|
|
 |
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Tuesday, June 22, 2004 at 12:22 AM
Edited Tuesday, June 22, 2004 at 12:35 AM Another great movie everyone needs to see is Control Room. This is a documentary that shows what Al-Jazeera covers and the lack of understanding between journalists and the distorted perception and spinning on all sides. "Without miring itself in shadowy conspiracy theories, CONTROL ROOM provides a balanced view of Al-Jazeera's presentation of the second Iraq war to their worldwide Arab audience, and in so doing calls into question many of the prevailing images and positions offered up by the U.S. news media. CONTROL ROOM's view inside Al-Jazeera-a network branded "Osama Bin-Laden's mouthpiece" and subject of intense criticism from U.S. administration officials for showing images of Iraqi casualties and American POWs that American viewers never saw-suggests that its views on news reportage might actually be more in tune with democratic ideals than those of its Western counterparts. CONTROL ROOM neatly bridges the gap between timeless and timely; timeless because it locates itself in the midst of the ongoing cultural clash between Western and Arab worlds, timely because it does so through the prism of satellite television's impact on how viewers receive information worldwide - from news providers, driven by the patriotism of their audiences, to Army information officers, driven by military objectives. CONTROL ROOM is a seminal documentary that explores how Truth is gathered, presented, and ultimately created by those who deliver it." -- © Magnolia Pictures
—Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Tuesday, June 22, 2004 at 8:45 AM I love Hitch, but he's not exactly the most reliable fellow. On a recent appearance on Scarborough Country, Hitch claimed that the NVA and the Viet Cong were "a civilized foe" who "didn't target civilians" (sure, tell that to the residents of Hue and the 2 million boat people) and who "were not torturers" (sure, tell that to John McCain and the residents of the Hanoi Hilton). Hitch can be every bit as tendentious as Michael Moore when he wants to be.
—Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
joe bloggs |
+ |
Tuesday, June 22, 2004 at 10:08 PM I actually was not familiar with him (or at least I wasn't before I read the piece).
But while I didn't read it assuming the author was unbiased, he does make some excellent points about moore and the movie.
I'm not gonna get into a whole michael moore discussion here, but suffice it to say that a documentary is something which is "Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film."
Michael Moore wants to make movies which attempt to prove whatever point he's trying to make. Thats fine; just don't call them documentaries. —joe bloggs |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Tuesday, June 22, 2004 at 10:26 PM Ooh, tendentious, that's a good word.
Wait, you're using it in a negative context?
You must be a shepherd.
It is not possible to make a documentary without putting forth ones perspective. As for making points, I saw Bowling for Columbine and he didn't end up making a point. His conclusion from his documentations was that he didn't know what was going on. Also, he was too objective with the statistics he chose for Canada's gun ownership, meaning the facts he presented went against logic and reality. Does anyone really believe that every other person in Canada owns a gun like in the US, yet for some reason no-one ever shoots anyone else?
Michael Moore is fat. That is his most potent flaw. The mind in his head that makes him so overweight makes him misjudge many things, try as he does to be truthful. This leaves him interested in political matters and living with a Eurocentric point of view. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
prick stuck |
+ |
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 5:22 PM For everyone's information: Michael Moore will be on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart tomorrow (Comedy Central). —prick stuck |
|
|
|
|
dr ipod |
+ |
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 6:15 PM And then on Howard Stern on Friday morning! It will be the #1 movie in America this weekend!! Go see it and bring a friend or relative! 
—dr ipod |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 6:30 PM You'd think dr. ipod owns stock in it or something. I definitely plan to see it next week, though. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
puck71 |
+ |
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 6:36 PM Thanks for the link to that site...I was scouting around to see if it was coming to my area, but none of the ticket sites had any info on it yet. According to that official site, it is coming here! —puck71 |
|
|
|
|
dr ipod |
+ |
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 8:02 PM I didn't want it to get out but I'm actually Harvey Weinstein. —dr ipod |
|
|
|
|
Wugie |
+ |
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 8:12 PM I will be there on Friday —Wugie |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 11:47 PM
Edited Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 11:51 PM BTW if anyone thinks CONROL ROOM is the counter side balancing Fahrenheit 9/11, it isn't. It shows a side of the war in Iraq that the major news organizations in the west would not show. Al-Jazeera isn't a pro-Arab anti-US propaganda network. It does show the point of view from the middle east undeniably because it is located there and is run by Arabs reporting news for Arabs. And there is natural and unnatural bias in all journalism. I am recommending this film as another eye-opener about the war in Iraq, the people of middle east, and news that does and doesn't make it to your television here in the west. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Puff |
+ |
Thursday, June 24, 2004 at 8:19 AM I'd much rather see that new Garfield movie. —Puff |
|
|
|
|
NJC |
+ |
Thursday, June 24, 2004 at 11:29 AM Yeah at least JLH is in it —NJC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dr ipod |
+ |
Thursday, June 24, 2004 at 2:26 PM Although that's a funny tshirt, I don't understand the whole "Michael Moore's fat." campaign. 70% of America is fat, by these technical facts he's actually representing the majority of America just by being fat. —dr ipod |
|
|
|
|
hick truck |
+ |
Thursday, June 24, 2004 at 3:08 PM
Edited Thursday, June 24, 2004 at 3:11 PM The whole Michael-Moore-is-fat thing is a dodge by people who don't want to bother doing any research to come up with facts to refute someone they strongly dislike and disagree with. If Moore had made Supersize Me, they might have a point. But what the fuck does Moore's being a fat slob have to do with his sloppy, biased political movies? It's an irrelevant ad hominem attack, which is what Moore specializes in. —hick truck |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Thursday, June 24, 2004 at 8:21 PM Maybe you should master english before throwing latin into the stew.
Michael Moore's fatness has everything to do with the degree to which his movies are sloppy or biased. Don't you understand the connection between the mind and the body? You must be a gun in the weights room.
Dr Ipod, try applying that logic to why paedophilia is bad. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dotcomse |
+ |
Thursday, June 24, 2004 at 10:50 PM I hate to be an idiot, but what exactly about Moore's movies are deceptive. Or, rather, how do you guys pick through what is biased and subjective? I watched Bowling for Columbine, but I guess I just don't have the most proficient grasp on the believability of statistics, because I didn't perceive anything slanted or biased in the movie. I've read, for example, that some speeches (read: NRA) were composited to look like one, cohesive speech, to better serve Moore's point; however, how could one tell without watching with eagle eyes (though perhaps in a world with so much apparent bias present even in documentaries, eagle eyes are necessary) that this was the case? Help me become a critical viewer, before I see Fahrenheit (which I'm doing tomorrow, by the way). —dotcomse |
|
|
|
|
hick truck |
+ |
Thursday, June 24, 2004 at 10:56 PM Yes, I can only hope that one day I will be able to write even half as lucidly and elegantly as MajandraFart. Most of all, I envy his astounding powers of intellection. —hick truck |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Thursday, June 24, 2004 at 11:36 PM Substituting naughty words into other's names (sic) is a good start. It's pretty funny too. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
everybody has warts |
+ |
Friday, June 25, 2004 at 2:22 AM also see: the corporation (another good documentary out now) http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheCorporation-10003604/reviews.php —everybody has warts |
|
|
|
|
Proc |
+ |
Friday, June 25, 2004 at 10:53 PM
Edited Friday, June 25, 2004 at 10:53 PM I saw Control Room yesterday. Definitely a must see. Not as sexy as Fahrenheit 9/11 but much more enlightening and superbly made. Disclamer: I think Bush is a fucking moron. But I also think Michael Moore is a shady entertainer who doesn't really give a fuck. But at least he's entertaining. —Proc |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Sunday, June 27, 2004 at 7:53 AM Good, intelligent review of Fahrenheit 9/11:
—Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
Wugie |
+ |
Sunday, June 27, 2004 at 6:21 PM Seriously fucking see F9/11. Its so good. —Wugie |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 1:11 AM
Edited Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 1:49 AM I finally got around to seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight. I was disappointed. It wasn't nearly as good as his best work, Roger & Me. The first third was the most effective part, a well-researched and well-edited account of the Saudi royal family's influence on the U.S. government in general and the Bush family in particular. The rest of the movie took random potshots at Bush and ignored the strongest evidence for its case and settled for lazy, superficial, unconnected vignettes and half-assed stunts. For example, instead of exploring the more sinister aspects of the PATRIOT Act, Moore drove a truck around the Capitol Building and recited sections of the Act over a loudspeaker and showed us an antiwar group in Fresno that some local sheriff had been spying on. (Big deal. How about the fact that it allows the feds to detain people indefinitely without charging them? Isn't that more frightening?) Moore also recycled that ridiculous and long-discredited charge that the war in Afghanistan was waged to secure a pipeline deal. By resorting to these lazy, stupid tricks, he casts doubt on his many pertinent points. I have a feeling this movie was a rush job designed to affect the election, rather than a serious investigation into serious matters. It wasn't particularly witty either. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
Trees Lounge |
+ |
Thursday, July 1, 2004 at 5:47 PM I more or less agree with Saffeau's criticisms. I found Moore's latest documentary to be one of his weakest, not quite as sloppy and self-indulgent as The Big One, but a far cry from the brilliant Roger & Me. Chalk it up to another case of fame and success spoiling a modest gift. —Trees Lounge |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Friday, July 2, 2004 at 2:38 AM
Edited Friday, July 2, 2004 at 2:54 AM Even though F 9/11 is called a documentary some of the problems with that description and Moore's own description of his motives indicate that technically he doesn't consider it one either. He has said he wanted to make an entertaining film in addition to other things. Some of the stunts he is criticized for are entertaining if you get past any frustration or resentment because their presence diminishes the better film you envisioned if the points were approached differently. The Unfairenheit 9/11 author made many good points but undermined his effort by being equally cynical as he criticized Moore and ignored plausible speculation when disputing Moore's "facts."
Currently Bush and Kerry are averaging 50/50+- split of the vote. But only half the eligible population votes. One idea tossed about is that F 9/11 may activate a portion of the americans that don't vote. Whether they vote for Bush or Kerry, they might at least get involved as a result of the interest stirred from this film. BTW, the Afganistan natural gas pipeline was presented as another "coincidence" involving the Bush oil relationships with key figures placed in power after the Afganistan invasion. The film makes the point that the people of the US would never have tolerated invading Iraq when they knew Osama Bin Ladin and Al-Qaeda were in Afganistan. The film does not assert that the sole reason for invading Afganistan was to secure a pipeline deal. CONTROL ROOM is well worth your time and money. It is eye-opening about the war news coverage and the perception on both sides without clutter and clouding of facts. I'd guarantee you would like it if it were feasible. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Friday, July 2, 2004 at 3:05 AM You are right that the film doesn't say that the sole reason for invading Afghanistan was to secure a pipeline deal. It strongly implies that a pipeline deal was a major factor in the invasion, a charge that has been discredited long ago and numerous times. The problem with the film is that Michael Moore lazily grabs any old thing to hurl at Bush, not particularly caring how accurate or coherent it is. He also keeps missing much stronger arguments he could have used against Bush. BTW, I saw Moore on Charlie Rose tonight. Moore's position on the war in Afghanistan was rather vague, but he seemed to be suggesting that the U.S. should not have invaded Afghanistan but instead should have used some kind of non-military means to arrest Osama bin Laden. As if the Taliban had had nothing to do with al-Qaeda! I guess the fact that the Taliban leader Mullah Omar was Osama bin Laden's father-in-law was a complete coincidence and that Mullah Omar would have co-operated with a U.S. law enforcement ops and handed over his son-in-law, and that would have been that. Al-Qaeda was the secret police force for the Taliban: It was al-Qaeda suicide bombers, remember, that assassinated the Taliban's main foe, Ahmed Shah Massoud. Moore is either deliberately blowing smoke up our asses, or he is profoundly naive about the world. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
lamp540 |
+ |
Friday, July 2, 2004 at 4:57 AM doc·u·men·ta·ries A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration. —lamp540 |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Friday, July 2, 2004 at 5:58 AM
Edited Friday, July 2, 2004 at 6:08 AM Saffeau, I saw it and have it recorded. I have seen 6 interviews with Moore since the F 9/11 rollout. (Today/Matt Lauer, Tavis Smiley, Stern, George Stephanopoulas, Letterman, Charley Rose). He did not suggest what you said. He was vague but you are adding your own conjecture and reading too much into it. He did not have the time to explain in the Rose interview because the topic quickly shifted as Charley and Moore talked simultaneously. What he has consistently said was that the US did not take the appropriate action. If they intended to get OBL they had the ability to go in with special forces immediately. Instead they air bombed, then sent in regular ground troops, then after 2 months they sent the special forces in. This is backwards. Special forces are trained to go in first without any overt support. It was all show. They made sure that OBL had the opportunity to get away before sending in the guys with the best chance of getting him. With regards to numbers, they did not send enough troops for their approach to have any remote chance of working and many holes were open for escape. His point is they did not intend to get OBL. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Johnny |
+ |
Friday, July 2, 2004 at 9:52 AM I'm pissed off because i went to my local cinema and they would not let me in because the movie is "not rated". fuck that. did anybody see the interview in which moore started argueing with some african american woman on CBS? i thought it was pretty funny... —Johnny |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Friday, July 2, 2004 at 12:25 PM
Edited Friday, July 2, 2004 at 12:53 PM Yes, AC, I understood the point Moore was making about Afghanistan in Fahrenheit 9/11. But it doesn't fit with what he was saying a couple of years ago. I did say that in the Rose interview Moore was vague and "seemed to suggest". I didn't say he actually said he thought the U.S should not have invaded. That fact is, I have seen about five interviews with Moore in the last month and he is always vague about his views on what exactly the U.S. response should have been. It seems he never has time to spell out anything. That is his basic MO: Hint vaguely and always dodge tough questions. Moore is also contradictory. About two years ago, he was suggesting (again in a pussy, two-faced way) that the invasion itself was wrong. Now he says we should have sent in more troops. If the invasion was morally wrong, why would he want more troops sent in? If he has changed his mind about the morality of invasion, he should say so. People can change their minds, but they ought to let us know (a) that they have done so, and (b) why they did so.
It's too bad the rest of Moore's movie wasn't as tight and coherent as the first third. For about 40 minutes I had high hopes, because it contained some of the best stuff Moore had ever done. Then he frittered most of that away. The movie was a rush job. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Friday, July 2, 2004 at 5:24 PM
Edited Friday, July 2, 2004 at 5:27 PM Saffeau, The Charley Rose interview was not sinister and deliberately vague as you are implying. Moore had a moment to describe his idea before another question was introduced by Rose. "Vague" might be the result of your stubborn refusal to listen. "Seems to be suggesting" doesn't mean, "I Saffeau know, therefore, will paraphrase and inject ideas into it" ...then condemn him for it..........Your "MO." You can be against a war yet recognize what is inadequate to achieve success with the least expense in lives, money, time, damage, etc. Are you capable of understanding anything beyond simpleton concepts? This is a no-brainer. Right up your ally, Saff. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Friday, July 2, 2004 at 5:54 PM
Edited Friday, July 2, 2004 at 5:58 PM You can settle this dispute, then. You've got the Charlie Rose interview on tape, right? Transcribe that section word for word and let's see. I trust you not to fudge it or omit anything. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
hick truck |
+ |
Friday, July 2, 2004 at 6:25 PM Uh, Saffy and AC: Why bother with silly nitpicking about a recent interview? Doesn't it strike either one of you as strange that MM thinks the best argument against Bush is that he's doing an INEFFECTIVE job of waging an "immoral" war? If you think the war is immoral to begin with, why waste your time complaining about how badly Bush is fucking it up? That just sounds like a chickenshit opportunistic tactic to me. —hick truck |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Friday, July 2, 2004 at 7:17 PM Saff, Part 1 aired 7/1/04. Part 2 is scheduled for 7/2/04 As of 7/2/04 8:15pm PST you can listen to a copy of the show streamed online listed by air date and guest/topic here: 
—Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Friday, July 2, 2004 at 8:32 PM
Edited Friday, July 2, 2004 at 8:53 PM Thanks, AC. I'll check it out later tonight or tomorrow. Yes, hick truck, I do find it strange (and chickenshit and opportunistic) that Michael Moore, in his recent film, decided to focus on the pragmatic argument instead of the moral argument. That's why I brought up this whole thing in my earlier posts. No, I don't think it's silly and nitpicking to look carefully at the words Moore used in the Rose interview. I distinctly remember Rose asking him if he would have supported any invasion of Afghanistan (not just Bush's) and Moore answering that he has always opposed any invasion to overthrow the Taliban, insisting instead that the U.S. should have conducted some kind of law-enforcement operation to capture Osama bin Laden. Since al-Qaeda acted as the secret police of the Taliban regime, both of whose leaders were closely related by marriage, there was no fucking way we could have destroyed al-Qaeda there without toppling the Taliban. I find Moore's argument for a law enforcement operation naive at best and insincere at worst. I happen to agree with the argument Moore puts forward in his film (but not in the Rose interview) that the Bush administration waited too long and put too few Special Forces and Marines into Afghanistan. But I have always made that argument. Moore's recent conversion to pragmatic concerns smells bogus to me. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Friday, July 2, 2004 at 9:10 PM
Edited Friday, July 2, 2004 at 9:27 PM When you have listened to the program you will find that you are mistaken about the content of this interview. Perhaps you remember things from another interview. Listen to the stream then look over this transcript of the portion in which the invasion of Afganistan and Iraq was discussed. I tried to get all of the broken words and stammering of both Rose and Moore to illustrate the flow of conversation. The choppy quality was because it was characteristic of the conversation not deliberately evasive.
Rose: [after a brief reference to Moore's position wanting to sort out a few things] …the reaction to attack Afganistan was okay with you?
Moore: Uhh no..... uhh no......not to attack Afganistan. Rose:...not to attack Afganistan looking for Osama Bin Laden where he was hold up? Moore: It was correct to go and look for OBL and use whatever means necessary to find and capture him and bring him to justice that… Rose: ....and if that meant the kind of air attack that took place in Afganistan that’s okay with Michael Moore? Moore: No that is not okay. See that is what we did. We did this air attack and then we didn’t send in the correct number of troops to do the job as Richard Clarke has pointed out… Rose: Yeah but...…(some stamering).. Moore: And then.......and then we didn’t allow our special forces for two months to go to the area where OBL was....... Rose: .....but don’t you think…....because they didn’t really want to capture OBL? Moore: No...I.....I don’t think ……(some stamering).. Rose: But they didn’t do..……(stamering).. Moore: Well Richard Clarke says very clearly and anuh anuh no one has disputed this that the day after 9/11 they’re saying, uhh.... "Whata whattaya got on Iraq?" and he’s going "Whattaya mean on Iraq?" "...…this was....this was.....uh....Al-Qaeda and they’re in Afganistan"....."Ahhh" they’re goin’ "Ahh don’t talk about that!"........."We wanna talk about Iraq!" and he’s goin, "Whata ya mean?" Rose: ......yeah........yeah but here’s what they would say in defense, as you well know…….they’ll say look......look at the evidence: we did attack Afganistan, we did try to attack OBL we’d like nothing better to than to have captured him, we didn’t, we were...... we made a very strong effort to do that. So, albeit, the Iraqi issue was there, people immediately.....Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz.........began, as Richard Clarke and others, Bob Woodworth, have shown us,.........talked about Iraq. They made the decision ……. Moore: …because they knew… Rose:...to go after OBL… Moore: …they knew... Rose: ...not to go after Saddam Hussein. Moore: ...because the American people were never going to go, "Let’s go to Iraq" then, when it was clear OBL was in Afganistan. Nobody would have backed that and they.....they figured that out… Rose: right Moore: …after a few days Rose: .....do you think these are smart people? Moore: Yes I do. Rose: You do? Moore: Oh ya… oh…. in the Bush administration?
Rose: Ya? Moore: Oh absolutely!
[The conversation veers off into an assessment of the Bush administration, the election, democrats, Gore but doesn't return to Afganistan or Iraq.]
If you could not follow Moore's acting out of the conversation instead of sticking to a description, it is your inability to follow the conversation not any attempt by Moore to be vague. Otherwise you are confused with something and/or someone else......confused. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Friday, July 2, 2004 at 9:34 PM
Edited Friday, July 2, 2004 at 9:55 PM Thanks for the transcript. Wow. It was even more vague and disconnected than I remembered. Does Moore really think our military would send in soldiers without a pre-invasion bombardment? That's standard military procedure! When is the last time our military did not prepare the way for our troops with extensive air bombardment? World War One, that's when. This was the same argument I kept hearing from all my anti-war friends shortly after 9/11: That we shouldn't bomb the Taliban's military bases and supply depots--we should only send in ground troops for a law-enforcement mission to capture bin Laden and leave the Taliban regime intact. Moore avoids any specific mention of what to do about the Taliban, probably because he knows full well that the vast majority of Americans supported the overthrow of the Taliban and Moore doesn't want to piss off the voters and turn them against the Democrats. I haven't heard all the interviews you listed in your earlier post, but I've heard some of them and a few others you didn't list. In all of them, Moore never gets very specific about what strategy he thinks should have been used. Yes, we certainly should have sent in more troops, and sent them in earlier. But is Moore opposed to the air attacks per se? He never clarifies this important point, not in any interview I've ever heard. He alludes to the standard line of those who opposed any practical military invasion of Afghanistan at all, while carefully avoiding any specifics that might link him too closely to an extremely unpopular position. That's some waffling. When someone is so consistently evasive about the specifics, I tend to get a bit suspicious about his motives. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Friday, July 2, 2004 at 10:00 PM Please do listen to the archive. But also consider my criticisms. Has Moore ever made his position clear on the points I listed above? If you can link to articles or interviews in which he spells things out exactly, I would be much obliged. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Friday, July 2, 2004 at 10:14 PM
Edited Friday, July 2, 2004 at 10:18 PM Safftard will just twist and fuck those up too. T H E R A P Y T H E R A P Y T H E R A P Y T H E R A P Y T H E R A P Y —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Trees Lounge |
+ |
Friday, July 2, 2004 at 11:40 PM I must express a dissenting opinion on Control Room. As an inside look at Al Jazeera, the bete noire of Donald Rumsfeld, it holds some interest. But it is so light on facts and so one-sided as to be almost propagandistic. If you think the cure for Fox News is this dubious operation out of Qatar, you probably subscribe to the risible notion that journalistic "balance" consists of equal servings of lies from opposite ends of a false political spectrum. Although the film offers us a judicious selection of talking heads, it is chary in its delivery of basic information. By the end, we still know dangerously little about the origins, schedules, and funding of the station. There is one inadvertently revealing moment, however, that betrays the delusional mindset of the entire operation: The mostly perspicacious and engaging staff at Al Jazeera appear genuinely dumbstruck when reports stating that American forces have reached the heart of Baghdad turn out to be true. It was almost worth the price of admission. —Trees Lounge |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Saturday, July 3, 2004 at 4:09 AM Whatever you say, Adam's Crows, you sad, pretentious, half-educated moron. Trees, I haven't seen Control Room yet, and after reading your incisive critique and AC's glowing review, I think I'll skip it. What documentaries of the last six months do you think are the best? —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
Trees Lounge |
+ |
Saturday, July 3, 2004 at 2:11 PM The best recent documentaries are Capturing the Friedmans, The Corporation, and Super Size Me. All of these films display directorial flair and convey rich factual content in an elegant, memorable fashion. My all-time favorite documentaries are Crumb, Little Dieter Needs to Fly, The Thin Blue Line, and Hotel Terminus. These are unforgettable, profoundly moving films, masterpieces of the documentary genre, every one of them. —Trees Lounge |
|
|
|
|
hick truck |
+ |
Saturday, July 3, 2004 at 3:45 PM
Edited Saturday, July 3, 2004 at 3:45 PM Stop wasting your time bickering about hidden meanings in Michael Moore's movies and go straight to the source, Michael Moore's own website: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy'. They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow and they will win." (Funny, I didn't know the Minutemen fought to restore a psychopathic fascist dictatorship or kidnapped British citizens and gleefully sawed their heads off with kitchen knives.) Viva La Revolution!
—hick truck |
|
|
|
|
lamp540 |
+ |
Saturday, July 3, 2004 at 4:28 PM The minutemen fought to break the political control of an imperial power centered on a different continent over their country, which is exactly what the iraqi insurgents are doing. 1) The US is an imperial power, even people on the right admit that. 2) Most of the insurgents are not fighting to bring saddam back, they are fighting for the future, like the minutemen. The Sadrist-shi'ite militias militantly opposed saddam hussein so they obviously aren't. The "jihadists" opposed Saddam's SECULAR government as well. Their are "ex-baathists" in the insurgency but since the entire country was militarized that's pretty much unavoidable. Like the Nazi party in WWII germany everyone that wanted to have a job had to be part of it. 3) The insurgency isn't monolithic and the head-cutter-offers aren't all of them, so Moore was most likely talking about the saner ones. 4) The CPA has radically restructered(privatizing) the Iraqi economy so the US is controlling Iraq like the british controlled the colonies. True it's not a straight up colonial arrangement, but it is neo-colonial with the important decisions being made by the US. But yeah, that is a good Michael Moore quote to bring up, it shows he's got balls and it shows he's not a fascist. If he was just an opportunist out to make money he wouldn't be saying shit like that which is likely to get 75% of the country against him. Maybe he misleads a little in the movie, but that's nothing compared to bush. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THOSE WMDS??? —lamp540 |
|
|
|
|
hick truck |
+ |
Saturday, July 3, 2004 at 4:36 PM
Edited Saturday, July 3, 2004 at 4:43 PM Yep. Michael Moore is a hero and a truth-teller. America is a fascist regime out to conquer the world. The terrorists are just like the Minutemen. Let's hope this brave new coalition of Islamist fundamentalists and Baathist loyalists wins the war. Viva La Revolution! —hick truck |
|
|
|
|
everybody has warts |
+ |
Saturday, July 3, 2004 at 5:47 PM or kidnapped British citizens and gleefully sawed their heads off with kitchen knives. read some history books to see how some brittish loyalists were treated. and... see F911 to see some iraqis cursing america after their entire family was killed in bombing. to someone who goes through this, what's the difference between saddam and the u.s.? —everybody has warts |
|
|
|
|
sky1 |
+ |
Saturday, July 3, 2004 at 5:50 PM in the "minutemen" statement, Michael moore is just trying to get us to see it from their point of view. He's trying to show that there is no absolute good or evil in the world, and that there are places in the world where people feel so oppressed by our government that they are willing to die to be free of our occupation. I think hick truck is hung up on the idea that he sees the cause of our american minutemen in the 1700s as more noble than the cause of the suicide bombers and beheading video makers, which I won't argue withn but this is not the point of the statement —sky1 |
|
|
|
|
hick truck |
+ |
Saturday, July 3, 2004 at 6:48 PM I don't know why you guys are arguing with me. I'm on YOUR side: I agree that America is a fascist empire, that the terrorists are really freedom fighters, and that it would be a good thing if the admirable coalition of militant Islamic fundamentalists and Baathist loyalists succeed in taking over Iraq. Viva La REVOLUTION! —hick truck |
|
|
|
|
sky1 |
+ |
Saturday, July 3, 2004 at 7:13 PM oh I thought you actually wanted to discuss this, never mind then —sky1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Saturday, July 3, 2004 at 9:36 PM My God. This is really the Death of the Left. The Left used to stand for universal values like international human rights, equality of the sexes, and liberation from dictatorship, which is why I counted myself a proud member of the Left for so many years. Now most American and European leftists seem have become isolationists and wishy-washy apologists for any tyranny that discomfits or embarrasses the United States, regardless of the consequences for others. Maybe it's all those years of political impotence and obscurity that have driven them to such a depressing position. It smells like a politics of petty spite and resentment. I'd sooner cut off my arm than vote for a gay-bashing, bible-thumping class warrior like George W. Bush...but weaselly sentiments like some the posts I've been reading here almost make me want to vote Republican. Not quite...I said almost. It's enough to make a person weep. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
hick truck |
+ |
Monday, July 5, 2004 at 2:44 PM
Edited Monday, July 5, 2004 at 2:47 PM I feel your pain, Saff. Sadly, the left has lost its way. I was living in Berkeley for a few months after 9/11, and every week I saw marches and heard speeches that fairly dripped with smug I-told-you-so satisfaction. The theme of all these demonstrations was that the U.S. should take 9/11 as proper chastisement for its sins. I was told over and over again that the massacre was justifiable "payback" and "comeuppance" for past foreign policy transgressions. Some activists even refused to recognize that Al Qaeda and the Taliban were atavistic, theocratic fascists whose worldview is diametrically opposed to all humanitarian and progressive morality. I sometimes heard the 9/11 terrorists referred to as "avengers of an oppressed people"! It is one thing to argue that Americans are naive and perhaps arrogant to have believed in a historic exceptionalism that could immunize them against pain and bloodshed on their own soil. It is quite another to suggest, as I repeatedly heard during all those peace rallies, that Americans somehow invited 9/11. Morally repugnant and politically unviable, this sort of Schadenfreude can only render the left irrelevant. No one at any of these rallies had anything constructive or practical to say about how we ought to respond to the attacks. Some shrugged them off entirely and tried to shift the talk to Mumia or universal health care or hemp farming. Most suggested we issue an arrest warrant for Osama bin Laden and work to persuade the Taliban to hand him over, but invading Afghanistan and using military force would be categorically wrong. More than ever, we need an intellectually honest and politically mature left in this country. Instead, we have a traumatized, dysfunctional, and infantile left that can't even communicate with its fellow countrymen. The end result of this psycho-political micro-climate are two generations of American leftists who lack the political sensibility and even the simple emotional language that would allow them to see their own fellow citizens, even transitorily, as victims rather than victimizers, that would allow them to distinguish between a CIA coup abroad and the butchering of thousands of innocent American civilians at home. The American left--or at least a broad swath of it--is more alienated from its own national institutions than its counterparts in any other developed nation. Even its own national symbols have become anathema: What a warning signal when you cannot tolerate the sight of your own flag!
—hick truck |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Wednesday, July 7, 2004 at 8:27 PM Thank you, hick truck. You said it so much better than I could. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
Trees Lounge |
+ |
Thursday, July 8, 2004 at 9:17 AM Quite so. Very eloquent and thoughtful, hick truck. Your passionate declaration of disillusionment reminded me of Ron Rosenbaum's famous farewell to the Left after 9/11. Have you read it?
—Trees Lounge |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Thursday, July 8, 2004 at 1:07 PM
Edited Thursday, July 8, 2004 at 1:11 PM Hey, I tried to read it and I hated it, that Goodbye article.
What would I expect from a journalist besides error? I do not know!
It was so biased in a dishonest way. It reminds me of when Christian writers try to pretend they used to be unbelievers, angry and evil.
Anyway. What a moron; reading magazines, talking about left and right, constantly using the word 'America' to describe the USA. He also belives in intellectuals and academics and respect. What a freak!
Why o why does no-one (absolutely positively not one single person I have ever read, heard or seen in any aspect or medium or from any distance or perspective) have a different view on the September 11 2001?
Maybe I'm just crazy...I can't find any holes in my logic...neither can anyone I've talked to...is everyone else stupid? Is that it? I'm not afraid to die. At this point I'd welcome death. Ooh.
It's not just the September 11 2001, it's anything going. All those different attitudes are much of a muchness; every damn thing that happens, who has anything to say about it?
Seal is cool: "world disasters they come and go, I'd give anything to be back home..."
Angry people know the truth, that's why they so violently tell their lies. I forgot; that Goodby article mentioned North Koreans having to eat moss off of rocks. The Korean movie "Shiri" shows what's up much better than any clown journalist, and also shows why it's a bad idea for countries to be militant or to invade each other (hey that's militant too! and that's the USA!). That movie is so sweet. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
hick truck |
+ |
Thursday, July 8, 2004 at 8:08 PM Yeah, I read that Rosenbaum article about two years ago when it first appeared. —hick truck |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Thursday, July 8, 2004 at 11:52 PM Niggers are scared of the revolution. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
Persona #27 |
+ |
Friday, July 9, 2004 at 3:54 PM
Edited Friday, July 9, 2004 at 3:58 PM I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night, and the critics are right: It's a blatant piece of propaganda. Michael Moore uses all the classic tools of the propagandist's trade: clever manipulation of the facts, guilt by association, the use of images and emotions to override logical thought, and the demonization of "the enemy." The good guys are noble and pure; the bad guys are scheming, power-mad monsters with simple, selfish motives. If that worldview sounds a bit familiar, it should. You can find it every day in the diatribes of talk radio, in the "commentary" on cable TV networks, in the ax-grinding of columnists and partisan magazines that serve politicians instead of readers, and in a half-dozen best-selling books whose titles contain the words "lies," "traitor," or "big fat." The only thing remarkable about Moore's film, really, is that it's a film. He's just opening a new front in a war already raging on the airwaves, in print, and on the Web. In coming months, we can expect to be completely marinated in propaganda, though few of the practitioners of the art will call it that. One side--our side--gets "the message out." It's the other lying weasels who use tricks and base emotions to sway simple minds. One man's propaganda, in other words, is another man's truth. This is not to say that all truth is relative, or to deny that one party's set of half-truths is preferable to another's. But I suggest we all inoculate ourselves with some healthy skepticism. A good propagandist, after all, doesn't merely implant his worldview in the minds of millions. He convinces you that it's what you thought all along. —Persona #27 |
|
|
|
|
Pan Pan |
+ |
Friday, July 9, 2004 at 4:39 PM Goodness, must we be so serious here? What happened to those carefree days of yore on the Loveline Companion Forum when we debated the pros and cons of fingerblasting and dry anal rape? —Pan Pan |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Friday, July 9, 2004 at 4:50 PM And what exactly are the cons of fingerblasting and dry anal rape? —piesore |
|
|
|
|
hick truck |
+ |
Friday, July 9, 2004 at 6:07 PM As I recall, the con of fingerblasting is that it's something you're supposed to outgrow by the time you're 19, and the con of dry anal rape is that, for the recipient, it hurts like bloody hell (or so I've been told). On the plus side, though, you can't get pregnant through either of these methods. Go, FB and DAR! —hick truck |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Saturday, July 10, 2004 at 1:30 AM Persona #27 is scared of the revolution. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
Khlestakov |
+ |
Saturday, July 10, 2004 at 2:27 PM Speaking of fudging things and making shit up, Michael Moore got caught fudging things and making shit up in a LA Times July 4th op-ed piece when talking about high-school classmates who died in Vietnam. He also apparently fudged things in Roger & Me when he let everyone think Flint MI was his hometown. It seems he grew up in the upper-middle-class suburb of Davison MI. I don't think much of Bush & Co. but demagogues like Michael Moore do liberals no favors. He's just a left-wing version of Rush Limbaugh: a big fat hypocritical blowhard who lies through his teeth and makes millions for it.
—Khlestakov |
|
|
|
|
Trees Lounge |
+ |
Sunday, July 18, 2004 at 2:59 PM An interesting British libertarian take on Michael Moore. The problem with Moore's work is not that it's partisan, but that it is non-political.
—Trees Lounge |
|
|
|
|
Bosie D. |
+ |
Monday, July 19, 2004 at 5:47 AM At this point probably nobody cares, except maybe for a couple of legal wonks and political nerds, but lawyer Dave Kopel has done an extremely painstaking dissection of Fahrenheit 9/11, including a point-by-point refutation of Moore's many charges and inuendoes, along with Moore's replies. A very well-documented analysis.
—Bosie D. |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Monday, July 19, 2004 at 7:43 AM
Edited Monday, July 19, 2004 at 7:46 AM That Dave Kopel article is by far the best analysis I've ever read about Fahrenheit 9/11 and Michael Moore. Thanks, Bosie. The best part of the movie was the section devoted to unveiling the disgustingly cozy relationship between Washington D.C. and Riyadh. Moore takes a cheap partisan angle by making it seem that only the Bushes were in bed with the kleptocratic scum in Riyadh, but the fact is that both parties and all American Presidents have whored themselves to that despicable, treacherous regime. The rest of the movie, unfortunately, was a collection of fumbled opportunities and loony conspiracy theories. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
hick truck |
+ |
Monday, July 19, 2004 at 9:18 AM I just glanced at the article and it looks like a professional piece of work debunking Michael Moore's bullshit, but I'm not going to plow through every word of it. I think we've all made up our minds where we stand in relation to this matter and no one's going to budge. The battle lines are drawn. Jesus, I am SO fucking sick of hearing about Michael Moore, seeing his fat face on the tube, listening to yet another one of his half-baked conspirazoid rants, blah blah blah.... —hick truck |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Next Caller! |
+ |
Wednesday, July 21, 2004 at 6:24 PM
I’m surprised more people don’t realize that what happened on 9/11/01, was a Reich Stag fire. There’s overwhelming evidence for this conclusion, all of it from the main stream press. The CIA backed by the Global Elite (AKA the Illuminati) attacked NYC, and DC, for one main reason: to turn America into a tyrannical police state.
Moore’s movie only tells 20% of the story, and his answer is to get the UN to save us, but the UN is controlled by the same Global Elites that control the EU, America, and the rest of the West. People have to get out of the false Left/Right paradigm, the Democrats, and the Republicans are different in rhetoric only, their actions are identical in furthering the Globalists’ tyrannical agenda. Alex Jones 911 the Road to Tyranny is a much more accurate film.
http://www.infowars.com
http://www.prisonplanet.com What are the Globalists/illuminati? It is a hereditary oligarchy of world crime syndicates, that compete with each other, but combine their forces against the common man, and civilization to dumb us down, to centralize control through government, and then they fight over who controls the levers. Why do people who know history full of conspiracy and tyranny, from ancient Roam to Hitler, and Stalin, refuse to believe it can happen here?
--
To trade liberty for security is a fools bargain.
-- Thomas Jefferson
—Next Caller! |
|
|
|
|
Proc |
+ |
Wednesday, July 21, 2004 at 7:35 PM "Paranoia is a hallmark of the foolish." — Dr. Drew (paraphrased) —Proc |
|
|
|
|
Next Caller! |
+ |
Wednesday, July 21, 2004 at 9:36 PM
The Constitution says it’s important to distrust government. The evidence from main stream press includes: white papers, policy reports, the Bill of Rights nullified by “Patriot Act” I/..., Nazi like check points, thumb scanners, RFID tracks us, and controls the cars, biochips for all, perpetual war, draft on the way, Al-CIA-da blowing things up,
Jobs out-sourced to 3rd world, 3rd world comes here by the tens of millions through the open borders, breaking the middle-class.
It’s America destroyed by design! I’m sure proc and Drew will make good slaves to the New World Order...
I'd rather be paranoid and free, than a happy lemming slave...
—Next Caller! |
|
|
|
|
Puff |
+ |
Thursday, July 22, 2004 at 10:16 AM It's the Democrats that will help bring forth the NWO you jackass! With their compliances to the U.N. and such. — | |