Well, in some ways, yes. Although one side of the divide, plugs their nose and votes Democrat while the other side, plugs their nose and votes Republican. There's alot of hostility out there towards politics nowadays.
Printable View
Well, in some ways, yes. Although one side of the divide, plugs their nose and votes Democrat while the other side, plugs their nose and votes Republican. There's alot of hostility out there towards politics nowadays.
Johann has a salient point. One really gets a bit tired of reading people's speculations about films that they just ought to go out and see.
To back down when in error is not a sign of feebleness; it is a sign of integrity.
This is a somewhat naive remark, since the term "back down" itself implies feebleness. However, you're right that to admit one has made an error (in pointing to someone else's supposed error) shows good character, and is necessary. But if they'd gotten their facts straight in the first place they wouldn't have had to back down, and you need to be careful when you are stepping up to point the finger at somebody else that you're justified in doing so. The "feebleness" I was alluding to is a feebleness in engaging in debate, since they showed an inabilty to double-check their own fact-checking.
As I've stated before, Moore uses facts to create a lie. It is the selective use of information, the use of information irrelevant to the argument, and the juxtaposition of real yet essentially unrelated images.
This is nonsense, and if it is coming from somebody who hasn't seen the movie, it's arrogant nonsense.
The rant that follows is ridiculous. I don't need to point out that neither the US nor any other single nation can go in and exterminate by bombing his country whatever evil tyrant there is ruling a country. There have been lots of them, and there are now.
However, here as always -- difficult as it may be in this instance -- I wish to discuss these topics in the context of the movies, in this case Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11. If you haven't seen this movie, Anduril, then you're talking about the invasion of Iraq, but not about the movie and so you lack a thorough context and are not a full-fledged participant in this discussion despite the noise you appear to be making. You've made your position clear: you think the unilateral invasion of Iraq was justified and you embelish that justification by hypothesizing the joy of the Iraqi people in being invaded, because the fall of Saddam resulted.
But Michael Moore's film, Farenheit 9/11, isn't invalidated, even for you, merely by the fact that he disagrees with your position.
I find it interesting that you didn't address my relevant points concerning the movie if, in fact, you are, as you say, so interested in discussing the film nor has anyone shown me that the content of this movie is anything other than what I believe it to be.
But, in the interests of humouring your navel-gazing, I will not make another post and I will simply let stand what I've written, which is easy to do seeing as it has as yet not been significantly challenged. My subscription to this thread is over.
Chris is absolutely right: what's most effective is the images.
This was one of the first points I was trying to make: you can't argue with a filmed image. Moore is not manipulating STOCK FOOTAGE. He's not weaving a complex web of lies with actual footage of Bush and company. You can't argue with the images of Bush acting like an arrogant idiot.
His speeches are priceless. Moore has dug up some DEVASTATING clips.
How are these images lies? How are these speeches lies?
They're not. They speak for themselves, and the result is pretty damning.
Chris brings up a great point:
Israel.
That country has more nukes than you can shake a stick at. There are more "weapons of mass destruction" in Israel than there is tea in China. (I'm exaggerating, but there are a shitload of nuclear weapons in Israel- all protected by the President.)
The US are great buddies with Israel, and they pose more of a threat to the US than Bin Laden and Al Queda did.
Where's the movie on Israel and the potential powderkeg that can be? Where's the expose on Bush's relations with the Israeli's?
Chris brings up a great point:
Israel.
That country has more nukes than you can shake a stick at. There are more "weapons of mass destruction" in Israel than there is tea in China. (I'm exaggerating, but there are a shitload of nuclear weapons in Israel- all protected by the President.)
The US are great buddies with Israel, and they pose more of a threat to the US than Bin Laden and Al Queda did.
Where's the movie on Israel and the potential powderkeg that can be? Where's the expose on Bush's relations with the Israeli's?
RIght. But my specific point re: Farenheit 9/11 is the question of why Moore spends so much time on the Bushes' chummy relations with the house of Saud, when obviously the invasion of Iraq and establishment of a permanent US military presence there was something that Israel was very eager to have, whereas the Saudis were not so enthusiastic about all the unrest and insurgency an invasion of Iraq would cause.
Too bad Anduril has "backed down" himself, like some of the challengers to Moore's facts in the movie. I wanted to ask him what we did about Ceausescu, Suharto, Duvalier, Marcos, King Jong Il, and on and on; why it just happened that the dictator of the country with the second greatest oil reserves in the world was the one we just had to eliminate.
I just wish anduril would see the movie and then tell us specifically the lies Moore purports.
Moore says he's thinking of offering a $10,000.00 reward for anyone who disproves anything in his film.
P.s.
I didn't bring up the Israel issue. I got it from an anonymous blog published by the Tom Paine site: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/blind_or_a_coward.php. It's a pretty nasty critique of Moore, but it has a good point. Again, though, this is not a distortion of fact, but an omission.
Chris Knipp speaks for me too! *sorry* :)
WTF, M8 ^^??
Maybe you'd learn a thing or two, Anduril, by watching this movie, even if you don't agree with it.
It is unfortunate that all the people that need to see this movie refuse to.
Is this an invitation for me to rejoin the discussion? I "backed down," as you call it, because you more or less asked me to do so by claiming I wasn't a full participant in the discussion. Plus, I felt that no one was actually raising any significant counter-arguments to what I'd written or making a good argument that there is information in F9/11 that I need to see or don't know about; your argument, e.g., reflects a position I've already answered--a point which evidently you didn't bother to read. Tell me, Chris, what's the point of engaging in an argument when (a) you're more or less told to get lost, (b) the opponent doesn't even read your points, and (c) the opponent makes no significant counter-arguments and only throws out red herrings and ad hominens? In spite of this, let me know if you want me to enter the thread again and I will renew my subscription... as I said early on, I'm game for this argument... I'll defend the war in Iraq and I'll also comment on anything in F9/11 that's presented to me... in the meantime, I'll simply point out again that no one on this thread has yet served an adequate rebuttal of the eight points I made in an early post or given me a quality reason to see this movie; I may have "backed down" but my arguments are still standing without me. CYA.Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Too bad Anduril has "backed down" himself, like some of the challengers to Moore's facts in the movie. I wanted to ask him what we did about Ceausescu, Suharto, Duvalier, Marcos, King Jong Il, and on and on; why it just happened that the dictator of the country with the second greatest oil reserves in the world was the one we just had to eliminate.
As a pacifist and a liberal, it's easy to predict how I feel about the war and Moore's doc. My contribution will take the form of quotes from Jonathan Rosenbaum's review, which I found interesting/pertinent and reflect my p.o.v.
"F. 9/11 demonstrates a certain filmic intelligence not apparent in Moore's previous films. It's most apparent in his skillful and sensitive depiction of the attack on the WTC. His elliptical treatment of a Christmas Eve army raid on a Bagdad home later in the film is equally effective."
"Moore's most important achievement is delivering to American moviegoers many facts about Bush and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that our TV news have downplayed or ignored. In fact, the current popular documentaries have scored at the box office precisely because they help fill in the enormous gaps created by our depleted and corrupted TV culture".
"Objectivity in a documentary (or a film review) is not only impossible but undesirable. The merit of Fahrenheit 9/11 lies in its ability to enrage you_or conversely, to clarify some of the rage you already feel_without abandoning the capacity to entertain that has always been Moore's trump card."
"Moore is no less scathing in his treatment of Congress, circling the Capitol in an ice cream truck to read the Patriot Act aloud to those representatives who never looked at it. He also documents the Senate's dismissive treatment of black representatives who came to the Senate chambers to protest the disenfranchisement of their constituents in the 2000 election. In fact, black and working-class people turn out to be the film's true heroes_ a part of its dramaturgy and argument that Moore develops with considerable skill and nuance."
I'm glad you and your guru Rosenbaum liked Moore's movie, Oscar -- I agree that you, like I, would have a hard time not doing so, given our politics. It's always interesting to see what the sage of Chicago has to say if only because so many film buffs swear by his words. However from my viewpoint his as usual dry, rather stilted style seems like kind of a funny way to get at what Moore's doing. You'd hardly guess he's describing the blunt populist from Flint and not Kiarostami or Hou Hsiau Hsien. Good point about the treatment of the World Trade Center bombings, though: it is a subtle approach. Some of Moore's editing isn't at all subtle, but that passage certainly is. I wish Rosenbaum had listed the "current popular documentaries" that have "scored at the box office precisely because they help fill in the enormous gaps created by our depleted and corrupted TV culture." I'm not sure what he's referring to other than this and Control Room. Typical self righteous tone: do we have to be told this about our "TV culture"? I hardly think so.
Interesting that Rosenbaum says "Objectivity in a documentary (or a film review) is not only impossible but undesirable." David Denby (whom film buffs abhor, I take it) says just the opposite in his very harsh treatment of the second half of Farenheit 9/11. Not that I agree with Denby, but this remark of Rosenbaum's (joining the Moore camp in makiing it) doesn't add a whole lot to the discussion, because obviously there are documentaries that take a very neutral stance, and Moore is an extreme example of the other approach -- hardly the only desirable method. It's not true that Farenheit 9/11 is the ideal or typical kind of documentary; it's a very special one, arguably not even a documentary but an empassioned argument.
Denby cites Jarecki of Capturing the Friedmans as the kind of neutral documentary people should make and calls Jarecki one of the "great" documentarians of today. That's ridiculous in my view: Capturing the Friedmans isn't brilliant, just lucky, much like Noujaim of Control Room, a matter of lucky timing and serendipity. In that sense Moore's Farenheit 9/11 emerges as a powerful piece of work because he has shaped his material so consciously and, yes, it is good to know what a documentarian's biases are, up front. But one thinks of To Be and To Have, the French documentary about a schoolroom, where the filmmakers are completely recessive and that, too, is clearly a wonderful and -- in a very different way -- a very appropriately constructed and shaped documentary. Perhaps it's obvious they believe the teacher and his classroom are worthy of our worshipful attention and that is a position, but it's never overtly stated and is hardly partisan.
There is a lot of stuff, including the black congresspeople's failed attempt to protest the ruined election and disenfranchised minority voters, that is new to us in the movie. But if this is the substance of Rosenbaum's description of it, he (not untypically, again) fails to note the essential power of it which lies in two things, mainly: first in the coherent chronological narrative that Moore constructs for us, which constitutes a sequence that's almost unbearable to see all connected together; and second, on another, non-verbal, non-logical level, in the images, in Bush's facial expressions, and those of the other adminstration clique members shown in TV outtakes, whose utterly damning message requires no explication by the narrator whatsoever.
OK, anduril- here's your 8 points- deconstructed.
1. Repeated violation of a cease-fire? "this reason alone justifies it?" Wrong. He's not under their jurisdiction! This not justification for war. The "red herring" you speak of is accurate- the US & Britain has no right to intervene, regardless of what Saddam is doing. The US is not a schoolmarm,anduril. They don't have license to police the earth.
2. How long has the U.N. been impotent? Uh, FOREVER. It shouldn't surprise anybody that they're corrupt too. What Bush is basically saying is "we are the only country that can rip off it's own people". Again, This is not justification for WAR.
3. Even if boatloads of WMD's were shipped out of Iraq before the inspectors could find them this does not give the U.S. the right to invade & attack anyway. My guess is Bush said "No weapons? He's not gonna make me look like an idiot on the world's stage! Prepare OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM!!!!!"
4. This point only shows that the U.N. are incompetent and Saddam is ignoring other countries. We know that already. Big deal. STILL NO JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR. I don't care if Saddam gave the finger to a thousand Presidents- you don't bomb him for that. You don't kill innocent people for his mistakes. If your nation is truly righteous, you find better ways to resolve the situation. Not doable when Bush is a WAR PRESIDENT!
5. Re-read what I wrote on your website about point #5. My employment of sarcasm was especially apropo, imho. Ridiculous excuse for justification...Pre-emptive strikes are cowardly, horrific abuses of power.
6. Even if you are correct, it still doesn't justify WAR. Am I getting my point across, here? These "justifications" are great for building a case for war, but not for war itself. It was just enough for 'ol Bushy to use his military, which needs to go to war otherwise where's the justification of the defence budget? No war means all our war toys collect dust, soldiers get rusty...
7. Duh. Saddam is a bad guy. The world knows this already. You don't have to tell us. Again, the US is not the world police. Again, this does not justify WAR.
8. I won't even dignify this one with a reply. You know my answer.
It's unfortunate that this thread has been dominated by Anduril. This is much the same thing that happened with a lengthy thread about Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, which I believe he liked. He went to see it. I did not like it, but I went to see it the first night, with an open mind.
This is a film website. It exists for the discussion of films. This thread has been commandeered for a political debate. Now, sure, Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 is political -- and passionately partisan. But if this is really FilmWurld we're here to talk about a movie. And whether you are "familiar with most of the facts" contained in it or whatever, you're not qualified to talk about the movie unless you've seen it.
The thread has also been derailed into a narrower discussion than the issues dealt with in Moore's movie. Anduril's eight points are justifications for the US invasion of Iraq (or at least he thinks they are), but Moore's movie is an indictment of the US government's response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 or, to put it another way more germane to Moore's outlook, the policies the Bush administration has used 9/11 as an excuse for carrying out. Along the way, Moore is saying, obviously, that Bush and his family and his administration have shown themselves not only biased but incompetent and dangerous.
Some of Anduril's statements have been interesting, and they've stimulated lively responses from Johann, Raoul, and several others (unfortunately, not many others). I find it interesting that because Anduril thinks the war was justified he therefore thinks Bush's incompetence is irrelevant. I don't think the issues Anduril brings up have much to do with Moore's movie directly. He isn't addressing Moore's points; he's addressing the general idea that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified, which he seeks to refute. That's a general idea; but Moore's movie deals with a much wider spectrum of issues. It's also a movie, not a text, and it must be dealt with as a movie, and not as a series of facts or claims or arguments.
I'm sorry that Johann doesn't even bother to reply to the intricate and convoluted series of points Anduril included in his #8 point in favor of the invasion of Iraq. Some of Anduril's arguments are fairly conventional. But at times, here, he really goes off on his own:
Quote:
the instability in Iraq has meant that terrorists, who might otherwise attack civilians in the United States, are engaged in conflict with soldiers there. Many analysts are quick to point out that the Islamic militants have come flying out of the woodwork in Iraq but few have realized that this means they are not in the United States attacking civilians.” The United States has effectively opened a front for its war against terrorism. This front contributes considerably to the safety of the world.
"Few have realized...." Few indeed. This is one of the more inspired examples of doublethink I've ever seen. But ingenious though it is, I doubt it would gain much currency on the rightest of right wing websites.
But to get back to my point: none of this is a critique of Moore's Farenheit 9/11, which Anduril has not seen. Whether he avoids seeing it out of fear, out of a desire not to "aid" the "causes" Moore stands for, or because (although he can spend hours participating in this thread) he is too busy working on his thesis to go out to a movie -- movies are a waste of his valuable time -- I have to protest against the lengthy commandeering of this website for partisan, non-cinematic uses.
I didn't mind dropping $10 into Mel Gibson's treasury, no matter how pernicious I found his film: I'm here to discuss films. And you've got to see 'em to talk about 'em.
Thank you Chris for bringing us back to reason.
I'm so caught up in my indigance over anduril's claims I find it difficult to enunciate myself. anduril uses his "learned-ness" to blast me from on high. The invasion of Iraq was absolutely necessary in his eyes.
Indeed, how can we discuss a film in such frustrating circumstances?
When somebody has his "twelve points" or his "eight points" it's easy to get caught up in trying to refute them -- and lose sight of the fact that his whole discussion is "pointless" because it's not what we really mean to be talking about! It gets interesting, but it keeps others from engaging in the discussion, when it turns into a slugfest between two or three participants.
Yes, and a slugfest between two people who know each other very well (maybe too well) degrades the situation even further..
He knows I'm not quick on the draw with "eloquent language", so I'm forced to reply in a manner that makes me look like a jackass...Many apologies for my outbursts on this thread- as I've said before anduril riles me up like no one I've ever met.
Well, I'll come to Anduril's defense on this one. He wrote at length about the faults in "Passion of the Christ", and he led a healthy debate against a person here called MickeyMoose who was a strong proponent of the film. Anduril, a person with an extensive background in biblical studies, found the film to be more in line with a traditional passion play (historically anti-semitic) than a true interpretation of the Bible. I hate to be speaking for him here, but I don't think he would argue with that description. I, for one, learned alot from Anduril's postings about that film.Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
It's unfortunate that this thread has been dominated by Anduril. This is much the same thing that happened with a lengthy thread about Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, which I believe he liked. He went to see it. I did not like it, but I went to see it the first night, with an open mind.
Of course, I agree one should see "Fahrenheit 9/11" before really delving into its subject matter. As has been mentioned before here, the images in the film are its strong point. We live in an image dominated soceity, and control of images and information is something that the Bush Administration has mastered. Now, Moore comes along and presents other images, ones that aren't nearly as flattering to the Administration. I applaud that.
I also find somewhat perplexing Anduril's statement about the "new front" on terrorism in Iraq making the U.S. safer. This argument about movements of concentrations of terrorists might be a bit more applicable, if at all, to Israel. Possibly the suicide bombers (or "suiciders" as Bush calls them) may shift their focus to Iraq, but I don't think there would be any effect on the U.S. directly.
Christianity is anduril's forte. It was a golden opportunity for him to wheel out his knowledge. If you notice, he spoke about Gibson's film from an authoritarian position.
You won't see him "talking movies" here in any great detail.
Jesus is priority #1.
I'm not sure I agree with you that he was speaking from an authoritarian position. More of an professorial (or academic) position, which is what he's in training to be. I was impressed with his knowledge on the subject, just as I'm impressed with your knowledge of film.
What may be frustrating to Anduril (and to the academic mindset) here is that they want to center this debate about Fahr9/11 in the context of the traditional oral and written argument. Our society, however, is just as dependent on the power of the visual image as on the written argument in formulating our opinions. In not seeing the film in this context, Anduril is failing to understand why this film has a legitimate appeal to so many people.
TOUCHE, JustaFied!
anduril and I have passion- him for Christ, me for films.
I invited him to FilmWurld to discuss Gibson's film, and it would be two-faced of me to say that he was authoritarian. I knew what he was capable of in terms of "discussing" the film. The knowledge you gained was expected and encouraged by me.
The political intensity of this thread is also my fault- anduril wouldn't have appeared unless I stated his refusal to see the film.
(MY BAD!)
I apologize for misinterpreting or misremembering Anduril's lengthy explications of biblical matters as showing a liking for Mel's Passion, if he didn't like it. But my point still stands that it took us away from the movies, our true subject, as has his discussion of the Iraq war without seeing Michael Moore's movie.
JustaFied wrote, "What may be frustrating to Anduril (and to the academic mindset) here is that they want to center this debate about Fahr9/11 in the context of the traditional oral and written argument. " Clearly that was true. But Farenheit 9/11 is a movie, and this is a movie website. I'm repeating myself, and pointiing out the obvious. This whole discussion is beginning to seem irrelevant, which is a shame. It's really an important movie about important matters.
When Johann said, "If you notice, he spoke about Gibson's film from an authoritarian position," I suspect he meant "authoratative" rather than "authoritarian." He cited authorities. But after a short while, he forgot we were talking about Mel Gibson's movie. Johann also helpfully explained, "It was a golden opportunity for him to wheel out his knowledge. " Well, I did feel that knowledge was being wheeled out, but to what end, I was not so sure. Johann goes on: "You won't see him "talking movies" here in any great detail. Jesus is priority #1." But that hasn't been true of Anduril in this thread. I guess Bush replaced Jesus? Or is it just that Jesus is on Bush's side?
I think it's odd how willing people are to link Jesus and Bush together in one breath. As if one might be doing the other's will (whatever that would be...). It's a clever strategy on the part of the Bush team.Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
But that hasn't been true of Anduril in this thread. I guess Bush replaced Jesus? Or is it just that Jesus is on Bush's side?
Moore's interview with the mother from Flynt documents an interesting shift in faith that we might see more of as things going wrong in Iraq. The link between god and country by way of Bush's war/will doesn't hold up when your child comes home in a body bag for a war that doesn't really seem to have a point.
A very touching moment in the film.
P
I think what Anduril was doing in the "Passion of the Christ" discussion was helping to put the story in the "context" of biblical interpretation. That's the key word here, "context". Without some understanding of the Bible, how are we supposed to analyze Gibson's film, how are we supposed to respond to charges of the film's anti-semitism? In what context are we to view the film? By the look, or feel of the film, or some other equally amorphous criteria? When that Mickey Moose guys says simply that the film is not anti-semitic, is biblically accurate, and that we shouldn't criticize it because Gibson has the "right" to make the film, how should we respond?Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Johann also helpfully explained, "It was a golden opportunity for him to wheel out his knowledge. " Well, I did feel that knowledge was being wheeled out. But to what end, I was not so sure.
I believe we should take a similar approach to "Fahrenheit 9/11". One should analyze the film in the context of information gleaned from many sources. Don't just take Moore at his word. Sure, it's a film, and this is a message board to discuss film, but we need to seek to understand the broader context of the film's subject matter, and that may involve moving beyond the comfortable borders set by the film itself. That's responsible analysis of an "important" film.
Again, what's so striking (and important) to me about this film is the images we don't get from other mainstream sources. That's where the medium of film can be most important in helping to educate society. It reminds me in a way of The Revolution will not be Televised; we see the images and we hear different interpretations of what happened. We're left with the difficult task of thinking for ourselves and formulating our own opinions.
I agree with you there Justafied. Films, art, music whatever ultimately have a context that extends beyond the body of work. And an important look at the other elements of a particular context is...important.
P
I agree with JustaFied in principle too. Context is essential; this is a truism, surely. The question is what context and when you need to seek outside help to get it. For a Buddhist raised without any education in other religions who has never read the Bible, some further preparation and "context" would be needed to understand Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ. But since I was raised as a Christian in a Judeo-Christian culture and did study the Bible as a youth, I have plenty of "context" already. I also viewed plenty of other reviews and discussions of the film before expressing my opinion about it or respondong to the questions about The Passion's possible anti-semitism, etc., that JustaFied mentions.
We should not, of course, "just take Moore at his word." With Moore's Farenheit 9/11, just as with Mel's Passion, background knowledge is essential to evaluate the film, but I have lived the events Moore deals with and saturated myself with information about them for the past three years, so don't think it necessary for me to do any special research just to understand or evaluate it. What is most important to be on the same page in discussing Farenheit 9/11 is to look carefully at the film -- not just engage in a scattershot discussion of the issues it touches on, losing all direct reference to its specific look, sound, and contents; the information it conveys, and the way it conveys that information. That's the hard part: to focus on the film itself -- within its broader context, of course. Needless to say, that involves watching the film -- at least once -- more than once if necessary!
In the case of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Chavez: Inside the Coup), my praise of the film, perhaps somewhat naive at first, admittedly, led to my being provided with an endless supply of objections and lists of the film's "errors" by the Chavez opposition. I received and exchanged emails with several dozen of them to and from Caracas. Before and after these exchanges I did what reading and research I could to study the context of the film. I became more aware of the filmmakers' biases as a result, but wasn't led to reject its claims. I remain convinced of its essential validity.
I think native intelligence and the exercise of logic and analysis are the main tools we need in evaluating and discussing any polemical or factual film document. In other words, if your brain's working and you've been paying attention to current events, you've got what you need.
Moore makes his biases extremely clear.
If the arguments that've been presented on this thread in favor of Bush's policies are an example of the "broader context," then they're neither needed nor new. We have been hearing them for the past couple of years, and they haven't grown more convincing over time.
Again, what's so striking (and important) to me about this film is the images we don't get from other mainstream sources.
Fine. Which are those?
We're left with the difficult task of thinking for ourselves and formulating our own opinions.
Indeed. That's what we all try to do.
Fahrenheit 9/11 begins in a way that allows Moore to guide us, almost like children, in a labrynth of media that is controlled by wealthy, powerful people.
That's it. That's all this film is. He pieces together a very convincing expose on corruption and lies.
His point is very simple: If the government is for the people and by the people, why are the people being exploited and deceived?
The film opens with Al Gore winning the state of Florida.
Fox News channel reports that BUSH has won. (While confetti showers Gore and company) Bush has direct, immediate family members working in his favor at Fox and in the state gov't. I love the shot of George and Jeb sitting together and Bush confidently says to the camera "We WILL win Florida. You can write it down." You believe he'll win because Moore puts the shot in context.
Has anyone seen Horns and Halos? There's a clip of Bush on the campaign trail back before 2000 and he stands at a podium, glaring at his "supporters". He says: "You wonder why I'm here?! I'm here to get your vote." and he says it with such contempt for his listeners it seems as if this "campaigning thing" is beneath him. This is one of the reasons why I think he'll win in Nov. Bush is identical to Nixon in this respect: he hates campaigning. He hates "getting the votes". He'd rather pay someone off to seal his victory than earn it.
Moore goes from Bush's steal of the election to the floor of congress, (helmed by Gore himself) where he shows us an undeniably corrupt situation: all of those black members of congress who challenge Bush's election as President, and being shut out of having their say because no Senator will sign.
You can't argue with that. You can't contest that. That alone makes this film incendiary, and Bush should be shaking in his boots right now. The gig is up. Bush is not the elected President of the United States. He stole the election by scratching 16,000 black voters names off of the Florida ballot. That's crime and corruption of HUGE proportions. Giant scale.
I'll always remember that black woman in congress; "No-no senator has signed it, and I DON'T CARE that no senator has signed it! You can't argue with a filmed image.
Moore then continues to unmercifully rip Bush's administration apart. For once in my life it was nice to see the left say
"fuck it: I'm telling it like it is".
"Fine. Which are those?"
You know, what sticks with me about the film is how personal it is. We see beyond the curtain, in a way, we wipe away the veneer that's part of the "production value" of mainstream media.
Example: Bush still reading after the attacks. We don't see that elsewhere. That image is as haunting as anything else in the film. At the core, he's like a child waiting to be told what to do. That's what I take from that image.
Example: Florida Congressmen (and women), enraged that they can't get one Senator to sign their petition. There's nothing illegal here, this is part of the democratic process, but it's still necessary to show the personal impact of the election debacle. It's moving in a way that a Peter Jennings description would not be.
Example: The interview with the mother whose son died in Iraq. In looking at the bigger picture, we talk about "acceptable" number of casualties, collateral damage of precision bombing, etc., and it tends to become detached and impersonal in a way. Five marines died this week, ten less than last week, good news! But behind every single death there is a grieving family, and that should never be overlooked in pursuit of the goals of "the big picture". Moore's film personalizes the situation in a way that has been widely overlooked by other sources, and he provides a valuable service in this regard.
It's too late to write a review of Fahrenheit 9/11 because so many critics have had a go at it, so I have had a go at some of them instead. I also quote a couple that I like. And I point out a couple of the most serious real flaws of the movie -- not it's Michael Moore rudeness, but actual lacks or imbalances in the arguments.
But don't get me wrong. I love Michael Moore. For all his faults.
My piece you will find here: http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/vi....php?p=335#335
I also say one or two things about the significance of the movie. To me and, maybe, to you.
Please read it. http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/vi....php?p=335#335
Chris, nice articles. If you post them on here, people can reply, unless you dont want them sliced and diced by Anduril. Maybe it's better to leave them on your site actually.
solang
It's kind of long to post here but I can.
I wouldn't mind reading them in a new thread. It might give us a new place to start in talking about the film. Look forward to reading comments on your writings.
P
Okay. If you insist....
These anti-war protest slogans were found on some signs:
Who would Jesus bomb?
WAR begins with "DUBYA"
Frodo has failed- Bush has The Ring
Bush is proof that empty warheads are dangerous
Let's bomb Texas- they have oil too!
How did OUR oil get under THEIR sand?
A thousand points of light and one dim bulb...
How many lives per gallon?
PRE-EMPTIVE IMPEACHMENT!!!!!!
Here's a juicy morsel from the lips of Bush:
"I'm the commander- see, I don't need to explain- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation".
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.- Matthew 19:24
And here's a blistering piece of writing that sums up everything I feel: by the gonzo doctor himself, Hunter Thompson:
Good news is out of the question in this brutal year of our Lord, 2002. All markets collapsed about 3 days after George Bush moved into the White House....yeah, it was THAT fast. BOOM, presto, welcome to bombs and poverty.
The news is bad today, in America and for America.
There is nothing good or hopeful about it- except for Nazis, warmongers, and rich greedheads- and it is getting worse and worse in logarithmic progressions since the fateful bombing of the World Trade towers in New York. That will always be a festering low-watermark in this nation's violent history, but it was not the official birthday of the end of the American Century.
No. That occured on the night of the presidential election in the year 2000, when the nexus of power in this country shifted from Washington D.C. to "the ranch" in Crawford, Texas. The most disastrous day in American history was November 7, 2000. That day was when the TAKEOVER happened, when the generals and cops and right-wing Jesus-freaks seized control of the White House, the U.S. Treasury and our law-enforcement machinery.
So long to all that, eh? "Nothing will ever be the same again", the whorish President said at the time, "as of now we are in the grip of a National Security Emergency that will last for the rest of our lives ".
Fuck you, I quit. Mahalo.
I didn't like the way anduril, who has not seen the movie, managed with his dramatic departures and reentries to dominate this longest and most often viewed FilmWurld thread about Fahrenheit 9/11. However, since he dominated the thread, I'm using it to answer something he said. Somewhere here he has remarked that Iraq is really a pretty safe place to be now. That's an extraordinary claim, in view of the news coming out of Iraq. Let's talk about safety. Not only is Iraq ever more unsafe, it's also ever more corrupt, and US and corporate personnel are moving into all the former bastions of Saddam's power to continue their operations --and divert aid funds to their own corrupt uses (as Naomi Klein has recently reported from Baghdad in a piece for The Nation entitled "Shameless in Iraq" http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040712&s=klein).
"Peace," anduril wrote, is all about what the Iraq invasion is about. Allow me to quote from the eighth and most elaborate item in anduril’s eight-point argument to justify the US invasion of Iraq:In somebody's fantasy that no doubt was the case -- those somebodies being the neo-cons surrounding Bush and the personnel of the Project for a New American Century who devised the rationale anduril is summarizing at this point in this thread.Quote:
(anduril) On strategic grounds, Operation Iraqi Freedom and the development of a secular Iraqi state, comparable to Turkey, have had numerous positive consequences already and will have positive long-term consequences for Middle-East peace too.. . Operation Iraqi Freedom will serve as a visible demonstration of American commitments to peace in the Middle East.
But the neocons are dangerously misled visionaries, whose bold imperial aims have led our country into a quagmire. The truth isn't pretty.... here's what Robert Fisk, the London Independent's award-winning Middle East correspondent, recently posted from Baghdad about the situation there. (You will find this and other Fisk columns on the website devoted to him, http://www.robert-fisk.com/.) The current piece (July 28, 2004) is entitled, "Baghdad is a city that reeks with the stench of the dead" and here is some of what he wrote:
So much for "safety" in Baghdad. That's the way it is, not the way anduril and his neocon thinktank idols would like it to be. Does anduril read the columns of Robert Fisk? I suspect not. He avoids such unpleasant stuff, just as he has avoided seeing Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.Quote:
The smell of the dead pours into the street through the air-conditioning ducts. Hot, sweet, overwhelming. Inside the Baghdad morgue, there are so many corpses that the fridges are overflowing. The dead are on the floor. Dozens of them. Outside, in the 46C (114F) heat, Qadum Ganawi tells me how his brother Hassan was murdered.
"He was bringing supper home for our family in Palestine Street but he never reached our home. Then we got a phone call saying we could have him back if we paid $50,000 [£27,500]. We didn't have $50,000. So we sold part of our home and many of our things and we borrowed $15,000 and we paid over the money to a man in a car who was wearing a keffiyeh scarf round his head.
"Then we got another phone call, telling us that Hassan was at the Saidiyeh police station. He was. He was blindfolded and gagged and he had two bullets in his head. They had taken our money and then they had killed him."
There is a wail of grief from the yard behind us where 50 people are waiting in the shade of the Baghdad mortuary wall. There are wooden coffins in the street, stacked against the wall, lying on the pavement.
Old men - fathers and uncles - are padding them with grease-proof paper. When the bodies are released, they will be taken to the mosque in coffins and then buried in shrouds. There are a few women. Most stare at the intruding foreigner with something approaching venom. The statistics of violent death in Baghdad are now beyond shame. Almost a year ago, there were sometimes 400 violent deaths a month. This in itself was a fearful number to follow the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. But in the first 10 days of this July alone, the corpses of 215 men and women were brought to the Baghdad mortuary, almost all of them dead from gunshot wounds. In the second 10 days of this month, the bodies of a further 291 arrived. A total of 506 violent deaths in under three weeks in Baghdad alone. Even the Iraqi officials here shake their heads in disbelief. "New Iraq" under its new American-appointed Prime Minister is more violent than ever.
Qadum Ganawi puts his hand on my arm. "Listen," he says. "My brother had two tiny children. One is only a year old. We have sold our house and borrowed $15,000. How can we ever pay this back? And we have nothing for it but the grief of losing my dear brother.
"He was a car importer so they thought he was rich. He wasn't. And, you know, his wife is Syrian. She went to Syria for a holiday with the two babies. She is there now. She doesn't know what has happened to her husband."
Trucks are arriving in the street beside us, a pick-up and a small lorry with corpses for autopsy. Tony Blair says it is safer here. He is wrong. Every month is a massacre in Baghdad. Thieves, rapists, looters, American troops at checkpoints and on convoys, revenge killers, insurgents, they are shooting down the people of this city faster than ever.
One man was shot dead by a US soldier as he overtook their convoy on the way to his Baghdad wedding. We found out only because his marriage was to have been celebrated in a hotel occupied by journalists. Another death I discovered only when an old Iraqi friend called on me last week. He wanted me to help him leave Iraq. Quickly. Now.
"I work for the Americans at the airport but I think I'm done for if I stay." Why? "Because my uncle worked at the airport for the Americans, just like me. My uncle was Abdullah Mohi. He was driving home the other night but they stopped him a hundred metres from his house. Then they took a knife and cut his throat. We found him drenched in blood at the steering wheel." Abbas looks at me with dead eyes. "Should I go to Jordan? Help me."
At the mortuary, a big, tall man, Amr Daher, walks up to me. "They killed one of our tribal leaders from the Dulaimi tribe," he says. "This morning, right in the middle of Al-Kut Square, just a couple of hours ago." Selman Hassan Salume was driving with his two teenage sons when three gunmen came alongside in a car and shot him dead. Both his sons were wounded, one seriously.
Hospital records tell only part of the story. In the blazing heat of an Iraqi summer, some families bury their dead without notifying the authorities. Some remain unidentified for ever, unclaimed. The Americans bring in corpses. When they do, there are no autopsies. The morticians will not say why. But the Ministry of Health has told doctors there should be no autopsies in these cases because the Americans will already have performed the operation.
Not long ago, six corpses arrived at the Baghdad mortuary after being brought in by US forces. Three were unidentified. Three had names but their families could not be found. All had suffered, according to the American records, "traumatic wounds to the head", the normal phrase for gunshot wounds. There were no autopsies. Death is now so routine even the most tragic of deaths becomes a footnote. A US tank collides with a bus north of Baghdad. Seven civilians are killed. The Americans agree to open an investigation. It makes scarcely a paragraph in the local press. Four days ago, a US M1A1 Abrams tank crossing the motorway at Abu Ghraib collided with a car carrying two girls and their mother, all of whom were crushed to death. It did not even make the news in Baghdad.
No wonder the occupying powers - or the "international forces" as we must now call them - steadfastly refuse to reveal the statistics of Iraqi dead, only their own
Even the deaths we do know about during the past 36 hours make shocking reading. At Mahmudiyah, south of Baghdad, gunmen killed two Iraqi police officers travelling to their station. In Kirkuk, an Iraqi policeman, Luay Abdullah, was shot as he waited for a lift home after guarding an oil pipeline. A Kurdish woman and her two children were killed when someone sprayed their home in Kirkuk with gunfire. A Kurdish peshmerga guerrilla was murdered in a drive-by shooting.
A former government official was killed in Baghdad. Then yesterday afternoon, a senior civil servant at the Iraqi Interior Ministry in Baghdad was shot dead. In the town of Buhriz, hours of fighting between insurgents and US troops left 15 dead, according to the Americans. All, they said, were gunmen, although it almost always transpires that civilians are among the dead in such battles.
American documents say insurgent groups "have become more sophisticated and may be co-ordinating their anti-coalition efforts, posing an even more significant threat". There is an increase in drive-by shootings. And, a chilling remark this, for all would-be travellers in and out of Baghdad, the Americans believe "recent attacks on air assets suggest that all type of aircraft, civilian, fixed-wing and military ... are seen as potential targets of opportunity".
So the war is getting worse. The casualties are growing by the week. And Mr Blair thinks Iraq is safer.
In closing I can’t resist again quoting my favorite passage from anduril’s eight-point document, because it is so (sadly) hilarious:Interesting logic, a model of anduril's thinking, I guess. Obviously it means if we breed anti-American insurgents around the world, our country will become safer and safer.Quote:
(anduril) Many analysts are quick to point out that the Islamic militants have come flying out of the woodwork in Iraq but few have realized that this means they are not in the United States attacking civilians.
Yes indeed, lots of peace to be had over there in Iraq.
On anduril's weblog he has comments from two "gentlemen" who say audacious things like "I hope the Iraqi people remind their children what their freedom cost". Shocking.
Here's some more great commentary from my man Raoul Duke (HST), a man way ahead of his times:
Welcome to the 4th Reich.
The first horrible years of our new Century....
We are coming to a big fork in the road for this country, another ominous polarization between right and wrong, another political mandate to decide "which side are you on"...
The American Century was over in January 2001. They were Punctual, as the Fascist mentality cannot survive without brute Punctuality- never be late! For fear of being guilty of "DEVIANT BEHAVIOR", and being brought "within The System". Bang! Slam! Bend over...Seig Heil! Who is god? The Boss is God-and you're not...Hey Rube, you are NOTHING! YOU ARE GUILTY!
We've seen Weird Times in this country before, but the year 2000 is beginning to look SUPER wierd. This time, there really is nobody flying the plane....We are living in dangerously weird times now. Smart people just shrug and admit they're dazed and confused.
DOOM IS THE OPERATIVE ETHIC.
Look around you. There is an eerie sense of Panic in the air, a silent FEAR and UNCERTAINTY that comes with once-reliable faiths and truths and solid institutions that are no longer safe to believe in. Guaranteed fear and loathing. Abandon all hope...
Onward Christian Soldiers. Mahalo. Fuck those people. I've had a bellyful of those vengeful Christian bastards and their Rules for righteous punishment. Those fruit-bags have had their way for 2,000 years and look what we have to show for it: Boom Boom. Sorry honey, but that money you had in the bank just went bye-bye. Our horse failed to finish. Earnings weren't sufficient. You will suffer huge tax penalties on top of everything else.
We are in trouble over here, Simon. The deal is going down all over our once-proud U.S.A. We are down to our last cannonball.
Stand back! Those Pentagon swine are frantic to kick some ass, and many job opportunities are opening up in the Armaments, Surveillance and New Age Security industries.
There is always a bull market for vengeance and violence in America. I would never claim to speak for my whole nation, Simon: I am not the Voice of America- but neither am i a machine-gun Nazi warmonger. I have been feverishly writing down my various fears and worries and profoundly angst-ridden visions about our immediate future.
There is a Presidential Election, right on schedule, but somehow there is no President. A new Congress is elected, like always, but somehow there is no Congress at all- not as we know it, anyway, and whatever passes for Congress will be as helpless and weak as Whoever has to pass for the "New President"
And you don't believe we're on the Eve of Destruction.....
I just re-read this whole thread again and I think it's pretty damn awesome. This thread may be the best one I created.
It's amazing to read how tunnel-visioned and ignorant anduril was, saying that my claims were "preposterous".
Not so preposterous 5 years later, is it?
I was bang-on the money. And it reinforces my notion that gut feelings are way more important than the spin that comes from governments.
I was against the Iraq war long before it was fashionable to do so, and I was smeared here for doing just that.
But there's something to be said for sticking to your guns and knowing in your heart what is right.
I want to thank Michael Moore for inspiring this heated thread with his brilliant Palm D'Or winning film.
It produced edifying debate and shined a huge light on hypocrisy and ignorance.
2 weeks and no more George W. Bush.
I just wish it was his funeral and not merely him moving out of the White House.
History will show him to be the worst thing for THE WORLD, not America.
Thanks for nothing Dubya, you fucking moron!
Postscript:
I said in this thread 8 years ago: If Stephen Harper became Prime Minister we'd be no different than Bush. And we aren't.
Canada has a Republican President.
Who's fucking our country up.
EXACTLY LIKE GEORGE W. BUSH FUCKED UP THE USA.
I don't know much about Canada -- the last time I actually went there was when I was in college -- and one of the times it was to hear Glenn Gould play at the Stratford Festival, so you can guess how long ago it was. But I look on your country as a refuge, as a more civilized place. Maybe all in all the USA is a more exciting and interesting place to be, or some parts of it are, but Canada has advantages, such as a functioning health care system, less crime, fewer guns, less paranoia, more tolerance and a more stable economy not as wrecked by the global financial crisis. This Canadian guy who lived in California for a while mentioned some of these things and also thought your beef and your fruits and vegetables taste better, and you are more aware of the rest of the world, while Americans are obsessed with their own country and wear blinders about most of the rest of the world
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...0170109AATurUC
I hope Harper isn't going to take those things away from you. But if he makes Canada Bush-like, then you'll get the paranoia, and maybe more financial corruption that will undermine the economy.
Thanks Chris.
Our health care system is functioning, but it's deteriorating. All Provincial Premiers just said yesterday in a joint media call in Victoria that what the Harper government has done is unprecendented.
They said that the government's refusal to negotiate with them is beyond baffling. It makes no sense whatsoever.
They are giving the health care sector 1% to operate on.
Officially it's 6% for 20% of the whole enchilada, which, when you do the actual math, is 1% of their operating costs.
It's astounding. They won't even entertain a MEETING.
Harper sure ISN'T doing it the way Paul Martin did it.
When he took office the feds gave 50%. Then it was whittled down to 30%
Then 20%.
And now it's at 6%.
It's mind blowing.
Harper has eroded our health care system. His contempt for Canada cannot even be calculated. It's astronomical how large his contempt is.
This country rocks. Everyone with a brain knows it. And it makes me puke to see it being thrown into an incinerator by such a fuckhead goof.
Just like many Americans are sickened over what Bush did.
He was handed a surplus too, just like Harper was, and what is the National debt in the USA now?
Right. In the trillions.
We're in the billions, but Harper is getting us there, inch by corrupt inch.