Cannes' Palme d'Or goes to Michael Moore

An anonymous reader writes "The Palme d'Or of the Festival de Cannes was presented this year by Charlize Theron to Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore. I don't know if it's the first time this prize is awarded to a documentary, but I guess it's rare enough to be mentioned, especially given the problems this film encounters."

Documentary?

Is it a "documentary" like Bowling for Columbine [hardylaw.net]?

His movies would be more credible if he didn't try to present them as documentaries. They're not documentaries. They're commentaries.

Nothing wrong with that at all, but let's just be clear about it. Up front.

Re:Documentary?

IMHO In fact, every political documentary is a "commentary".

Watching History Channel in Istanbul, sometimes it amazes me. You know what I mean...

Re:Documentary?

Are you kidding me? Re-read his speech to the academy given when he was presented with the Oscar in the DOCUMENTARY category. He attempts to blister the president over "fiction," when the movie he's accepting the award for is filled with the same, presented as fact.

Re:Documentary?

Here you go (again):

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html [hardylaw.net]

Re:Documentary?

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Oh yeah? from the horse's mouth [michaelmoore.com].

I've enjoyed reading these inventions/mistakes about this "Michael Moore." I mean, who wouldn't want to fantasize about living in penthouses roughhousing with brothers you never had. But lately I've begun to see so many things about me or my work that aren't true. It's become so easy to spread these fictions through the internet (thanks mostly to lazy reporters or web junkies who do all their research by typing in "key words" and then just repeat the same mistakes). And so I wonder that if I don't correct the record, then all of the people who don't know better may just end up being filled with a bunch of stuff that isn't true.

Re:Documentary?

OK, I just read this piece from Moore.

Most the article is discussing issues not even raised on the page I linked [hardylaw.net]. He only addresses two issues from that page, near the end of the article.

The first is regarding the Heston/NRA speech in Colorado after columbine. I have tried to see it from his perspective has described here, but I just can't. He claims "Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was."

How can he think anyone that can think critically will buy this explanation?

View the speech as presented by Moore in the movie, and then read the actual speech. He's as creative as a plastic surgeon, nipping and tucking, here and there, until all meaning is replaced with Moore's agenda.

He left out the opening of his speech which explains that the NRA meeting was shortened, festivities cancelled, out of respect. Heston said, "As you know, we've canceled the festivities and fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. I apologize for that. But it's fitting and proper that we should do this ... because NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity."

FYI, the NRA is required to hold an annual meeting, and it was decided it would be held in that location long before Columbine happened. Moore cut out this part of the speech, did not bother informing anyone of the logistics ore requirements of the NRA annual meeting, presented it almost as if the NRA decided to come there and have this fire-breathing meeting in order to piss off Columbine mourners. Moore also started out this section of film with a snippet from a speech that happened long ago, far away. The "cold, dead hands" outtake. Incidentally, that was not a fire-breathing speech about gun rights, but was Heston saying thanks for the antique, collectable gun that was just presented to him.

Anyway, the extend of this colorful editing job by Moore is covered very well in the link I provided above, and you can verify everything for yourself.

He then goes on to address the statistics game, but I don't hold much stock in the statistics presented by anyone, including Moore and the guy that wrote the page on hardylaw.net.

I did enjoy, near the end of this article, where Moore states, "I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true."

A mere three paragraphs later, he then states:

Actually, I have found one typo in the theatrical release of the film. It was a caption that read, "Willie Horton released by Dukakis and kills again." In fact, Willie Horton was a convicted murderer who, after escaping from furlough, raped a woman and stabbed her fiancé, but didn't kill him. The caption has been permanently corrected on the DVD and home video version of the film and replaced with, "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman." My apologies to Willie Horton and the Horton family for implying he is a double-murderer when he is only a single-murderer/rapist. And my apologies to the late Lee Atwater who, on his deathbed, apologized for having engineered the smear campaign against Dukakis (but correctly identified Mr. Horton as a single-murderer!).

Well, at least he can admit when he's wrong... uhh.

Re:Documentary?

Pretty funny that Moore accuses anyone of being a "lazy reporter," and suggesting that he will "correct the record" -- when he has make a lucrative career of setting the record firmly crooked.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5013506/ [msn.com]

[Christopher] HITCHENS: But speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own [Moore], as their representative American someone who actually embodies all of those qualities.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/news/2004/05 /21/Arts/moore20040521.html [www.cbc.ca]

Jean-Luc Godard, the legendary French director who helped to launch the New Wave movement in the 1960s, had harsh words for Moore this week. Godard's latest film, Notre Musique, premiered on Monday, the same day as Fahrenheit 9/11. Later in the week, Godard lashed out at Moore at a press conference, calling him "halfway intelligent." Godard went on to say that the Flint, Mich.-born director lacks subtlety. "Moore doesn't distinguish between text and image," Godard argued. "He doesn't know what he's doing." "Post-war filmmakers gave us the documentary, Rob Reiner gave us the mockumentary and Moore initiated a third genre, the crockumentary."

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html [spinsanity.org]

In two places in Dude, Where's My Country?, Moore implicitly acknowledges mistakes in his earlier works. On several occasions over the past two years, Moore has asserted that (as he put it on "Politically Incorrect") "the Bush Administration gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban in part to -- give money to the poppy growers for the money they would lose because they can't grow heroin anymore." "Bowling for Columbine" continued the canard, asserting that the US gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Both of these are false; the aid, intended to help relive famine, was given to non-governmental organizations, not the Taliban. In his latest book, Moore finally gets it right, noting that the aid "was to be distributed by international organizations."

[...]

Just how did Moore get so many of his facts wrong? Lazy cribbing from media outlets and the Internet seems the most likely culprit, as evidenced by a four-page list of allegedly dubious policy accomplishments by President Bush, including cutting funds from libraries and appointing former business executives to regulatory posts. All but one of the 48 accusations appear in the same order and with very similar phrasing to a list that has been printed this winter (but before Moore's book came out) on liberal Web sites and, according to Dr. David A. Sprintzen (often wrongly cited, though not by Moore, as its author), was circulating via e-mail last summer. Belying a lack of original research, Moore even apes many of the negative characterizations of individuals, calling judicial appointee Terrence Boyle a "civil rights opponent," for example (the list refers to him as a "foe of civil rights"), with absolutely no context for why exactly Boyle deserves that moniker (one certainly has to wonder whether Moore himself knows). Curiously, Moore cites no source for this list. He only notes that readers "can keep track of what Bush did and does during his administration" by reading Molly Ivins' syndicated column and the Web sites smirkingchimp.com and bushwatch.com. The latter two did print the list, but not until this winter, well after Moore wrote his book, though before it was published.

Michael Moore wishes to profit of [michaelmoo...merica.com]

Re:Documentary?

So Moore was essentially right then.

The guy who wrote the hardylaw.net page (David T. Hardy) re-edits it regularly so that he always looks right.

David T. Hardy doesnt admit to it though, instead he cryptically calls the hiding of his mistakes "Some criticisms not given on this page."

And you are angry with Moores editing? I suspect you are angry with his politics more than mere "editing".

Re:Documentary?

How do you feel about Triumph of the Will?

Its a relly well done movie. The scenes are trully awesome, the editing is, as far as I remember, inpecable. Those Nazis sure had a great sense of style and aesthetics.

Doesn't make me a white supremascist. And I won't attack the obvious qualities of the film because it was funded by a genocidal maniac. In fact, that gives the movie a second level, on top of the message it was meant to send, you can see that a monster painted himself as a saviour. Its a fascinating historical document and should serve to show to people that propaganda is a powerful tool indeed.

No Child Left Behind
Clean Forest Initiative
Clean Air Act

Man, those sure sound good...I wonder if there is any past document that could show me that a monster can sugarcoat his actions in a veil of grandiose benevolence...hmmm...

Re:Documentary?

Oh what a big sacrifice they made by cutting some things from their agenda!

Excuse me, but I still think they're selfish, self-centred and insensitive. The correct thing to do would have been to cancel, postpone or relocate. But no, they were more worried about their meeting going ahead than the feelings of those in Columbine. I couldn't give two hoots whether that would have cost them money even if they had insurance, or inconvenience them - there was only one correct thing to do, and that was not to hold that meeting in that place at that time. And yes, I was working in an office 10 miles away when the shooting occurred and know people with children in the school.

Re:Documentary?

The link one of the sibling posts is looking for is this [kuro5hin.org], a response to the hardylaw article.

Re:Documentary?

.4. Shooting at Buell Elementary School in Michigan. Bowling depicts the juvenile shooter who killed Kayla Rolland as a sympathetic youngster, from a struggling family, who just found a gun in his uncle's house and took it to school. "No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl."

Fact: The little boy was the class thug, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day before. Since the incident, he has stabbed another child with a knife.

Fact: The uncle's house was the family business -- the neighborhood crack-house. The gun was stolen and was purchased by the uncle in exchange for drugs.The shooter's father was already serving a prison term for theft and drug offenses. A few weeks later police busted the shooter's grandmother and aunt for narcotics sales. After police hauled the family away, the neighbors applauded the officers. This was not a nice but misunderstood family.

I think Moore is a bit nutty, but this part of the critique strikes me as very disturbing on a level more fundamental than just logic and fact.

Moore's naive protrait is of a disturbed boy from a struggling family who shoots a girl without known reason. The critique is saying that the boy has a history of violence and a bad family. As if that makes elementary school murder completely understandable now?

If anything it seems that these facts greatly strengthen Moore's argument. His mother wasn't selling drugs and for her to make a clean living she couldn't be there to raise him.

Factually he is still a youngster, his family is certainly struggling, and they gave no reason for him to shoot someone other than casting him as being inherently evil. Apparently they are just saying that we shouldn't be sympathetic to the boy?

Is this not very disturbing to anyone else?

Shooting at Buell Elementary in Michigan

Having seen this film it was obvious that Moore was implying that public policy sending the single mother to work and public policy making firearms readily available were the cause of or significant contributing factors to the shooting. People who disagree with Moore point to other contributing environmental factors, like running an illegal-drugs business and poor parenting. It is likely that a more thorough analysis could show several troubling factors in this kid's life that all contributed to him shooting another child. I don't see any evidence that a single change in welfare laws, gun laws, drug laws, or parenting laws could have guaranteed that this shooting never would have occurred. Many of us seem to suffer from the fallacy that we can prevent every tragedy with a new law or government program. Whether these laws or programs are conservative or liberal in nature, it doesn't seem to matter. Not every social problem can be solved with law. Some have to be solved by society.

Re:Documentary?

I didn't see that. Had I saw the scene in question with out the context of the rest of the movie, I'd come to the same conclusion too, though.

The conclusion *I* got from that scene wasn't that guns were available, but rather the kid equated the gun to something cool or fun. Something to take to school. And since the mother wasn't around to raise her child, she couldn't teach him that guns aren't toys.

Re:Documentary?

Thanks for that link.

I'm still going to watch his movies. It really isn't that big of a deal:

* Moore is showing us things that we didn't know before, or that our media hasn't shown us before.
* Moore is also *telling* us things he wants us to know, with his editing and presentation. People who watch his movies can tell the difference between facts he shows us and the messages he's communicating with those facts.
* Moore is profiting from tragedy. He's saying controversial things and then making money. I don't care about that. I don't care about Michael Moore as much as I care about the things he shows us and tells us.

I hold Michael Moore to higher standards than I hold our media, because I have to pay to see his movies. He still passes any reasonable bar I have set for him.

I'm going to watch for bias and slant. The one-sided body of facts I will see in his movie has already been balanced against the one-sided body of facts I have already seen in the media. When he shows me things on video, I will believe those are true. When he shows me an image and describes it, I will take that description with a grain of salt. When he shows me video made of multiple segments cut together, I won't assume he meant those happened right after each other.

I'll just enjoy his movie, and learn some things I haven't seen in the US media yet.

--Michael Spencer

Lets try linking again .... duh!

Here is the Kuro5him link [kuro5hin.org] referred to.

Re:Documentary?

No it wasn't. If you had read both with a critical eye, you'd realize that the K5 article was a weak apologist ranting. Everything is passed off as "regular film editing." Documentaries should not do "regular film editing" if such editing would lead the public to believe something decidedly different had actually occurred.

The best example of this is the Heston speech in Colorado after the Columbine shootings. How a reasonable person could look at the actual speech delivered and then what Moore did to it and not conclude this was extremely dishonest "film editing" of a documentary escapes me.

Another great example was buying ammo in the Canadian Wal-Mart. Moore wasn't just "a regular citizen", he's a regular citizen who obtained a firearms importation license in Canada. Through "regular film editing," that part was never mentioned by Moore.

Re:Documentary?

No it wasn't. If you had read both with a critical eye, you'd realize that the K5 article was a weak apologist ranting.

Apologist ranting? Sure. Is it weak? No. It highlights the basic premise of the film, which is what most detractors miss. It'd be one thing if he's entirely off base and just making shit up, but this simply isn't so.

His basic premise is that our culture is violent and the media is a fear mongering machine that plays to the common denominator. It was a culturally driving force since the 1950's and the "Red Threat." Which was fueled more by fear than anything real. Flash forward to today where violent crimes are sensationalized and the media has gotten sloppy with how they report the facts.

(Some could argue that the Spanish-American war was another example of sloppy journalism gone wrong.)


Another great example was buying ammo in the Canadian Wal-Mart. Moore wasn't just "a regular citizen", he's a regular citizen who obtained a firearms importation license in Canada. Through "regular film editing," that part was never mentioned by Moore.

You miss the point again. The overall point was that ammo was being sold in *Wal-Marts.* While the requirements to own and purchase ammunition in Canada may be different than in the US, the fact that Wal-Mart carries them even in Canada highlights the fact that it's somewhat accessable.

Re:Documentary?

the movie he's accepting the award for is filled with the same, presented as fact.

Fiction presented as fact, eh? Sounds like libel to me. I wonder why the NRA haven't sued yet? I mean, you make it sound like an open and shut case, right?

Nope, Moore tells the truth. He presents it in a very biased way, and completely ignores any facts that don't agree with his thesis, but the things he does present are facts. They have to be, or he'd be spending the next couple of years in court.

Re:Documentary?

It's time to Wake Up America!

Coffee helps

Re:Documentary?

He attempts to blister the president over "fiction," when the movie he's accepting the award for is filled with the same, presented as fact.

Um. Ok, assuming you're correct, where is the hypocrisy in that?

Shouldn't the President of the United States be expected to hold the truth in a higher regard than a filmmaker?

Re:Documentary?

"Bill Clinton lied under oath in his testimony when charged with sexual harassment, denying the accuser her day in court."

The accuser was not denied her day in court. He lied when he was being asked about having sex with somebody else not the accuser. You should do some basic research before posting.

"The issue was always about whether he used his office as governor to engage in a pattern of illegal sexual harassment of NON-consenting partners,"

"Lied? Or believed the reports of the intelligence community that Sadam had NOT destroyed his weapons and was making more"

He was duped by Ahmed Chalabi who was working for the iranian intelligence. He got pwoned by the inranians. He did their bidding by getting rid of saddam hussein.

It was very easy to do because all you had to do was to tell GW anything that he already believed. If you told him Saddam Hussein ate babies for lunch he would have taken that the truth because he already believed it. It's a great way to haxor anybody of limited intelligence who does not read or keep up on current events. Just present him with lies that he is likely to believe and he won't question you.

"The world is now on notice that if knock the chip off the shoulder of the USA you just MIGHT find it accepts the challenge and you get pounded into the ground."

Who did we pound into the ground and why? It was osama who attacked us and iraq got pounded into the ground. This tells the world that they should strike at the US wnever possible because we are unable to keep focus on our enemies and attack random targets who have oil instead.

"And that if its troops screw up and start oppressing those under they control, the US will ADMIT it, INVESTIGATE it, REMOVE them from their posts and TRY them for crimes."

That's just a joke. First of all only 6 people will get tried even though the use of torture and rape of prisoners was widespread in cuba, afghanistan, kuwait and iraq. Secondly the punishment is a joke. One guy just got the maximum punishment which was a year in prison. A year for raping somebody. Is that punishment? Will anybody be tried for murder in the case of the 9 people who died in US prisons. Will they also get a year in prison for beating a guy to death? Who will go to jail for dripping 500 pound bombs into a crowded city like falujah and will they be tried ourside the mass grave that sits in what used to be a soccer field?

"I wish that were true. It would be a MAJOR improvement to the way we've been treated in the past."

Arabs in my town are afraid to go out. One has already been killed. Others have been threatened. Lots of property has been destroyed. How are they doing in your town?

Re:Documentary?

"Lied? Or believed the reports of the intelligence community that Sadam had NOT destroyed his weapons..."

You mean when he disregarded CIA reports filled with caveats, taking passages that only supported his side and were convenient for his case, and discarding the doubts that CIA officials had? Or when he disregarded the findings of weapons inspectors made since the 1990's? Or when he refused to listen to the "yellowcake uranium" claim being disproven? Heck, I knew about that disproof in late 2002, it made some headlines in anti-war sites.

"...while Sadam was busy doing everything in his power to convince the world he had something to hide from the inspectors?"

Didn't Saddam turn over something like 13,000 pages of documents? Didn't he cave in and allow UN inspectors anywhere in Iraq?

It boils down to this, Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney declared that Iraq was an "imminent threat" and tried to link it to Al Qaeda. Both turned out to be false. In addition, they had claims that they knew were the WMDs were. "We know where they are" one said, indicating that they knew exactly where they were stored. Even Colin Powell's UN speech seemed to sure, but it all turned out to be completely false, and none of it has been substantiated since.

"The world is now ALSO on notice that the US does its flat-out damdest to avoid suppressing others religions and culture"

Then you haven't been paying attention. The US promotes General Jerry Boykin, the general who goes to a church and tells the people that Muslims worship an idol and not a real god? Mr Grainer, the guy who tortured Iraqis in Abu Ghraib, beats the people until they curse Allah and Islam? The US is doing military incursions into Karbala and Najaf, some of the holiest cities to the Shiites? They knocked down a minaret, flattened half of a sacred mosque, and put bullet holes into the dome of the Imam Ali mosque (which is really frightening to all Shiites worldwide).

"Now that the remaining anti-western forces in Iraq have ACCIDENTALLY set off a nerve-gas shell randomly drawn from an Iraqui arms cache, thinking it was an explosive shell, do you STILL believe that all the WMDs were really gone?" Two US soldiers suffered slight reactions to the gas. This was probably just an old 1980s shell of the sort used against the Kurds and Iranians, and its been suggested that many of these remain or are still operative. There are still rusty tanks rotting on the border between Iraq and Iran, it's not that hard to imagine someone could pick up a shell. The insurgents who used it may not even have known what it was. (It was not marked). A couple left-over stray such shells does not prove that there were WMD in Iraq in any signifcant sense. No doubt it will set off a frenzy among the latter-day Juan Ponce de Leones looking vainly for the Fountain of WMDs. It is virtually a non-story.

They aren't going to hate us anyway

They don't hate our freedom, they don't hate our religion, they wouldn't care at all about us if we weren't a.) Screwing them over continually, and b.) bragging about what Champions of Justice we are.

Look at our record, in the Middle East, Africa, Central and South America. How many freely elected governments have we toppled in the last 30 years? Dozens. How many corrupt dictators have we installed? Dozens. How many evil bastards have we ignored because they were our 'friends?' Dozens again. If anyone is really misinformed enough to debate the facts on this, I'll find some links, it's not hard to do.

Fear will never solve the problem. Aggression leads to aggresion, always. That is the primary reason we still have war and the primary reason most religions teach tolerance and forgivness.

You can't bully humanity into not producing bullies.

Re:Documentary?

If your objective was to insure that Iraq does not fall prey to Islam fundamentalism than removing Saddam was the most stupid plan of action.

Saddam was well contained did not pose any imminent thread and held in contempt by Islamists for being secular.

The strategists of this Iraq war were dreaming of starting a chain reaction of political change in the Middle East. They may get their wish fulfilled. The irony is that even if those countries were to switch to a full blown democracy the first fair election would almost always bring fundamentalists into power (as has happened when Algeria experimented with democracy a decade ago).

This administration played with fire when invading Iraq. The odds were always against them and they played their hand so badly the situation is almost beyond salvaging.

In all fairness I think Bush should be reelected because it'll be a terrible burden for any other administration to have to deal with the inherited mess of Bush's making.

Re:Documentary?

"If Bill Clinton had been doing something on his watch BESIDES getting a blowjob, the war and half trillion dollars would not have been necessary. 9/11 might not have happened."

Maybe the whole impeachment thing did turn out to be a distraction huh? I mean if he had a blow job it probably distracted him for like 10 minutes but the impeachment that's another story isn't it?

I also think that 9/11 would have been averted if bush hadn't told the palestenians to go fuck themselves but that's another story altogether. Bill Clinton was actually not hated by the arabs who felt that he at least tried to be fair with them.

"George Bush is one of the worst public speakers I've ever seen (for a President)."

My dog can speak better then him.

" But at least he's doing something."

Doing awful and wrong things is not better then doing nothing. He has fucked up this thing beyond all belief. All he can say now is. "I know it sucks, it's going to suck for a long time, don't look for things to get any better soon". I'd rather he did nothing.

"He's not stupid, much as a lot of you would like to make him out to be."

Oh yes he is. He got duped by the iranian intelligence. How much stupider do you have to be?

"You don't get to be President by being stupid."

Sure you, if your daddy was the president and the republican party backed you up and the corporations give you 200 million dollars.

'That will virutally guarantee that radical fundamentalist Islam does the same thing in Iraq that it did to Iran."

Saddam Hussein was a secular socialist you dumbfuck. He was hated by all religous fundamentalists. Osama referred to him as "the communist". Before the war did you ever see a picture of him in fundamentalist garb? Did you ever see a picture of him praying? Did you ever see him with a beard that all muslim fundamentalists wear? We deposed a secular socialist leader. Before the war Iraqi women were the most educated and highest paid women of all arab kingdoms.

"You figure out the consequences to the stability of our world if a major piece of the energy supply is suddenly controlled by a culture who would just as soon (and actively tries to) kill you as look at you. "

Saddam Hussein never attacked america. He had nothing to do with 9/11. He had no intention of ever attacking america. He was no threat to america even if he wanted to attack us.

"I would vote libertarian or someone independent, but a vote for anyone else is a vote for Kerry, and I can stand that less than I can Bush. OK"

Please don't vote until you do more research. You are woefully uninformed.

Re:Documentary?

The Oscars don't have a category for commentary or polemic, but his film was noteworthy enough that it got recognition for the category that it most closely fit.

Re:Documentary?

I know you Bush fans are hurting right now because its pretty obvious he is in over his head and you are getting desperate to salvage all the misplaced faith you've put in him, but I think calling Moore's work "fiction" is pretty weak. Its a viewpoint. Extremists in both wings can't tolerate the fact that there are viewpoints that don't agree with theirs so, like you, they resort to calling them lies and fiction, when more likely there is some truth, some speculation and probably some errors in both of Moore's major films. You can't actually refute these films on substance so you just resort to calling it a lie and pretend like you don't need to substantiate your position.

There wasn't much in Bowling for Columbine that could be called fiction. It was mostly speculation that America's obsessions with war, guns and violence are intertwined and aren't particularly healthy. Fact is America is one of the world's most violent developed nations. There were some specific things in it he severely stretched to make his point, not like anyone on the right would ever do that... Coulter..cough..Limbaugh..cough.

When you get to subject matter of Fahrenheit 9/11 its pretty hard for anyone to be sure of what the truth is. Moore is presenting his take on it which may or may not be accurate. One of the problems is the Bush administration has been actively classifying and suppressing just about everything about the Saudi role in 9/11 and the Bush family's excessively close ties to the Saudi's and the Bin Laden family. If you recall they blacked out the entire section on Saudi Arabia's complicity in the congressional report on 9/11 and there were a lot of pages on it. They have also aggressively suppressed all information about the fact that they let airplanes spirit members of the Bin Laden family and other unidentified Saudi's out of the U.S. right after 9/11 at a time when no American could get off the ground.

It is a simple fact that the Bush family has long running ties to people in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait including the Bin Laden family and it colors their dealings in the area, in the opinion of some it clouds their judgment. George H.W. Bush had active business dealings with them when he was at Zapata Oil. He has an active relationship with them today in his role as spokesman for the Carlysle group which is one of Saudi Arabia's major defense contractors.

To be honest I don't know how anyone continues to defend the Bush family especially the current administration. All indications are that they were completely had by Iran, who through Ahmed Chalibi suckered [newsday.com] them in to invading Iraq which is now doing massive damage to America's standing in the world, is making the world more dangerous and is costing the U.S. dearly in blood and money. THe Truth about Chalibi [counterpunch.org].

How do you keep supporting an administration dumb enough to be had by the Iranian's. What are you going to say when the Shia's take power in Iraq as soon as they get a fair election and Iraq turns into an Iranian influenced theocracy and all of America's sacrifice was for worse than nothing.

At LSU commencement Bush joked about being a "C" student. He is proof anyone can be President in America, even someone as intellectually challenged as he is, of course it helps to be from a wealthy and influential family so you can get elected on name only. Bush is great on rhetoric but he simply lacks the intellectual depth to make good decisions when it comes to the enormously complex areas like foreign affairs and economics. The fact that his administration was had by Iran is a case in point. It was his job to take Chalibi skepticially especially considering a long string of red flags about his ethics and motives, but he, Cheney, Perl and Wolfowitz fell for it hook, line and sinker and its costing the U.S. dearly.

Re:Documentary?

calling Moore's work "fiction" is pretty weak.

No, it's pretty accurate. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000. I won't vote for him this year either. But that doesn't mean I have to rally behind the Michael Moore and pretend that his lies are the truth.

His last documentary opened with a Willie Horton political ad. Unfortunately, that ad was doctored. It wasn't genuine. It was a splice of two other ads, with a Moore added caption.

He then proceeds to show the NRA holding meetings immediately after school shootings, even though in the first case (Denver) the meeting was scheduled months in advance, and in the latter (Flint) the meeting was months after the shooting took place. During this segment, Moore showed a Heston speech that was a complete fabrication. Moore spliced together words from different speeches. You can even see the Heston's coat and tie change!

Other fabriciations abound throughout the movie. Moore doesn't make documentaries, he makes fiction.

Re:Documentary?

Why the hell should ANYONE care what their wants and needs were. If no American's were flying, no Saudi's should have either. Its a giant flashing light indicating these people had special influence and were getting special treatment by the Bush administration.

The flights were so poorly screened the Saudi's could have been using them to fly out co-conspirators in the 9/11 attack. The fact is the Saudi's, not the Iraqi's, were knee deep in complicity in 9/11, and its just as disturbing that the Bush administration has consistently sought to suppress any information on these special flights. Letting them rush their nationals out without some thoughtful investigation was simply inappropriate.

It reminds you of a similar incident where the Pakistani's were also allowed to secretly fly their intelligence people out of Afghanistan after the Taliban fell, though Pakistani's intelligence was knee deep in complicity with Al Qaeda and the Taliban and some of them could well have been co-conspirators in 9/11 planning.

Re:Documentary?

Read his book 'Stupid White Men', he doesn't think the Democrats are much better than the current crew.

Re:Documentary?

<That's Unpossible> Isolated allegation with no supporting evidence.
<efaust93> Bold text, refutation of previous allegation with no supporting evidence, contrarian allegation with no supporting evidence.

Welcome to the deep political commentary of slashdot! Tune in next week, when we'll discuss the 2000 election as if it were a black or white issue.

Incidentally, contrary to popular belief, Michael Moore did not miraculously appear from thin air the moment he stepped up to make his Oscar speech and hurt your feelings! He actually existed before that. In fact, he even existed during the Clinton administration. And while I wasn't following him ver closely during that time, I can tell you "Oh, you won't hear anything from moore about Comrade Clinton. He's a saint in the eyes of the left." does not appear to describe his behavior of the period at all. He seems to have criticized Clinton quite a bit. His only film without a journalistic aspect was a wag-the-dog-esque 1995 effort called "Canadian Bacon", in which a Clinton stand-in attempted to fabricate a cold war in order to rally "patriotism" and get the populace to support him blindly. He was one of the loudest voices in the whole "vote Nader, if you vote for Gore you'll be throwing your vote away, he's no better than Bush" thing. Now, he *was* among the people who refused to admit Clinton did anything wrong with the entire Monica Lewinsky scandal and refused to see the impeachment hearing as nothing but a trumped up, politically-motivated abuse of power, but that's hardly unreasonable.

Re:Documentary?

LIAR!

> Oh, you won't hear anything from moore about Comrade Clinton. He's a saint in the eyes of the left.

Then, you clearly haven't read Stupid White Men.

Unfortunately Amazon won't let us search inside of that book.

But from Dude, Where's My Country:

p27: "During one of their visits there, in May 1998, two Taliban members-this time in the U.S. sponsored by Clinton's State Department-took in some more sites"

Backmatter: "If you'd like to know more about the forty-seven people President Clinton had 'killed,' simply check your favorite Internet search engine and type in the words, 'Clinton Body Count.'"

There's more in Stupid White Men.

Re:Documentary?

He does?

Here's a quote from his website:

"Fahrenheit 9/11 is the first documentary to win the Palme since Jacques Cousteau's "The Silent World" in 1956."

Hmmm... next.

WRONG! not informative at all

Who's modding this parent post as "Informative?" Give us a break!

Mockmentaries refers to those scripted comedy films that take documentary style (handheld, talking-head interviews, bad lighting/framing). Many of Christopher Guest [imdb.com]'s films are good examples:

Spinal Tap [imdb.com]
Waiting for Guffman [imdb.com]
" A Mighty Wind" [imdb.com]

See the difference. These are all staged and scripted(act/performance). Moore's films are anything but mockumentaries. They are neither staged nor scripted!!! (except for narrations, which is necessary)

The parent post is rated completely wrong and/or overrated. I can't belive that people are swallowing this horse sh*t without a doubt...

Re:Documentary?

Meanwhile, "Fox News" is still called news, and few people complain about the classification.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Documentary?

google: fox news bias

Turns up numerous pages with examples of Fox bias.

The classsic:

http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html [fair.org]

More current:

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/foxbias.htm [oreilly-sucks.com]

Re:Documentary?

As I posted in another thread for a slightly different reason:

"80% of misinformed Americans get thier information from FOX news" [64.233.161.104] (Link to Google cache of same article, since the original seems to randomly require registration...)

Political bias is a matter of debate, but they certaintly don't seem to be "fair and balanced" do they?
=Smidge=

Re:Documentary?

Please investigate your sources more carefully.

The study you are quoting (which speaks highly of NPR) was conducted by The Program on International Policy Attitudes [pipa.org], which has many of the same funders as NPR. The director of PIPA is a well-known liberal. (Check the 'About us' [pipa.org] link from the front page). This is obviously an attempt to create an appearance that NPR is a better news source.

Re:Documentary?

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/015545.php [instapundit.com]

YOU KNOW, sometimes I feel like maybe I'm too harsh in my charges of media bias. Then I read accounts like this one from Baghdad, by the Daily Telegraph's correspondent Toby Harnden:

The other day, while taking a break by the Al-Hamra Hotel pool, fringed with the usual cast of tattooed defence contractors, I was accosted by an American magazine journalist of serious accomplishment and impeccable liberal credentials.

She had been disturbed by my argument that Iraqis were better off than they had been under Saddam and I was now -- there was no choice about this -- going to have to justify my bizarre and dangerous views. I'll spare you most of the details because you know the script -- no WMD, no 'imminent threat' (though the point was to deal with Saddam before such a threat could emerge), a diversion from the hunt for bin Laden, enraging the Arab world. Etcetera.

But then she came to the point. Not only had she 'known' the Iraq war would fail but she considered it essential that it did so because this would ensure that the 'evil' George W. Bush would no longer be running her country. Her editors back on the East Coast were giggling, she said, over what a disaster Iraq had turned out to be. 'Lots of us talk about how awful it would be if this worked out.' Startled by her candour, I asked whether thousands more dead Iraqis would be a good thing.

She nodded and mumbled something about Bush needing to go. By this logic, I ventured, another September 11 on, say, September 11 would be perfect for pushing up John Kerry's poll numbers. 'Well, that's different -- that would be Americans,' she said, haltingly. 'I guess I'm a bit of an isolationist.' That's one way of putting it.

The moral degeneracy of these sentiments didn't really hit me until later when I dined at the home of Abu Salah, a father of six who took over as the Daily Telegraph's chief driver in Baghdad when his predecessor was killed a year ago.

Moral degeneracy, indeed. You hate to think that any American journalist could feel this way, but we've had other admissions of this sort in the past. To explain things in words of few syllables: It's wrong to root for your country's defeat. Especially when that defeat would mean the death of innocents. And surely it's worse still when it's merely for domestic political advantage.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-5_ 21_04_MK.html [realclearpolitics.com]

The American establishment, led by the media and politicians, is in danger of talking the United States into defeat in Iraq. And the results would be catastrophic. . . .

Re:Documentary?

To explain things in words of few syllables: It's wrong to root for your country's defeat.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of Godwin, would it have been wrong for German citizens in the 1930's and 1940's to root for their government's defeat? (Note: government != country)

Re:Documentary?

""Is it wrong to root for your government's defeat, if you sincerely feel its policies are so misguided that their success would lead to much greater harm in the long run than would their failure in the short run?""

So success in Iraq, i.e. free democratic country is more like Nazi Germany's goal, and failure in Iraq, defined as civil war or theocracy, is less like Nazi Germany's goal? I would argue that if failure means more death and less freedom in Iraq, and you want this so Bush is not re-elected, maybe you should question your motives and values.

Re:Documentary?

So success in Iraq, i.e. free democratic country is more like Nazi Germany's goal, and failure in Iraq, defined as civil war or theocracy, is less like Nazi Germany's goal?

Success in Iraq would lead to a US government that continues to believe that it is acceptable to pre-emptively invade foreign countries under false justifications, and then retroactively change the rationale whenever necessary. (The invasion supposed to be about Weapons of Mass Destruction, remember? Hussein was an immediate threat to America, and all that?) Such a precedent would be (in fact, is) extremely destabilizing -- if every country felt morally allowed to do such things, "because the USA does it" -- how many more unjustifiable wars can we expect in the future?

Additionally, I seriously doubt that "a free democratic Iraq" was a primary goal of the invasion -- that was just the politically correct window dressing used (along with spurious connections to WMD and Al-Quaeda) to sell the war to the American public. The real reasons for the war had a lot more to do with securing long-term access to oil and "shocking and awing" other nations' governments into political obedience (not that we're likely to succeed in either of those goals, either).

I would argue that if failure means more death and less freedom in Iraq, and you want this so Bush is not re-elected

Pick a scenario:

1. Bush "succeeds" in crushing the Iraqi resistance, installing an America-friendly puppet government in Iraq, and wins re-election. During his next term, another country raises our government's ire, and boyed by the success of our previous ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, we again rush to invade. One thing leads to another, and pretty soon it's World War 3, with millions dead, vast environmental and economic damage, and America in tatters.
   
2. Bush continues to fail in Iraq, and a newly chastened America decides that dishonest bullying is not a viable foreign policy, and instead decides to embrace the rest of the world as equals, working co-operatively with them to solve the problems of the day. With help from governments around the world, terrorism and eventually poverty and environmental decline are dealth with, and the quality of life is peacefully advanced for all mankind.
   

maybe you should question your motives and values.

My values tell me to promote peaceful, honest, respectful solutions to our nation's problems, and to the world's problems. Bush's Iraq invasion ran roughshod over all of that, and resulted in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths (so far... there are undoubtedly more to come) and to the destruction of America's image as a country of genuine ideals. If it takes a painful failure to remind us of the costs of irresponsible behaviour, perhaps it is worth it to make sure that such a horrible debacle doesn't happen again.

Re:Documentary?

Every time someone makes comparison between modern-day USA and Nazi-Germany, I'm reminded by the comment Hermann Goering made at the Nurenberg Trials:

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to a greater danger. It works the same in any country."

Scary stuff, and oh so real. Even in modern-day USA.

Re:Documentary?

Fox News isn't biased towards the left or right. It's biased towards yellow rag journalism and alarmist reations towards exagerated events. The best news agency I've run across is the BBC. The days of the so called free press in AMerica are gone. It's hard to call it free when the same few people and multinational conglomerates own and operate over 90% of Americas news media. Ever wonder why every outlet is reporting the same story with the same spin?

Re:Fair AND balanced

I'll assume you're being serious, although it seems more likely you're trolling.

First things first: paragraphs. Learn what they are, use them, more people will read what you type and actually take you seriously.

Secondly, go read mediamatters.org and see how biased towards the neocon view all of the mainstream tv is. The reality is that neocons are not just plain wrong on many issues (their economic theories, like trickle-down economics, have long since been disproven, and their military policies are outright failures, e.g. the war in iraq). Yet somehow they manage to get their voice not just mentioned on mainstream news, but presented as having equal value to the truth. It's not biased when you don't report lies. Take a skeptical look at the actual facts that people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Anne Coulter say (go look up the actual quotes and the actual statistics they cite), and you'll see they lie and distort to serve their own wrongheaded worldview.

Additionally, the reality is that the "liberal" voices you hear on mainstream tv are people cherry-picked to make a poor argument, like Alan Colmes. The left has much better arguments, but the good arguments don't end up on the tv screen. It's a well known strategy to discredit your political opponent, and the right has practiced it with much success.

Now, as for specific responses to what you typed:

Their idea of "balance" is to have a commetator, 3 panelist (all of which spout liberal garbage), and one somewhat moderate conservative. That is their idea of balance. Air America, the so far disappointing attempt by the left to "get their message out" will fail. Why? simple. They are not entertaining. I listened to it a few times on XM, and all it was was whinning, name calling about what is wrong with the conservatives. Did they offer any constructive ideas? No.

You should read your own post. First you accuse the mainstream media of left-wing bias, then you say air america is the left's attempt to get their message out. Why would the left need air america if the mainstream media was biased towards the liberal view? Additionally, I have listened to air america, and I've heard a lot of constructive ideas. My guess is you haven't listened for more than a few hours at best. Try listening for a week.

Why do you think they are working to allow convicted felons, and prisoners the "right" to vote?

Are you talking about the scrubbing of the voter rolls in the 2000 florida elections? You should read up on that. They didn't just remove people who had comitted a felony, they removed people with similarities (names, locations, ...) to people who had comitted a felony, but were felony-free themselves. That's illegal, and it made the difference in deciding who became president. And guess what, They (Jeb Bush's cabinet) are doing it again for the 2004 elections.

It's a valid point to say that people convicted of a felony shouldn't be allowed to vote. But you should look into how racist the US judicial system is. Black people get convicted of a lot more crimes, and sent away for much longer terms. That by the very definition is racism, and the only way you can say it is fair is by taking the position that black people are subhuman (naturally commit more and worse crimes than white people). As a result, the system is rigged to ensure people who would vote democratic (the disenfranchised and the poor) don't get to vote because they get locked away more than middle-class white people.

I also invite you to follow the money. Look at how the entire media industry has been making record profits from bush being in the whitehouse (and the matching media deregulation), and how they donate primarily to the right. If they really had a liberal bias, why would they be republican donors, and why would they be biting the hand that feeds them?

Mind you, I'm not opposed to the classical conservative worldview, of small government, sane fiscal policies, and maintaining t

Re:Documentary?

NBC, CBS, and ABC are not much more "news" than fox. When I see BBC or Canadian TV, it's clear ALL American news outlets are propaganist pussies. Let's not question anything that might offend the patriotic masses. No tough questions that get to the core of America and what real freedom means. Beacause tough questions lead to thinking and don't fit into nice little soundbites or induce the fear that gets the soccer moms to tune in at 11. Fox may be pathetic, but you are deluding yourself if your think the rest of American media is any better.

Re:Documentary?

I agree that the BBC does a great job. I agree that the major networks are wimps who are leaving out important parts of the story. But FOX really is different. They rabidly publicize the administration party line. It works for two reasons. First, 20% of Americans voted for Bush and actually want to hear the party line. Second, high ranking officials are willing to give exclusives to FOX because they know they're preaching to the faithful and they'll get the kid gloves treatment from reporters. It's the same relationship that leaders of other countries have with state owned stations.

-B

Re:Documentary?

State owned media in the two countries I've lived in (Aust and UK) are often the most balanced and most probing of the news services. You acknowlege this in the case of BBC. Matt

Re:Documentary?

What's clear is that you don't watch a wide range of American news. Try watching NewsHour, Meet the Press, This Week. Those questions of US officials are far better than anything you find on the major network and cable nightly news, and anything you find on British or Canadian news.

Re:Documentary?

FOX News is a favorite target of liberals.

Even though I feel CNN is slanted to the left, I normally read CNN.com. However, with all the jokes pouring in about FOX News, I decided to start reading their news articles. I have yet to find a news article or see a news cast from them that appears biased. Can you please locate a biased news article and point it out to me?

They have biased commentary shows on FOX, no question. The no-spin-zone my ass. But all the NEWS I have seen and read from them has been spot on.

Now let's talk about bias. When the story broke about the bomb going off that was hooked up to a sarin gas shell (Sarin is a nerve agent, a weapon of mass destruction), for that day and the next, you could find no news story on CNN.com about it. Not one. It was covered on FOX News and MSNBC's websites. Nothing on cnn.com. On the third day, I did manage to find an article that was discussing something else about the war, and at the bottom it mentioned the sarin bomb found.

I wonder why that is.

Re:Documentary?

You realize Saddam was sold sarin by the United States, right?

Re:Documentary?

Fox went to court over the issue of whether a news organization had the right to lie or distort news stories under the First Amendment. Fox won in the end, at the third or fourth attempt. This blew up over a reporter Jane Akre, who argued that her bosses at Fox had pressured her to change a story about the effect of some hormone treatment on cattle - her report was to say that milk from these cows was dangerous for humans. There is a link to the story here [foxbghsuit.com]. This is why people say that Fox isn't about news.

Re:Documentary?

I assume then, that you don't consider the New York Times or BBC to be real news outlets, either.

I can't talk for the NYTimes, but I'm confident that the BBC has never attempted to assert its right to distort stories or to transmit outright lies. Why don't you read my response and then respond again?

Re:Documentary?

I can't talk for the NYTimes, but I'm confident that the BBC has never attempted to assert its right to distort stories or to transmit outright lies.

Tee hee!

What do you mean, you were serious?! How could you? What?

Ever heard of a man named Andrew Gilligan? The Hutton Report? The whole thing was a cut-and-dried case of the BBC asserting its right to distort stories and transmit outright lies. And it's far from the only example.

Having said that, the Beeb is pretty good when compared to ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, much less the print media - NYT and Jayson Blair, for example, or the hopelessly biased French and German press, or Reuters, or...

FOX is the least of the problem. Yeah, they're biased, but they don't pretend otherwise.

Re:Documentary?

FOX is the least of the problem. Yeah, they're biased, but they don't pretend otherwise.

I'll take honest bias over fake integrity any day.

I liked "Bowling for Columbine," but I understood it to be an indictment of the U.S. media -- especially local TV. Broadcast news in this country is in the business of selling fear and creating opinion. Period. Moore himself, in Columbine, noted that guns couldn't be the problem, and gun ownership couldn't be the problem, as other countries not only allow gun ownership, but have higher rates of gun ownership than the U.S. -- but they also have less gun-related crime. Canada, for example. But Canada also doesn't have the indefensible cesspit that is the U.S. broadcast media establishment. Just watch your "local news" sometime. It is sickening.

Re:Documentary?

Are you saying their "fair and balanced" mantra isn't pretending they aren't biased?

You've gotta be joking.

Re:Documentary?

Even though I feel CNN is slanted to the left

You feel what?

Jesus H. Christ! How far to the extreme deep right are you exactly?

Example: When the U.S. troops invaded Bagdad, a CNN reporter stood outside a palace and commented that the soldiers were taking "souvenirs" from the palace. He even mentioned that most of those were solid gold.

Souvenirs? They were looting the palaces of the conquered!
But since CNN is the Pentagon News Network, they spewed that outrageous piece of doubletalk with a straight face. He even seemed proud that these soldiers were looting!

Re:Documentary?

When the story broke about the bomb going off that was hooked up to a sarin gas shell (Sarin is a nerve agent, a weapon of mass destruction), for that day and the next, you could find no news story on CNN.com about it. Not one. It was covered on FOX News and MSNBC's websites. Nothing on cnn.com. On the third day, I did manage to find an article that was discussing something else about the war, and at the bottom it mentioned the sarin bomb found.

I have seen several stories about WMD being found in Iraq since the war began (or ended if you like sticking your head in the ground)and so far not one has turned out to be actual WMD. Still these stories played prominantly on the 24 hour news cycle. Invariably, several days later, the true identitiy [rense.com] of the "WMD" is found and oubviously not as widely publicized, especially on fox. Ever since the WMD mobile lab with canvas sides (that sounds like a sterile environment) which was paraded around as "proof" of WMD, I have taken every such story with a large grain of salt. Especially when it comes from fox. WOLF!

I can't say for sure that this "sarin" is not real, but I can say that so far 100% of the WMD news stories have been fabrications by either the government [go.com] or the "news" [foxnews.com] media.

Re:Yeah CNN, ABC, CBS is so fair

If you try saying that Alan Colmes isn't liberal (besides brilliant), then you either have your head up your ass, have never heard of Alan Colmes, or simply have blind hatred of Fox News

Alan Colmes is the Sean Hannity's equivalent of the Washington Generals [internet-e...opedia.org]. He's a punching bag who's put up there to make it look like a contest. Al Franken skewered Colmes in his book Lie and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. I suggest that you read that before trotting out Colmes as evidence that Fox is not biased.

Re:Documentary?

but why is it a /. topic?
Current /. main page:

• Cannes' Palme d'Or goes to Michael Moore - 264 comments
• Finally Geeks Available in Action Figure Form - 86 comments (posted 40 minutes earlier)
• What To Wear On Mars - 61 comments (posted 90 minutes earlier)
• Microchips to Save Peru's Alpacas - 58 comments (posted 315 minutes earlier)

It certainly interests enough people, although maybe it is just a slow day today.

This deserves much more interest than you think

This is enormous. This is politics going inside the Cannes palmares. A political move to ensure americans will talk about the movie and release it. Not saying that this is not a great movie, I'm very much looking forward to seing it ; but they were fantastic movies featured in Cannes.

This is really an important move from Cannes, the cinema culture, or the society in general.

Even Moore said "Jesus, what have you done ?" to the Jury when he came to receive his prize.

Cannes, the most pedantic cinema club, gave the Palme to a movie that is mostly a work made to make sure Bush won't be president anymore.

This is one of the most important socio-political event this year !

Just like you do?

He selectively chooses material to illustrate his extreme leftist views

You mean just like you selectively choose comments to illustrate YOUR extreme anti-moore views? How about this line from the Washington Post?

What's remarkable here isn't Moore's political animosity or ticklish wit. It's the well-argued, heartfelt power of his persuasion. Even though there are many things here that we have already learned, Moore puts it all together.

Its real easy to point fingers, isn't it?

Re:Documentary?

Moore's supporters, of course, feel the parent's link is a pack of lies and a (small part of a) smear campaign launched by right wing conservative fanatics.

You may want to read:

Michael Moore responds to the wacko attackos [michaelmoore.com], in which he debunks most of this nonsense.

Re:Documentary?

This is absolutely hilarious. On the one hand, we have people who don't like Moore and his films, and they cry "YOU"RE ALL WACKO LEFTIES!", and on the other hand, we have people who do like Moore and his films, crying "YOU"RE ALL WACKO RIGHT-WINGERS!". What's the deal with this? Can't we have a discussion about something without throwing political buzzwords into the mix? How 'bout I say "I think Bush is a crook and a cheat" rather than saying "I'm an extreme ". It makes much more sense to run a debate or discussion with real words rather than directions, unless you're debating over which way is west on the map.

Re:Documentary?

We've been tricked/conditioned into reducing everything to left/right|liberal/conservative dichotomies with not the slightest notion of what these generalizations even mean. I try to mostly ignore those who would rather debate these fictional compass points instead of the actual issues, but it's like some sort of supernatural Pavlovian thing or something. I actually consider myself conservative in most ways, but I find myself diametrically opposed to those in power who call themselves conservative, and I agree strongly with many (but certainly not all!) of the ideas espoused by those tarred with the epithet "liberal."

Hell, I don't even have a suggestion as to how to work around this issue. I think that's exactly the goal of the division, too. Get people so bogged down in shouting people down for being "red" or "blue" without ever touching a real issue. Very clever of them, isn't it?

"political compass"

The World's Smallest Political Quiz [theadvocates.org]

The site is biased towards libertarianism, and the "quiz" is overly simplified, but the concept is quite sound IMO.

Re:Documentary?

I might be repeating myself [slashdot.org]...

His movies would be more credible if he didn't try to present them as documentaries. They're not documentaries. They're commentaries.

Unless, of course, they know the definition of documentary:

Main Entry: documentary

Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
: a documentary presentation (as a film or novel)

Function: adjective
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing <documentary evidence>
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art;

Does his movie employ documentation (film clips)?
Yes?

Re:Documentary?

Most documentaries have a message and are therefore not documentaries according to your definition. I've noticed that many americans who don't agree with mr. Moores work choose to attack his journalism rather than the extremely valid points he makes (which would be harder presumably). Micheal Moore is very frank about his work and even goes as far to qualify it as commedy. His political views are no secret either. So you are sort of kicking in an open door.

But this movie is not being censored by those in power (which in the US are the oil billionairs and the two media conglomerates) because it is a commedy but because it raises valid issues that threaten them and are hard to counter. The truth about the republican party's ties with terrorists is embarrasing and in retrospect even more foolish than it was then. But it is the truth that Donald Rumsfeld was personally involved in making sure Saddam Hussein gained access to US produced WMDs (which is why he was so sure Iraq had them). Also during that time, US money flowed to such noble characters as Bin Laden. In fact Rumsfelds career started with his political involvement during the Vietnam war (another of the US long list of military triomfs). Very embarrasing indeed and well known & documented. We don't need Micheal Moore to prove these points but just to bring them to the attention to those who need to decide on the political future of the politicians involved. And that is why he is being censored. This message is exremely dangerous to Bush and his associates.

Bush needs stupid, misinformed, ignorant fools to vote for him. There are plenty of those left in the US so IMHO he shouldn't be worried, yet. Despite massive evidence to the contrary there is still some 40% of the electorate who figures that this Bush character is doing a fine job. Witness the power of the media.

Second documentary

Its the second documentary to get it...
Jaques Coustau got one to.

Re:which was actually a Documentary

I don't thing Michael Moore has been behind the actions of the Bush administration so setting it up is a bit far fetched....

Both only show you what they wanted you to see, one wanted you to see a beautifull ocean and a story about great explorers on a great ship... the other wanted you to see a bad Bush & co.

Jeroen

Re:Second documentary

To be exact, it was in 1956, when "Le Monde du silence" by Jacques-Yves Cousteau and Louis Malle won the Palme d'Or.

List of winners 1946-2004 [listsofbests.com]

Re:Second documentary

What a coincidence. Louis Malle [radicalmedia.com] was definitely no less radical and left-leaning than Michael Moore. His movies were full of political or social satire, given in a lighthearted [dvdtalk.com] and pleasant manner, yet they were also insightful [teachwithmovies.org] and generally true to the historical [imdb.com] fact. How unlike Michael Moore, who is unable to do anything but cashing his alleged ideals. Sorry, I consider myself a leftwinger, I am all against Bush and the whole Iraq invasion, but I think I'm too old school for Michael Moore. When Karl Marx wanted to launch a revolutionary movement, he went to a library [britannia.com] to study the facts. FACTS. Ef - ah - cee - tee - es. Something you won't find in a flashy mockumentary by Michael Moore.

Yeah, I know. Here goes my karma bonus. Well, I won't post it as an AC.

Re:Second documentary

It would be helpful if you'd point to some f a c t s to support your position. Others have tried... and failed miserably [michaelmoore.com].

I mean, the guy's got an angle, but he's no liar. By the way, I highly recommend his chapter on "B-1" Bob Dornan in "Downsize This". He nearly succeeds in having (then-Representative) Dornan committed based on his House Floor ravings as quoted in the Congressional Record. It's hilarious reading.

Re:Second documentary

What a pile of crap!

The arguments on the site you point to help Moore's case. For instance, if he was really trying to be sneaky about the Denver footage, he would have just spliced the audio in rather than showing Heston in two different ties, signifying that he was in different places.

Who has time to answer all these petty attacks? Let's just talk about Denver.

---"Now, now, Mike. As pointed out on the main webpage, the NRA "show" was canceled. "

Um, not "Heston's show". Heston still spoke. That was the point Moore was making, your guy is trying to change the subject. The show in question was Heston's speech, the symbolism of which Moore thought was inappropriate. Heston came to defend the NRA. Moore was appalled and included the bits that bothered him.

Then your guy complains that Moore doesn't quote the whole speech. Well, documentaries that are 4 hours long don't get their point across very well.

Your guy also complains that Heston never said the words "from my cold, dead hands" with a rifle hoisted above his head until a year after Columbine.

Well, you've got a point there. Moore may have been wrong about how long that rifle-hoisting has been going on. Your guy forgets to mention that Moore points out that he got it from a Denver TV station who got it directly from the NRA, and that helps to explain why he would have thought it relevant (not exactly taking the contextual high ground). But the exact timing of Heston's statement doesn't disprove Moore's larger point, that Heston still said it even after Columbine happened, and thought it was a good way to promote the NRA. It's a well known Heston soundbite, and is typical of the type of thing you'll hear at one of Heston's shows, and Moore was horrified that the NRA would come anywhere near Columbine so soon after the tragedy.

More on the pervasiveness of the "cold dead hands" meme, even if not in Heston's words, but from the same month as the Columbine shootings:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/l at imes.php

All these attacks on Moore follow this pattern where they say "Moore implied this with his editorial choices, but it's not true!", when in reality they are reading more into the editorial choices than is there.

Re:Second documentary

Of course, the overriding truth is that this man's ideas have been the direct cause of over a century of misery and death.

Well, in Europe this man's ideas were also the direct cause of the foundation of the powerful social-democratic parties in Western Europe, like the German SPD [archiv.spd.de], French SFIO [factmonster.com] or the Swedish SDAP [sweden.se]. Marx is as much responsible for Gulag and Stalin as he is responsible for the fact that in Denmark there is simply no such thing as poverty - while the unemployment rate is lower than in the good ol' US of A.

I'm glad you mentioned that and gave me some opportunity to write something leftist for a change :-)

Lucky Bastard

Last time Charlize Theron presented me with something it was a restraining order.

Just curious....

Aside from pushing somebody's political agenda ... why is this being posted on Slashdot? It doesn't seem to fit into the normal type of news that gets accepted to the site. Your site, your rules ... it just seems out of place.

Re:Some questions

What gives you the impression that he expects you to not independently verify his content? I haven't seen bowling for columbine yet, but I have roger & me on laserdisc and I don't remember being told not to go double check on the guy. Was there an extra note after the FBI warning on BfC that warns you that any attempts to verify moore's veracity will result in your wife leaving you, your truck breaking down, and your dog being hit by a train?

Re:Some questions

"Take the getting a free gun at the bank scene. In fact, the bank would give you a voucher that could be used at a gun store, once all the regular checks were done. The scene was completely staged"

Staged in what way? Michael Moore writes on his site that the bank was indeed a licensed arms dealer, and had all the necessaries on-site to do background-checks and issue firearms.

Moore also claims that the only prior arrangement with the bank was phoning to ask permission to film. Do you have anything to suggest it wasn't so? From what I understand, you're saying that the bank was somehow used as a film-set, where they convinced the people in the bank to do something highly irregular (if they normally give a voucher, why would they hand over a weapon on-site) just because Moore asks them to?

Now, most of the documentation about that film is fairly clear and easy to read, and I didn't notice anything suspicious about it. So it will take more than a claim of "but it was staged" if your ideas are to carry more weight than the film-maker involved. Perhaps some evidence would be a good start?

"

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

Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle" - Reference. [michaelmoore.com]

Re:Some questions

I'm sorry, but that second link completely turned me off to reading further.

Any website which needs to mock the physical appearance of someone to make a point shouldn't really be trusted.

Documentaries

A genuine question for Moore fans: doesn't it bother you even slightly that Moore expects you not to independently verify what he presents as fact? You're supposed to be geeks, people who're capable of thinking "out of the box". And doesn't it bother you that Michael Moore is personally getting very, very rich [mooreexposed.com] out of September 11th?

I don't have to do a damn thing to verify his movie - I just sit back and see who sues him. I mean, the gun lobby alone is very, very large, and determined... if there was a single thing in Bowling that could even be remotely picked apart by a lawyer, it would happen. But it hasn't.

By the way, I'd like to make another point to the Slashdot crowd at large - Documentaries are NOT supposed to be "objective". News reporting is supposed to be objective. You have never, ever seen an 'objective' documentary that wasn't trying to inform you of some plight, or problem, or point of view. Ever.

Re:Documentaries

You have never, ever seen an 'objective' documentary that wasn't trying to inform you of some plight, or problem, or point of view. Ever.

Ummm, that's complete bullshit.

A real documentary is supposed to DOCUMENT something. In fact, here's the definition from dictionary.com:

Documentary: "Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter."

I have seen PLENTY of real documentaries. Turn to the discovery channel or PBS and you're likely to find one right now.

Re:Some questions

Well, ofcourse Moore's documentaries are slanted to reflect his political views and the message he wants to tell. But judging from the mudslinging his opponents has to resort to he seems to have done a good job in getting his basic facts right.

As a non-US citizen I even have to wonder what people in the states gets so worked up over in the first place, he's just a reporter who wants to illuminate problems in the society and he happens to have a real knack for storytelling and presentation.

But maby it's just that truth hurts...

/greger

Re:Some questions

actually michael moore has requested that people question everything - including what he says. i saw him speak in dublin and while i didn't agree with many things he said, he was very upfront that people should research and learn.

in fact in one interview his main complaint was that a lot of the stuff in f.9/11 which people say is "new" is not new at all - he just asked around to find it. essentially he said, "i'm just a schmuck who only graduated from high school with no training in journalism - how is it that i found this stuff and "real" journalists didn't?"

as a person who has followed tech "journalism" for years, i can actually answer his question. but like him, i don't much like the answer.

Well...

I haven't seen the thing and I am sure it is politically biased, but certainly I would like to make that determination myself rather then seeing Buena Vista kiss presidential ass and decide that it is not gonna distribute it for fear of losing tax breaks in Florida...

Re: Well...

> I haven't seen the thing and I am sure it is politically biased, but certainly I would like to make that determination myself rather then seeing Buena Vista kiss presidential ass and decide that it is not gonna distribute it for fear of losing tax breaks in Florida...

Disney's veto of the Miramax distribution has probably made it 10x the political bombshell it would have been otherwise.

Re:Well...

Could you please provide a source for your statement that this is move is being pushed by the government? Or does such a source exist?

Re:Well...

Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that freedom of speech implies that private organizations are obligated to provide a soapbox.

The fact that what Disney is doing is legal is totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is right.

Therefore, despite what Moore claims, their decision is not censorship.

Censorship does not have to be governmental in nature. One could make a compelling case that at this point moneyed entities pose greater threats to free speech at this point than the U.S. government.

Re:Well...

"Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that freedom of speech implies that private organizations are obligated to provide a soapbox."

"their decision is not censorship"

What happens when 'private organizations' effectively own government?

Is 1984 any less 1984 if it turned out that Big Brother was a CEO instead of the president?

Disney's behaviour was directly motivated by political considerations. Censorship seems like an apt term.

What a joke.

As Michael Eisner has said before, we are a company that is founded on ideals of the American family backbone

Not "is founded", but only was founded. Huge Corporations are driven by the bottom line and dreams of ultimate control. Disney has recently been behind so many things that undermine the rights and values of the American Family, this is simply no longer a credible position for Disney.

It is not just groups at one end of the spectrum that feel that Disney is the enemy.

And for slashdot context, what does Disney have against free software that I should be forbidden from playing the DVDs I purchase using free software? And why do they think their shallow mutations of the rich public domain from which they drew their stories should never fall back into public domain, as it was supposed to occur in American society. Is control of all computing and content by monopoly corporations a Disney value, too? How is it not censorship? Most corporations have done something from time to time to show they actually are aware of community and consumer issues and concerns, but clearly not Disney. Why acknowledge the consumer when you can control the market?

Re:Well...

As Michael Eisner has said before, we are a company that is founded on ideals of the American family backbone...

What utter crap. Kill Bill was a Disney film. What family ideals does Kill Bill espouse? You've been hoodwinked, boy.

Moore is a troll, but a good one

I haven't seen the thing and I am sure it is politically biased

Everything you see is biased. From the choice of what to put in and leave out, the angles the subjects are shot at, the way they're lit, the juxtapositions they use.

At least Moore is OBVIOUS about it. He's not changing ads in the background and making the goal of so many movies to obtain financial and a hot girlfriend that you don't even think about it any more.

Moore generates DEBATES, just like this one. Which in the end is much more valuable than a boring movie that no one sees or talks about. Trolls are annoying when they bring up the same argument, but NOT when they incite debate on topics that people really NEED TO THINK ABOUT. Voter apathy is at an all time high. The candidates all try to sound alike to avoid offending anybody. We NEED blatantly biased opinions back in our society, so people can have real discussions about real issues.

But I agree that we should have the chance to see it before we argue any more. :)

Predictable

Finally we know step #2 of the formula:

1. Steal underpants.
2. Paint anti-bush slogan on underpants, sell to Hollywood/Indie industry.
3. Profit!

Censorship

Gosh, how do you post to this thread without looking like a troll?

I know the topic of censorship is near and dear to the Slashdot community. I hope people can see that the right wing has a history of using money to censor media outlets in this country. This is a good example of that as is the holy war the FCC has declared on broadcasters.

The liberals in this country want open and free discussion. the conservatives think that they can get away with censoring the liberals by labeling everything opposed to them as indecent.

Want more information on the republican campaign to quiet the liberal voice check out howardstern.com [howardstern.com]. (warning, site may be offensive to compassionate conservatives).

Give me a break...

Want more information on the republican campaign to quiet the liberal voice check out howardstern.com [howardstern.com]. (warning, site may be offensive to compassionate conservatives).

First, as much as I like Stern, he only is qualified to discuss the proper techniques for tossing bologna at a stripper's butt. His political views are based on whatever pads his pocketbook.

Second, there is not an active "campaign" to censor or quiet Michael Moore -- or at least I didn't get the e-mail or fax. He could only wish that the US Government would try to censor him. It would be even more $$$ in his pocket. Moore and his slavish followers claim that disagreeing with him is the same as trying to silence him.As a part of my civil liberties, I have the freedom to not pay to watch his "documentaries", buy his books, view his TV shows or wear his t-shirts. Or do I have to spend my money supporting the companies that support him. That's not an effort to quiet him, its an effort to make sure my money doesn't make it into his pocket. He is already a rich, union busting fat cat.

The liberals in this country want open and free discussion.

As long as you ignore all the campaigns against Fox News and talk radio hosts plus speech codes on college campuses, I would agree.

No breaks for you

econd, there is not an active "campaign" to censor or quiet Michael Moore -- or at least I didn't get the e-mail or fax. He could only wish that the US Government would try to censor him.

No, the campaign to censor dissenting views is not overt, it's very much sub-rosa. And it has a great deal more to do with the carrot than the stick.

Large US media companies have billions, even hundreds of billions, riding on various expansion efforts that must be approved by government regulators-- government regulators who are currently under the control of a conservative administration and Congress. It's difficult for you and I to appreciate the sheer pressure that those billions put on corporate executives, but a dispassionate view of the situation should make it apparent: as the leader of a large media corporation, you can't afford to make enemies of the people who determine your company's financial future. You don't have the liberty to think about what's right and wrong, or care about free speech-- your mandate is simply to insure your investors the highest possible return.

So what are you supposed to do when some tiny, insignificant portion of your corporate empire puts the entire company at risk? You do exactly what Disney has done to Moore's film: you squash it like a bug. Not because the film is bad, incorrect, or unlikely to sell tickets. You do it because, as Disney has said up front, it's simply not worth it to piss off the people who will be ruling on your next merger or expansion plan. The very fact that Disney has admitted this and cited it as the reason for ditching the film takes these sentiments out of the hypothetical. This really is happening, and a firm as large as Disney is actually concerned that publishing this film will cause them political difficulties.

And in the end, that's the issue here. All your talk about not paying to watch Moore is irrelevant-- you won't even get the opportunity to protest his film, because the decision has already been made. For you, for me, for all of us. And it's entirely and unabashedly political.

One more thing: I do personally believe that the Democratic party is less likely to operate in this fashion than the Republicans are, if only due to disogranization and the lingering presence of a few idealists. But when one side plays dirty, it's only a matter of time before their opponents learn the game too. So by looking the other way now, you insure that the next slimy liberal president will be the one determining what's ok for you to read, see and hear.

before somebody asks...

four of the nine jurors were American: Mr. Tarantino, Kathleen Turner, the director Jerry Schatzberg, and the Haitian-born novelist Edwidge Danticat. one juror, the actress Emanuelle Béart, is a French citizen, British actress Tilda Swinton, Benoit Poelvoode, a Belgian actor; Peter von Bagh, a Finnish critic; and the Hong Kong director Tsui Hark made up the rest of the jury. taken from here [nytimes.com]

Art OR politics

I really hope that this is a good documentary, because I'd really hate it if the Cannes festival has become nothing more than a vehicle for politics.

Re:Art OR politics

The judges, IIRC headed by Tarentino, did add that the film won on the basis of its artistic merits...

And maybe Jimmy Carter won the Nobel on the basis of his Habitat for Humanity and election work throughout the world.

Problem is that I'm not sure if you're kidding or not. I think you're being facetious... :D Art is about politics. From Guernica to the Medici tributes to the famous bust of Apollo it has been about politics. Film, as an art form (no snickers, please) consumes and regurgitates the politics of the era. "F9/11" does so. It was the "Injuns" first. Then the aliens. Then Nazis. Then Russians. Recently it's been Arabs. I wonder why "Enemy of the State" gets played so infrequently while movies with Arab bad guys have been on broadcast television over twenty times in the past three months. Conspiracy? Probably not, but the fact alone does speak volumes.

I'm a big fan of science fiction; detractors of SF always say that the ideological elements are too raw, too much on the surface. But it is precisely because of this that I enjoy it so. When China was perceived as a threat there was a huge upsurge in the number of "hive mind" bad guys in SF. "Enemy Mind" looked at the same issues as a recent winner that talked of two enemy combatants in the Middle East that were thrown together. The rawness is, in an odd sort of way, reminiscent of Kafka's "Metamorphosis".

But on to documentaries... The party line is that Moore is full of falsehoods and is creative with the truth. Hmm. So are the administration's recent Medicare ads (the ones which the GAO decided were illegal). I want to see this movie. I want to see "Passion of the Christ". I want more coffee. It's probably time for some. I'm just rambling anyway. I think my foot is asleep.

What a bunch of pussy footers

This guy is like one of 3 people in our great nation who's truly willing to get up in the collective face of the administration, and still we have hand-wringing "reasonable" liberals who advise "caution", and fret about him being a provocateur.

Fuck that. Until the rest of the 150 million or so people who haven't been utterly brainwashed by this administration find the gonads to say something more than, "But, he has no exit plan..", Moore is the mouthpiece of the home of the brave, as far as I'm concerned.

Re:What a bunch of pussy footers

In fact, in the interview on the DVD of Bowling for Columbine he says very clearly that he is not the right person for the job, and that he expects journalists and more educated persons to do this criticism. But, since nothing like that happens, and almost all journalists are too afraid or too comfortable to criticize and tell the truth, he has taken it upon himself to do this.
I don't live in the US, so i can verify his claims. From what i read and hear, however, it does seem that criticism against Bush is generally regarded as not a wise move, and is to be avoided.

So, saying that Moore's works are not documentaries is not really a revelation that 'uncovers his true face', since he himself admits that there are flaws in his works.

Re:What a bunch of pussy footers

Having lived both in the US and the EU I don't think the statement that "that criticism against Bush is generally regarded as not a wise move" can be that easily dismissed.

I found that there is a culture of intimidation in the US (where I currently live again). A colleague of mine actually told me that she is afraid to show her political leanings because she knows that her boss doesn't share them and she's afraid that she wouldn't get a promotion if he knew. I never heart a similar sentiment expressed to me in Germany. Back there it was perfectly normal to strike up a conversation about politics at the office e.g. at your lunch break.

In Corporate America more often then not policies discourage the employees to discuss such controversial topics.

Democracy can not work without public discourse. I think this is actually the underlying reason why the democractic processes are so broken in the US - people in this country do not talk about political topics any more because they are afraid they may offend somebody and fear the repercussions.

Re:Censorship...

Disney made a decision as a private company and business that they will not produce and distribute a film.

The film is obviously already produced and they are ordering a company they bought to not distribute it. Their decision is motivated by political pressure, and they are willing to abandon profit in order to appease their Bush overlords (Jeb and Dubya).

a private company should not be able to pick and chose what it stands behind

Miramax picked it, Buena Vista, who bought Miramax some time ago, told 'em no.

I wonder what the shareholders will think of this. They invested in a company who decides to refuse profits, that isn't kosher. Of course, Eisner might be doing the only profitable thing: Protecting the theme park tax credits, in which case this is an instance of political censorship.

Either way, it is censorship, because no matter what your deficient education led you to believe, censorship is not something that only governments can do, nor is it only evil when governments do it.

More info

Farenheit 9/11 [wikipedia.org]
Michael Moore [wikipedia.org]

In particular,

...it was the first documentary to win that award since Jacques Cousteau & Louis Malle's The Silent World in 1956.

Re:Cannes and Abu Ghraib

I tried to stop myself but I just have to say something in the face of your blatant stupidity:

1) You're so stupid you think beeing forced to walk around in female underware is the problem here? They've been routinely tortured and abused, and several of them have been murdered by american prison guards while in prison. This is not the same thing as being killed with a weapon in hand, or while attacking someone. If you think this is acceptable treatment of prisoners, why don't you move to china or something? You clearly dont belong in 'the land of the free', and neither does you current administration.

2)The people in prison where suspected terrorists/criminals. Most of them might be guilty, but I promise you, some where/are not (even your own army commanders admit this).

Next time you're unfairly put in prison, knowing it'll probably take a year before you're aquitted, remember when the guards are beating you to death that "it's ok, I am after all a suspected terrorist"

Asshole...

Abu Ghraib and Cannes

was Cannes and Abu Ghraib [slashdot.org]

But even more than Moore's documentary, I hope more and more images and video keeps coming out of Iraq in regards to the abuse, torture, rape and slaughter of Iraqi citizens, most of whom are guilty of no crime. That more than anything is Bush's legacy, his mark upon the world and truly the images that best define our Fascist Leader and his doctrines.

InstaPundit.com [instapundit.com] has been posting links to other prison abuse stories. For some reason, these aren't getting as much attention in the mainstream media ("all Abu Ghraib, all the time").

Maybe the French, Germans, Arabs, public employees unions, California Attorney General, and their apologists should take note.

May 22, 2004

PRISON MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS AND A DYSFUNCTIONAL CULTURE OF ABUSE in the California prison guards' union [reason.com].

posted at 03:53 PM by Glenn Reynolds

May 21, 2004

SOMEONE TELL 60 MINUTES about this secret underground prison [blogspot.com]:

'It starts off by being stripped naked in front of 10 police officers including two women, gratutious humiliation is used to break you down.' '... worst jail that you can possibly imagine.' 'Not even a hole to go to the bathroom. You have to piss against a wall and you sleep in piss on the concrete floor.' The torture victim demands 'the immediate shutdown of this secret underground prison'. It's not at Abu Ghraib, it's in Marseille, France.

No doubt Ted Kennedy will be condemning it soon.

posted at 07:41 PM by Glenn Reynolds

May 21, 2004

MORE STORIES OF ARAB PRISONERS BEING ABUSED [scotsman.com]:

ARAB prisoners beaten and tortured, innocent bystanders killed by gunfire - another damning human rights report.

But the difference this time is that the violence is being perpetrated not by coalition forces in Iraq, but by the Palestinian Authority, and the victims are its own people.

The report, partly funded by the Finnish government, claims Palestinian cities are in a state of near anarchy, with people on the payroll of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA) blamed for 90 per cent of gangland violence.

It highlights numerous incidents of torture of prisoners and refers to the killing of civilians in gunbattles between Palestinian factions.

It is another blow for Mr Arafat's organisation, which was recently accused of misusing 134 million of European Union funds. Mr Arafat was accused of signing cheques to people linked with terrorist activity.

I'm sure Ted Kennedy will have comments.

posted at 09:55 AM by Glenn Reynolds

May 18, 2004

IRAQI EMIGRES ON ABU GHRAIB: This is interesting [news.com.au]:

Hadi Kazwini is an Iraqi engineer who moved to Australia in 1997 and lives in Sydney with his wife and three children. He is amazed at the gullibility of those Australians who have taken the Arab response to the photos at face value.

This sort of brutality goes on all the time, it is happening now in jails right through the Middle East, he says. But of course there are no photos. This is selective outrage.

Kazwini believes that the behaviour revealed by the photos is awful and the US soldiers involved should be punished. But he says some of the Iraqi prisoners shown were Saddam's killers and torturers. They have been responsible for far worse violations of human rights than the Americans.

Where is the outrage about this, he asks. I haven't seen

Re:Abu Ghraib and Cannes

Prison abuse sucks, yes. But here's why Abu Ghraib is on the front page, and those stories are not: They're Americans.

What was becoming known as the Iraqi Prisoner Torture Scandal is now known as the Iraqi Prisoner Abuse Scandal, or even the Iraqi Prisoner Mistreatment Scandal. The word Torture is quickly becoming the elephant in the middle of the room. We all know that those people in those photographs are being tortured. What else can one call it when a jailer pours acid on a prisoner's head?

We're all accustomed to seeing torture in movies, or on the news. But in these situations, the torturer is always an alien figure, usually over-the-top, characterized in broad strokes. The great cinematic torturers, such as Laurence Olivier in Marathon Man, or the captors in The Deer Hunter, have one thing in common: They're not Americans. The Vietnamese soldier photographed shooting his prisoner in the head: Not American. Lynndie England: American.

An American torturer is repellent, alien to our cultural mindset. We're so unaccustomed to the sight that it's doubly disgusting. The racist undercurrent of our popular media feeds back on us in this situation, and tells us that Americans, white Americans, don't do this. They're the good guys. But these soldiers are just average Joe and Jane America, and they did do this. We are they, and they are us, and that means that as a country, we are ashamed.

People in general don't deal with shame very well. We all of us, naturally, try to take shameful moments and acts and deal with them by softening the blow in our minds. One deals with the memory of keen embarrassment by finding the humor inherent in the situation. One deals with a past infidelity by rationalizing that since nobody will ever know, nobody will ever be hurt. The word adultery becomes fling, fling becomes indiscretion. These rationalized lies may even be necessary for us to move on with our lives, and not be locked into paralysis by our inability to deal with our darker natures. Certainly the press were quick to jump upon language which allowed them to lessen the shock. As anyone who's regularly read a newspaper in their lives knows, this is not something journalists are wont to do.

It is not yet time to move on. Let's at least agree in this instance to call it like it is: Torture. Americans, acting on behalf of America, tortured the hell out of these people.

Read it again. Say it out loud, hear it, listen to it, accept it. If you are a patriot, as I am, feel the way it hits your stomach and stays there, destroys your appetite, knocks down the straightness of your shoulders. Americans, acting on behalf of America, tortured the hell out of people. Don't let the words change for you, and slide the full truth of what has happened away. As one who loves this country, it's maybe too painful to look directly into the truth of this matter for too long. As one who loves this country, being seared by the shame our countrymen have brought down on us is a necessary step toward making things right. Gaze full-on into it, and let it make you humble again.

Stop your apologist comparison of the wrong thing we did in one situation to the wrong things other people do in similar situations, as if their abhorrent behavior somehow justifies or lessens the severity of our own.

Re:How is that relevant?

Bush & Co are certainly to be blamed for the appalling lack of planning of this entire operation. The behavior in the prison is a direct result of the intense pressure the Bush administration is under to "solve" the Iraqi problem; it's basically trickled down to military intelligence to get as much out of the prisoners as possible, using whatever means necessary.

As bad as the stuff in prison was, at least we don't resort to live decapitations, like Bergs or Pearl's in Pakistan. There's something about ANY political or religious movement that can endorse that kind of medieval behavior that's sickening, in the same way Nazism is.

Re:Where are the pictures from Saddam's era?

Oh, wait, we can't show the torture and murders that went on back then, that's not fair.

Once a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein becomes your moral compass, you have lost. Completely. Finito.

Re:Release it to the web!

I agree this (sic). I want to believe that Moore wants to crusade for the little guy, but he seems to benifit quite a bit from the corrupt system that he says he hates.

Yeah, his message has always been "its wrong to get paid for work you did", it sure wasn't "its wrong to destroy people's lives to make more money".

He also conviently forgets about the places he's exploited, like Flynt Michigan.

And its also wrong to move.
You should never move to another town, especially not if your hometown is an economic wasteland ever since the company that employed most people moved out. Also, never ever go live near where you will find the talent you need for your company. New York is no place for a filmaker to live, Flint has plenty of cameramen and editors and everything a film company needs...

Sheesh.

Message or Money?

Moore currently doesn't have a US distributor because of the Disney/Miramax situation, but Moore feels so strongly about the the content of Farenheit 911 and that American voters especially need to see the movie before the November election.

I'm personally not a fan of Michael Moore at all, but I will give Moore a lot of credit if he does what seems to be the best option right now: release the movie online, for free. If he does that, he shows that he isn't being a hypocritical war profiteer - he cares more about people hearing the message than the paycheck.

The petition to release the movie is here [moorewatch.com].

Some factual errors yes, but overall quite good

Movies, by nature, are not scholarly works. The power of movies is that they can appeal to a wider audience and more directly manipulate emotions. How often do you see citations in a movie? It's just not common practice.

That being said, I'd say bowling for columbine was rather good. Yes parts of it exploited sensationalism and there were some factual errors, but it :::did::: raise a number of excellent questions.

Also...give one of Moore's books a skim sometimes. I wouldn't have expected it, but Moore does a better job providing evidence for his claims then the supposedly more prestigious Noam Chomsky. Noam likes to make wild claims while assuming you'll take his word for it...Moore at least cites his sources.

-Chris

Re:Some factual errors yes, but overall quite good

Many of Moore's citations come from suspicious sources, though. Don't get me wrong, I like Moore, but when reading "Stupid white men", I noticed that, while his heart is at the right place, his facts on a number of things were more than a bit off.

I appreciate that he tries to give us an angle which is different from what the corporate media present to the average US citizen (and the world at large), but using Milosevic-era Serbian TV footage to shed light on the Balkan conflict is a bit like using WWII Nazi footage to shed light on the holocaust.

Michael Moore is a populist. That said, his sources and conclusions are often more reliable than those of the mainstream media, so his work is important. Just keep a healthy distance and don't accept everything he says as gospel. I'm sure he doesn't want you to either.

Re:Some factual errors yes, but overall quite good

Care to point to point two of such "wild claims" that Noam Chomsky might have made?

The last time I saw someone accuse Chomsky of not having a solid ground for his evidence (during a talk at the JFK school of government, video is online, and highly recommended) Chomsky came back with the exact quoation.

Very embarassing for the accuser ;-)

When he does talks, you will notice that he has a small piece of paper with his references to back up his assertions.

That being said, I would agree that Moore's books are easier to crunch through than Noam's.

My personal favorite Noam book (because its easier to digest, its a set of interviews) is called `Understanding Power', is a book that you can pick at any point.

Miguel.

Not Moore's to distribute

Even if Moore wanted to release the film for free online it's by no means certain that he could, given that it's owned by Miramax, not Moore himself.

While it's made by Moore's company, Dog Eat Dog Productions, the actual copyright resides with Miramax who are effectively paying Moore to produce a film for them.

Michael Moore is a bigmouthed troublemaker....

and, by God, America needs more of them.

Re:Michael Moore is a bigmouthed troublemaker....

if he really knows how to fix things and knows what would be best for the country, why doesn't he try running for the White House himself?

That's right, citizens! If you aren't able and willing to quit your life-long chosen career and devote the next 20-30 years to building up political capital for a presidential run, you have NO RIGHT TO CRITICIZE OUR DEAR LEADER BUSH! So shut up, pay your taxes, vote the way we tell you to vote, and let Dubya's grand vision for world peace, democracy, and unlimited oil unfold!

Re:Michael Moore is a bigmouthed troublemaker....

How else do you have "a government of the people, by the people, for the people" if the people themselves don't get involved? Acta non verba!

Sure... but running for President isn't necessarily the most practical way to get the changes you want. Take Ralph Nader as Exhibit A -- he's doing just that, and the most likely effect of his campaign will be a better chance of Bush being re-elected. In this case, I think Moore is using his talents (and he is a very talented provocateur/gadfly/showman) to promote change more effectivly than he ever could by becoming a politician (as you almost said yourself, people would never vote for him).

You don't need to be a millioinaire. You don't need to be a war hero. You don't need to be a lawyer or even have a degree. You don't need to have a full head of hair or perfect teeth. You need to have been born in the United States and you need to be at least 35. That's all.

That is the what they teach in the schools, of course... but I just don't see that happening in practice. In practice, you need to have truckloads of money to get your message out, and so you either need to be a millionaire, or you need to be able to milk money out of the people or companies that are... in which case you are now (to a greater or lesser degree) representing their interests instead of your own. The Internet helps somewhat in this regard, of course (see Howard Dean), but it's not enough IMHO.

You know what this country really needs? Another presidential election where nobody gets the majority of electoal votes.

You'll probably get it too -- the country is so evenly divided that the winner of the 2004 presidential election will very likely not have a majority. I don't see how it would help, though... two of the last three Presidential elections were won that way (2000 and 1992), and people pretty much shrugged it off each time.

What I think this country really needs is a well-devised system of public campaign financing (to make politicals less about who can best sell his soul to the special interests, and more about the interests of the voters), and a voting system other than winner-take-all, so that the "spoiler" problem is removed, and people are allowed to vote for the candidate they really prefer rather than having to vote strategically to block the majority candidate they dislike the most. Not that I'm holding my breath for either, anytime soon. :^(

Re:This is not "News for Nerds"

Personally, I place Moore in the same category as Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl.

Well, Riefenstahl made films that glorified Nazism. Among other things, Nazism was responsible for mass murder on an industrial scale and attacking most of Western Europe. I'd be interested to hear which group that Moore glorifies has done anything on that scale?

What does it all mean, Alfred?

Well, I agree there is a mocking tone in a lot of his comments, but they are definitely documentaries. The central aspect is always the hard facts. Actually, the only one I've seen in it's entirety was Bowling for Columbine , but it was very clear there which parts were facts, which parts were his opinion, and which parts were head games.

A lot of people claimed that movie was very anti-gun, but it was hard for me to conclude that. I'm basically kind of neutral on guns, and I didn't feel like the movie really said anything one way or the other on that part of it. I think it did try to make the point that Americans were too violent, even fond of violence, and that guns allow for more serious consequences, but I think we all know that. He clearly didn't like the NRA's political activism, but he didn't really go after the Second Amendment. At least I didn't notice it, and I certainly should have. (I think the Second Amendment was exactly what the Civil War was about--and it lost. Thanks and a tip of the hat to that great Republican Abraham Lincoln.)

It's going to be interesting to see how BushCo tries to spin their way out of this one. It sounds like he's just collected the facts and shown them in an ugly light--but very artistically. Dubya was probably not amused. Maybe it contributed to his little accident over the weekend? If so, BushCo better watch out for the klutz label. It certainly didn't help Ford in his campaign. (Interestingly enough, I never bought it at the time, and still don't. I don't know how a couple of clumsy stumbles got taken so far out of proportion.)

The Tarantino connection...

The linked article was a little slim on details, but I found the AP article [ap.org] that says that Tarantino was the president of the jury for Palme d'Or, and actress Kathleen Tuner [imdb.com] (of Baby Geniuses fame) [imdb.com] sits on the panel as well. Plus in other cool news, the AP article says that an edited-together 4-hour complete version of Kill Bill was shown. Can't wait for the special edition DVD on that one.

NY Times - June 17, 2000

Michael Moore's commitment to "free speech" ends when people do unto him that he does unto others.

A few years ago, Moore had an ex-employee arrested, when said employee tried to get an interview with him.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/regio nal/061700ny-col-tierney.html [nytimes.com]

June 17, 2000

THE BIG CITY
When Tables Turn, Knives Come Out
By JOHN TIERNEY

Michael Moore made a name for himself pointing cameras at cruel corporate executives and other enemies of the people. He stalked the chairman of General Motors, sent people in Puritan costumes to Ken Starr's home and set up a Web site with a camera trained on a window of Lucianne Goldberg's apartment.

But Mr. Moore does not appreciate being bothered himself, as Alan Edelstein discovered. After he was fired by Mr. Moore, Mr. Edelstein tried borrowing the technique Mr. Moore had applied to G.M.'s Roger Smith in the film "Roger & Me": showing up uninvited with a camera and trying to get an answer from a boss who has decided to downsize.

Mr. Moore responded by filing a complaint with the New York police accusing Mr. Edelstein of aggravated harassment, menacing and criminal trespassing. As a result, Mr. Edelstein was arrested in March and spent nine hours in a cell at the Midtown North police station.

The district attorney's office later dropped the case. Now Mr. Edelstein is suing Mr. Moore, alleging malicious prosecution.

Mr. Edelstein, who is 39 and lives in Park Slope, Brooklyn, was hired in 1998 as a producer on "The Awful Truth," Mr. Moore's show on the Bravo network. He was fired by a subordinate of Mr. Moore's after seven weeks.

"I was told that there was a budget crunch," he said, "but I don't think that was true. I later learned there were questions about my competence, which no one had ever raised when I was there. So I was angry at the way I was dealt with."

He had another reason for pursuing Mr. Moore with a camera. Mr. Edelstein, who was nominated for an Academy Award in 1985 for a documentary about a musician, was making a documentary incorporating scenes from his own life. "I thought footage with Michael explaining why I'd been fired would be useful for my own documentary," he said.

During a speech by Mr. Moore at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, Mr. Edelstein stood up with a camera and a bullhorn, a tool used by Mr. Moore outside the offices of executives. Mr. Edelstein demanded to know why he had been fired but didn't get an answer.

Mr. Edelstein twice showed up with his camera at the office of Mr. Moore's production company on West 57th Street near 11th Avenue. He filmed some employees but didn't manage to reach Mr. Moore. Later, he took his camera for a few more unsuccessful attempts to engage Mr. Moore at public events outside the office.

Mr. Moore says he complained to the police because he thought Mr. Edelstein had become a stalker who was a threat to Mr. Moore's family as well as his employees.

"If all he was doing was making his little film about me, I wouldn't have cared," Mr. Moore said. "But other people were at risk. This is a disgruntled employee who is a bit off his rocker. Everyone in the office felt there was considerable risk. The women in the office felt frightened for their own safety. Ask them. They'll tell you."

I asked several women, including one recommended by Mr. Moore, and none sounded scared. They said they found Mr. Edelstein a bit obsessive but otherwise mild-mannered and harmless.

"No one was remotely in fear of Alan in any shape or form," said Kyra Vogt, who was the office manager at the time Mr. Edelstein showed up with the camera. "Most of us thought the situation was comical. The only person who was paranoid was Mi

Re:Moore's films are documentaries?

I didn't realize these two sites existed. I visited them and read some of the commentary on problems they saw in the Moore films. For the most part, they REALLY miss the point in Moore's films, and their attacks on his films are misguided and clueless.

For example, in Bowling for Columbine, Moore wasn't including the scenes about the bank that awards shotguns to its depositers as an indication of how easy it is to get a gun. He was making a point about the absurd prevalence of gun ownership in the USA. Yet at the bowlingfortruth website, their point is that he misrepresented the amount of paperwork and legal checks necessary to obtain the actual firearm.

Sorry, but that just WASN'T the point. And NRA fanatics are probably not able to grasp the point of the film because their judgement is clouded by their unwillingness for any restrictions on gun ownership. I'm not saying NRA members, mind you; I'm referring to the fanatical portion of their membership, a minority I'm sure.

So don't be afraid that your opinion of Moore will drop after visiting these sites. If you liked Moore before, you will still like him; if you hated him as a commie liberal, you'll just have some cookie cutter arguments neatly packaged for you next time someone mentions him at work.

Heres some stuff that matters...

The real issue here is that companies get special tax breaks if the government likes them!? and you all think thats perfectly normal?!? WTF IS EVERYONE SMOKING??

Where?

This movie looks interesting. Where's the bittorrent?

Personally

I try to follow the policy of that anytime I see anyone using the words "liberal", "conservative", "left" or "right" in anything but an incredibly clearly defined context, I just stop paying attention to the person using them. The words just don't mean anything. And yet people try to reason about them like they're the key to understanding everything that happens in politics.

The problem is that since there's no commonly defined clear demarcation for "left" or "right", this means that people can play the neat trick of constantly reassigning those words to whatever is most convenient at the moment. A favorite tactic seems to be to "prove" something in a piece where you mostly talk about "left" vs "right" while constantly tweaking the definitions of both terms. For example, in one paragraph the word "right" might be used to refer to the current presidential administrators and its followers, in the next paragraph the Coulter/Limbaugh set, in the next libertarians; or in one paragraph the word "left" might refer to extremist feminists, in the next paragraph people who oppose the WTO, in the next current congressional Democrats. The neat thing about this trick is that if you're careful about how you skew your use of these terms, you can (for example) make a flat-out statement about separatist lesbian feminists and then trick the reader into thinking you've shown it applies to Bill Clinton.

Another favorite tactic, and the most common one, seems to be to define "conservative" to be "anyone I agree with" and "liberal" to be "anyone I disagree with", or vice versa...

I personally suspect that anyone that I can catch playing these linguistic games doesn't have anything worthwhile to say, since they're hiding behind ambiguous labels rather than actually arguing in concrete terms. So I try to ignore anyone who talks about "left" vs "right" without clearly identifying which groups they mean by those labels.

Unfortunately the false "liberal"/"conservative" dichotomy has saturated our culture so completely that this policy is very difficult to follow.