing ideologe point of view. No you can't, because it doesn't
> exist.<<
Joanne Doroshow. Dev Chatillon, the former general counsel of The New
Yorker. Also, a veteran member of The New Yorker's legendary fact-checking
team, whose name I don't happen to have offhand and don't care to search for
at 2:30 in the morning. And a few more people. And, fact checking isn't
going to be affected by political slant: either a fact is verifiably factual,
or it isn't.
>> A good source to uncover all of the lies and distortions in Michael
> Moore's movie is <http://moorewatch.com/> there you can see how
> everyting in Michael Moore's movie is either a lie or a distortion of
> the truth.<<
And what gives the folks at that website credibility with you where Moore
lacks it? How can you verify the truth of what _they're_ saying? Who has
checked _their_ facts? (All I know about them is that they have had to
nearly totally rip off the title of an Al Franken book, and the cover art of
a Michael Moore book, to sell their own book.)
And, have you even seen Fahrenheit 9/11? To say that "about 35% is out right
lies" means that you must believe that what's been reported in the press, all
over the world, by multiple journalists, are bald-faced lies. So what are
some of those lies in the film? Give us a chance to see if _you_ are more
credible than the man you are accusing.
Aisling Willow Grey
and they're taking this occasion to come in shouting and accusing without
even having the courtesy to introduce themselves...
Maybe I should just sit quietly and breathe deeply until they all go away.
John C. Anderson
<< Excuse me mr Straczynski, but your "sense of it is this" do you just
take everything you hear from Michael Moore as absolute truth without
researching what he says. >>
Excuse me Lt. Hansen, but do you take everything you hear from Moore's critics
as absolute truth without researching what they say?
<< After researching what Michael Moore says in his movie, you find out
that about 35% is out right lies, 35% are distortions of the facts,
and 30% is analysis of of those lies and distortions. >>
Whose research? Yours personally? Or anti-Moore "idealogues"?
<< You say that the movies "facts" have been "confirmed by a variety of
respected sources." Can you name even one of those respected sources.
Can you name one independent source, a source that doesn't come from a
left wing ideologe point of view. No you can't, because it doesn't
exist. >>
Have you even checked to see if any of what you're saying is true, or are you
merely relying on what you've read from Moore's critics?
<< A good source to uncover all of the lies and distortions in Michael
Moore's movie is <http://moorewatch.com/> there you can see how
everyting in Michael Moore's movie is either a lie or a distortion of
the truth.
>>
Really? I'm sure moorewatch.com couldn't possibly be a Bush-loving,
Moore-hating right-wing ideology site.
<Homer> In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic.</Homer>
Kurt Ullman
>
>Whose research? Yours personally? Or anti-Moore "idealogues"?
>
an issue and is insufficiently apologetic about it.
Stolen from Billo in misc.writing
--
"Salary is the only biological variable which peaks
after the age of 25. Somebody once suggested female libido is another
but I completely reject that because female libido and salary are
not independent variables."
Dr. Neil Barnes
Aisling Willow Grey
(in article <Xns9520E19DA1...@68.6.19.6>):
>
> The one abuse of facts occur when Moore uses percetages when talking
> about Bush's military funding. The percentages given reflect reducing
> combat pay back down to 150 dollars from 250 dollars. The 40% sounds
> better than 100 dollars. Doubling prescription costs sounds better than
> 8 dollars. You get the idea. Facts but gives a misleading opinion.<<
But...but...
But $100 of $250 _is_ 40%!!! You can't blame Moore for people's lack of math
skills. If the number is accurate, it's not misleading in _any_ way. Even
if one expression of it "sounds better" than another. And frankly, I don't
know that 40% _does_ sound more shocking than $100. To _you_, perhaps, Nuke,
but perception is a very personal thing.
Hank Tiffany
> Well, it opened in the UK today, and I and several hundred other
> people in the cinema clapped it at the end (which silly though it
> sounds, is *not* usually something that happens in the UK cinema!)
Can't remember the last time there was applause at the end of a
movie. Is there anywhere where it *is* "usually something that
happens"?
Hank
--
Hitler, he only had one ball/Goering, had two but they were small
Himmler, was very simmlar/But poor old Goebbels had no balls at all
FPP
google....@neverbox.com (Stewart W.) wrote:
> Here's TV critic Jeff Jarvis (who is absolutely not a Bush supporter),
> describing some of Moore's techniques:
Joe...
Please, God, tell me you recognize *that* name. Please...
Jeff Jarvis is one of my all time favorite punching bags. His reviews
of B5 were legendary... for being irritating, obnoxious and just plain
WRONG.
And I just happen to have a few of his pearls-before-swine comments:
> Jeff Jarvis from:
> THIS WEEK - FEB 20-26 1993
> ---------------------------
> BABYLON 5 - It's the latest entry in this season's sci-fi sweepstakes, a
> movie the producers hope to make into a series. Fat chance.
>
> "Babylon" - about a space station filled with alien cultures who distrust
> each other - wishes it had the depth of Deep Space Nine and the life of the
> bar scenes in "Star Wars" (doesn't every sci-fi show?)
>
> But with no vision, little to say, cheesy graphics, and acting that belongs
> in car commercials - for used cars - this makes The Jetsons looks profound.
> My Score: 1
> ************************
> Jeff Jarvis from:
> THIS WEEK - JAN 22-28 1994
> ---------------------------
> BABYLON 5 - Last year's "Babylon 5" movie was pretty bad - but it was better
> than this, the premiere of the Babylon 5 series. The show looks like a very
> low rent Star Trek: Deep Space Nine about ugly aliens on a space station in
> the middle of nowhere.
>
> It sounds like a bad Japanese monster movie that lost something in the
> translation. It smells like a dud.
> My score: 2
Jeff Jarvis. Good to see he's still around. I haven't seen the film
yet... but a negative Jeff Jarvis review just might send me out this
weekend.
Fred
--
"Computers are like Old Testaments Gods. Lots of rules and no mercy."
Dave Hayslett
news:0001HW.BD141ACA...@news.verizon.net:
>>>On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 09:11:39 -0400, The Nuclear Marine wrote
> (in article <Xns9520E19DA1...@68.6.19.6>):
>>
>> The one abuse of facts occur when Moore uses percetages when talking
>> about Bush's military funding. The percentages given reflect reducing
>> combat pay back down to 150 dollars from 250 dollars. The 40% sounds
>> better than 100 dollars. Doubling prescription costs sounds better
>> than 8 dollars. You get the idea. Facts but gives a misleading
>> opinion.<<
>
> But...but...
>
> But $100 of $250 _is_ 40%!!! You can't blame Moore for people's lack of
> math skills. If the number is accurate, it's not misleading in _any_
> way. Even if one expression of it "sounds better" than another. And
> frankly, I don't know that 40% _does_ sound more shocking than $100. To
> _you_, perhaps, Nuke, but perception is a very personal thing.
I'd actually argue that 40% is rather *less* misleading in that case,
anyway. To lose $100 from $10,000 is really not as significant as losing
$100 from $250.
I'd bet there are also a lot of folks to whom $8 is a pretty significant
sum, too...
--
Dave
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The Nuclear Marine
>>>On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 09:11:39 -0400, The Nuclear Marine wrote
> (in article <Xns9520E19DA1...@68.6.19.6>):
>>
>> The one abuse of facts occur when Moore uses percetages when talking
>> about Bush's military funding. The percentages given reflect
>> reducing combat pay back down to 150 dollars from 250 dollars. The
>> 40% sounds better than 100 dollars. Doubling prescription costs
>> sounds better than 8 dollars. You get the idea. Facts but gives a
>> misleading opinion.<<
>
> But...but...
>
> But $100 of $250 _is_ 40%!!! You can't blame Moore for people's lack
> of math skills. If the number is accurate, it's not misleading in
> _any_ way. Even if one expression of it "sounds better" than another.
> And frankly, I don't know that 40% _does_ sound more shocking than
> $100. To _you_, perhaps, Nuke, but perception is a very personal
> thing.
>
So, the case against Bush is so thin Moore has to revert to statistical
trickery to prove a point? Military pay has its issues but these little
items Moore threw in to go against are not the worst issues. Family
seperation pay (125 loss), hazardous duty pay (75 loss), and TriCare
subscription payments (depends, single military men don't use medical
benefits as much but 8 bucks a subscription) total up to maybe 200-300
bucks. Noticable but not the worst thing in the military. So with a
married E-6 in combat (to qualify for all these cuts) your pay goes from
48000/year to 46000/year (gotta add in housing, insurance, and food
allowance in addition to base pay).
Now, leave combat and go home and you lose all that anyway (me, I'd take
the pay cut to go home).
Here's the real travesty, in WWII base pay was 50/month, combat pay was
another 50/month. Now, the chance of getting shot increases your monthly
income about 10%.
No, Bush admins fighting the right for POW's to sue to get compensation
from Iraqi assets seemed a slap in the face to the military. Overuse of
the National Guardsmen to supplement Iraqi assignments, use of 14k troops
in Afghanistan while having 140k in Iraq, giving the military a black eye
in the Abu Gharib incident with Camp X-ray being the example to follow
(LUGA's controlling and overiding military commands), letting corporation
spend US dollars (with a record deficit going on) moving empty trucks and
paying people 5x-10x more than a military man doing the same job dodging
the same bullets, saying "Bring 'em on", ignoring civilian casualties,
saying that we military men agreed to do this thing (read the oath of
enlistment, pissing on the US Constitution wasn't in the wording).
Yeah, maybe I think undermining one's argument by utilizing statistics to
make 200 dollars (out of 3000) sounds worse than it is. There were much
more blatant abuses going on.
Moore sounded offended that Mrs. Lipscomb didn't get her son's last 5 days
of pay cause he was dead. WOW! So she didn't get $400 dollars. Instead she
got 250,000 dollars in addition to unpayed leave and allowances. Trust me,
very few survivors of military killed in war or peace are left in financial
hardship.
Again, good movie, but it is guilty of using technically factual items to
give an impression that does not reflect reality (lying if you ask me) that
Bush's cadre has been known to do (try to ask Rumsfeld if he ever uttered
"Imminate Threat" to see what I mean).
Nuke
The Nuclear Marine
>>>On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 09:11:39 -0400, The Nuclear Marine wrote
> (in article <Xns9520E19DA1...@68.6.19.6>):
>>
>> The one abuse of facts occur when Moore uses percetages when talking
>> about Bush's military funding. The percentages given reflect
>> reducing combat pay back down to 150 dollars from 250 dollars. The
>> 40% sounds better than 100 dollars. Doubling prescription costs
>> sounds better than 8 dollars. You get the idea. Facts but gives a
>> misleading opinion.<<
>
> But...but...
>
> But $100 of $250 _is_ 40%!!! You can't blame Moore for people's lack
> of math skills. If the number is accurate, it's not misleading in
> _any_ way. Even if one expression of it "sounds better" than another.
> And frankly, I don't know that 40% _does_ sound more shocking than
> $100. To _you_, perhaps, Nuke, but perception is a very personal
> thing.
>
So, the case against Bush is so thin Moore has to revert to statistical
John Duncan Yoyo
<dav...@cet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Paul Harper wrote:
>
>> Well, it opened in the UK today, and I and several hundred other
>> people in the cinema clapped it at the end (which silly though it
>> sounds, is *not* usually something that happens in the UK cinema!)
>
>Can't remember the last time there was applause at the end of a
>movie. Is there anywhere where it *is* "usually something that
>happens"?
>
When I used to get passes for lots of sneak previews it was fairly
common. One of my roomies worked down the street from a radio station
that would pass them fairly regularly.
I got to see lots of good and bad movies this way. I did see a
different cut of Blue Thunder than the one that was released.
--
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Brought to you by the Binks for Senate campaign comittee.
Coruscant is far, far away from wesa on Naboo.
Doug Freyburger
> Paul Harper wrote:
>
> > Well, it opened in the UK today, and I and several hundred other
> > people in the cinema clapped it at the end (which silly though it
> > sounds, is *not* usually something that happens in the UK cinema!)
>
> Can't remember the last time there was applause at the end of a
> movie. Is there anywhere where it *is* "usually something that
> happens"?
It's not unusual at opening night in cinemas in Hollywood, CA, USA.
Enough of the folks int he industry are there to appreciate the
gesture.
Doug Freyburger
> Paul Harper wrote:
>
> > Well, it opened in the UK today, and I and several hundred other
> > people in the cinema clapped it at the end (which silly though it
> > sounds, is *not* usually something that happens in the UK cinema!)
>
> Can't remember the last time there was applause at the end of a
> movie. Is there anywhere where it *is* "usually something that
> happens"?
It's not unusual at opening night in cinemas in Hollywood, CA, USA.
Jms at B5
>respected sources." Can you name even one of those respected sources
Well, let's see...there are the documents provided by the Pentagon concerning
Bush's military service (since you identify yourself as a member of the USAF
you must put some credibility in the Pentagon), the Washington Post which
stated that Bush spent about 42% of the time prior to 9/11 on vacation, a
statistic that has not been challenged by anyone, and there's film -- unedited
-- of Bush that speaks volumes, and nobody's said it's CGI.
You say that --
>5% is out right lies, 35% are distortions of the facts,
>and 30% is analysis of of those lies and distortions.
-- but you don't say what those lies are. You cite very specific breakdowns,
so you could perhaps delineat those figures for us a bit more. Becaue if
you're going to be mathematical in your allegation, I'm going to ask you to be
equally mathematical in showing your homework. Specifiy what those are,
please.
Because for all the complaints from some quarters about the film, and the
general, vague statements of "it's filled with lies," nobody has yet come forth
to specify what those falsehoods *are*. I woud love to hear your specificities
here.
Or are you just repeating what others have said to you?
Paul Harper
wrote:
>Or are you just repeating what others have said to you?
Sheep can only bleat. It's all they know how to do.
umarc
>Because for all the complaints from some quarters about the film, and the
>general, vague statements of "it's filled with lies," nobody has yet come forth
>to specify what those falsehoods *are*.
One of our newscasts at work (I'm in radio) carried a story the other day
to the effect that Homeland Security is drawing up plans to "postpone the
presidential election" in case there is a terrorist attack on Nov. 1 or
Nov. 2.
I find that more than a little frightening.
umar
Cheryl Martin
Okay folks. More heat than light is pouring out on this thread. No
further posts will be allowed (except for the few that somehow keep
slipping through the modbot! *arrrgh*). If you would like to continue
your discussion on Mr Moore and his movie, there are many other groups
more appropriate.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Cheryl
% Grumpy Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated %
% newsgroup posting address: b5...@deepthot.org %
% moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Matt Ion
"Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7960d3ee.04071...@posting.google.com...
The entire audience applauded and cheered when the General shot Bill Gates
in "Southpark: Bigger, Longer and Uncut"...
Jay Denebeim
although we stopped this thread a couple of days ago this message and
several others slipped through.
Honestly I may have let this one go through because it was in reply to
a message that was very confrontational and should have been bounced
in the first place.
Again I apologize.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *
greyeyed
I'm about 19 or 20.
One day while *I* was at Borders, browsing through the literature
section, an Army recruiter came up to me and, yes, tried to recruit me
(he was walking around inside the store). Even after I told him I had
a good job and simply wasn't interested, he told me I could earn
"extra money" during the summer and gave me his business card. He
asked me several questions about my family, etc., just like in the
film. (He may have thought I was lying, since I usually wear an old
t-shirt and jeans that are starting to fray a bit.)
I wonder what Borders, or other stores, would do if people started
proselytizing for various religions? Or salesmen started harassing
customers about buying a new vacuum or a set of encyclopedias?
Of course, the recruiter had something a door-to-door salesman
wouldn't have, a uniform--which is clearly meant to intimidate.
(Maybe that's part of why they're never seem to be asked to leave
these businesses?)
P.S. I was alone that day, which reminded me of the line in the movie
to get them in ones or twos. Larger groups, even of kids, probably
wouldn't be so easily manipulated.
Chad
Paul Harper
wrote:
>Cheryl Martin <zof...@deepthot.org> wrote in
>news:slrncej0ha...@zaphod.deepthot.org:
>
>> Just to add some info to the part of the discussion relating to
>> Michael Moore's current movie.
>
>another interesting thing, in the paper this morning. The movie is already
>making the rounds on p2p networks. The article says the guy didnt mind
>people downloading (refering to past films I figure) his movies. Im sure
>the studio/distributor will think otherwise. Will be kinda fun to see if
>the same venom used against the subjects in his movies will be used against
>them.
With well over $100,000,000 box office receipts so far, I very much
doubt they're overly bothered.
Paul (who saw it at the cinema in London, has a downloaded copy and
will buy the DVD anyway)