Mitch Cronin Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I just saw that movie last night... Good grief! If Americans only even wondered about the possibility of half of the truths just barely illuminated within that flick, surely Bush wouldn't stand a chance... The good news is that it's available to rent now... too bad it probably won't be shown on TV before the election! Well done Michael Moore! - my only criticism would be that he spent far too much time on the lady from Flint who later lost her son... I understand why he did, but still that's where he almost lost me... the sleepiest part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaEH Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Eligibility rules for the Acadamy Awards stipulate that a movie cannot be shown on TV less than 8 (or is it 9?) months after a movie has been released in theatres or it will not be considered for a nomination. Michael Moore has made it clear that he is willing to sacrifice a nomination (which he will more than likely get) in order to have the documentry shown on television. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croc Dundee Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 An eye opening film, for sure. The best part, IMO, was when he asked all the congress people if they would like to enlist their kids to participate in the Iraq war. No one signed up! As you know Michael Moore is quite controversial due to his 'unique' view on life and very strong opinions. I happen to be one of those who shares most of his views. However there is a film coming out soon called "Michael Moore hates America" which is an anti-MM documentary. That should be interesting as well. Mitch - you know that this thread will likely degenerate into a slagging match of differing opinions on America, the war, MM, etc. Let's see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted October 21, 2004 Author Share Posted October 21, 2004 I don't know much about Michael Moore, but it seems likely to me that he couldn't have done that film without some serious dedication to what he believes America should be, and the American people. Hatred of the Bush administration, and what they've done, doesn't instantly translate into hatred of America. In my mind anyway... but as I said I know very little about him. As for the debates that may come... that's probably good for us all, and far better than having to drag out some more of the Monty Python stuff for the WJ vs AC slagging matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groundeffect Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 MM was merely the conduit as it were. The Bush league has spooled out oodles of rope during the last 20 to 50 years, to hang themselves, as documented in the press if one cares to look. Hell,Prescott Bush(GWs grandfather) lost his millions when he got 'busted' for banking for Hitler. The Canadian media has aired a few great programs which totally back up MM's claims. Unfortunately, the American public are very susceptible to rhetoric and false promises. Every one should see that film, if only to open the floor for questioning in my opinion. The other night on Pasionate Eye, a CIA operative was interviewed...the fact that Bin Laden's family fled the USA without being questioned at least, boggled his as well as any thinking persons mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croc Dundee Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 One thing is for sure, he researches his subjects to the nth degree. How did he find the footage of Bush Jr in the 70's?? Amazing archived footage. Did you see "Bowling for Columbine"? Again, IMO, an excellent film on the gun culture in America. Well worth the rental charge. He has also written some books, one titled "Stupid White Men". Good reading. From what I have heard, you either love MM or hate MM, there is not much middle ground. Either way, I think people should view his works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groundeffect Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 'Love him or hate him' I think that can be attributed to gwb as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stargazer Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 As always, two sides to every story: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MURRAY Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Also: www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.2189/pub_detail.asp www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groundeffect Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 It's true the film employed 'artistic licence' MM never claimed otherwise. He claims to be a film maker...not a political wannabe. The facts are facts and at least the Canadian media has taken the ball and run with it to some extent. Why did gwb sit for over 7 minutes doing absolutely nothing after hearing about the second liner striking tower 2? Why were the Bin ladens not questioned about their wayward relative? Why were they the only people allowed to fly, let alone flee? There are several great questions not sufficiently answered by the Bush league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Also: www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.2189/pub_detail.asp www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm Glad you posted that MURRAY..... I agree with the "two sides" theory. I've seen everything he has produced and lets face it...it's not going to sell if it's completely transparent. Anyone who has rented the BOWLING....DVD and watched the interview with MM can begin to understand that this guy has some real bias. Hey, it's entertainment...but don't believe everything you see in the movies C'mon MURRAY use the http:// tag for us ...make it easy for us old guys who don't like to "copy and paste" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 The BBC has just started running a TV series called "FEAR" or "How to whip your populace into mass hysteria so they focus on hatred of another group, and don't pay attention to us politicians ripping them off blind, behind closed doors" Noam Chomsky could not have been more correct with his premise of Manufacturing Consent. He should write a follow up called Manufacturing Contempt. What many of us in the west feel towards our governments and, coincidentlly, what many eastern "fanatics" feel about theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stargazer Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 groundeffect I spotted this quote: a spokeswoman for Moore told the Washington Post that “Moore did not intend to suggest that the Bin Ladens flew away while civilian flights were grounded”— Yet, that is exactly how you read the situation after viewing the film. The 911 commission states that the Bin Ladens didn't leave the US until AFTER normal flights resumed. I am by no means a Bush fan, however; MM is making a ton of money feeding a lot of people BS and 'his' view of the truth then hiding behind "artistic licence." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gumbi Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 One thing for sure... Although I haven't been on this earth for that long , I've never seen so many books on a US president that's been in office only 4 years, must be something there... Also, did anyone watch "The Passionate Eye" last weekend? I think they did a great job as well depicting the many "interests" of the Bush Clan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipped Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Michael Moore is a "Big Fat Stupid White Man" read the book. http://moorelies.com/book/ For a more balanced view rent the move DC 9/11 - A time of crisis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Kip; re your comment, "Hey, its entertainment..." Of course its entertainment. How else are you going to get a population accustomed to not questioning and just sitting back with arms outstretched waiting for the entertainment injection, to watch a film about serious stuff? And you are right about not believing everything one sees in the movies. But you have to acknowledge that this film isn't "Titanic", (sorry, Dion is on my mind lately... ). Its obviously intended to wake people up and get them to ask questions. Of course we ought not to believe everything in film, print or pixel, but crap detectors are few and far between and require...work, and from an armchair that's tough slugging. The act of "not believing" requires one of two courses of action...a light dismissal followed by a visit to the kitchen to see what's in the fridge before the nightly news, or a pause, a reflection, perhaps even a real question and then maybe even a real discussion... ? One choice allows things to continue as they are (until they came for me, etc etc... ) and the other choice takes a bit of work but is an act of democracy, uncomfortable though the results may be for special interests. Michael Moore in my view goes over the top in some aspects of his work. Does that invalidate it? I don't think so. He's using "local" techniques and in other countries, such dissident views would find a different expression. (I recognize that in some countries, such films can cost one one's life and that the freedom to do this is part of the American dream. I agree completely. However, freedom without expectation of results is a hollow and cyncial process. Why are voter turnouts so low. Because the population knows this intuitively. The government of the day had to "manage" the activist 60's and it drove special interests underground, forcing a re-assessment of how to deal with (or contain? ) a cantankerous and questioning population. As I have written before, the Third Reich spoke with admiration at the ability of the US to control its population through the processes first examined by Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays. In observing the phenomena of the manufacture of consent in politics, Orwell wrote, "Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip but the really well-trained dog is the one which does his somersault when there is no whip." "Consent of the governed" is not a principle embraced in American politics. Dissidence is tolerated precisely because it cannot breach special interests. Today the manufacture of consent through the creation of fear, uncertainty, mystery, ceremony and even joy is a very sophisticated enterprise. I think Mitch's comment emminently applies here: Moore's view of his country is not very pretty or flattering but neither is an eyes-wide-open view of the United States. The issue is not whether Moore is right but whether this is an act of love of one's country or an act of "anti-Americanism"? That such a question should even be posed in a democracy begs the question itself ! As I have enquired elsewhere, what does it mean to be "anti-Norwegian", or "anti-Italian"...? Such notions are laughable. But not in the United States. Loving one's country means one takes care of its founding principles and nurtures it as it grows. (Borderless economies also beg the question of what it means to be a "country" these days, but that is another discussion! If a country's soveriegnty and independance can be bought and sold through economic pressures, what is a "country"? ) Today however, while the American population satiates and bloats itself with endless mind-numbing entertainments including the nightly "news" all truly worthy of the adjective, and consumes its way into personal economic penury (anyone taken a look at personal debt numbers? ) and intellectual oblivion, Washington carries on, tolerating the once-every-four-year "democratic" interruption in their private business of running the world according to peculiar definitions of "democracy". At least the discussions are taking place in some arenas including this one, (tho' let's not delude ourselves... ), but the disgusting, expensive and insulting performances of both the Democratic and Republican Election machines have set aside serious public discussion that needs to take place between the American people and their leaders and instead brought "entertainment" to the process, much of it right in tune with the current TV reality-show fad a la Gerry Springer. If Michael Moore's film is "just" entertainment Kip, this nation needs more "entertainment". Last night I wrote to a close friend who is, along with many friends, exceedingly anxious about the outcome not only of this election but of the course of actions that US hegemony will take regardless of who "wins". The prospects are not promising. "I don't wish to dismiss X's concerns [regarding Bush winning] in re the future of the United States but in all likelihood they are misplaced as in the end it very likely means little as to who gets in. Certainly in the immediate sense, the grim despair which would accompany a 2nd Bush Presidency would bring a cold palour to the nation like nothing since 9/11 itself, but if one examines the history of this . . . violent nation and perhaps read a bit of history, say, even of the Romans, Ghengis Khan, the early Spain, the latter Great Britain, we recognize that it is a matter of degree and given today's weapons, sophistication, and not any comparison to a milder, gentler time in which mankind was "safe", which perhaps causes X (and all of us!) angst over November 2. The election, like the US media itself, is a ruse of "liberal democracy", a level of participation which is "allowed" every four years but after which the population is expected to go away and continue consuming and/or watching. As the US has proven time and again, true democratic protest by its own citizens can cost one's freedom and even one's life, (Kent State, etc). "The United States, like all pre-emptive military nation-states as you well know from your own studies of other nations, is an extremely violent state. A President Kerry, like the glowing and now-elder-statesman President Carter who received the Nobel Prize for Peace but who presided over the bloodiest period of the decades-long slaughter of East-Timorese by the US' friend General Suharto, will fall, likely not reluctantly once the mantle of power is gifted in January, into a similar stupor of his own and of Washington's imaginings and simply carry on. "The documents now being released from the Kennedy-Johnson period reveal now, the truth of what others, primarily Chomsky, have written since the late '60's; That the war in Vietnam was an invasion of South Vietnam and not a defence against the North. Similar truths exist regarding Latin America, Cuba (which the Soviets had yet to be-friend when the US invaded it in 1959 after it had broken away from Spain and had become an independant, truly democratic state, a fascinating story itself), Chile of course, Grenada, Panama and economic "discipline" of Thailand through the World Bank and the IMF, a practise which is exercised in near and far Eastern countries with the exception of China and North Korea. "The selling of fear is the main occupation of the US media which falls sycophantically into lockstep with Washington's official views. As we discussed on our walks, US corporate heads have concentrated media ownership to the point where independance, though it may exist, is meaningless. The American people, generous to a fault, have been courted and led by successive Stromboli's and as far as they are concerned, "Why do they hate us?" remains a legitimate question which the election will answer. "Business, the heart of the United States (and much more), needs a bovine populace to continue the economy while the true enterprise of the state carries on unseen and unquestioned in between sham elections. Not that there is any such thing as a conspiracy between these great powers...not at all. Government is the shadow cast by business and the world's affairs are governed by how congenial other countries are in embracing this special form of American democracy. The true tragedy of this and the last election is that neither candidate is able to perceive, let alone discuss this view. There can be no conspiracy, nor dialogue, when one believes one's own propaganda. "There are pockets of intelligent resistance, little of which will be found in those assumed repositories of true democractic or liberal thought - the universities -, for such are notoriously conservative and conserving near the boundaries between popular and "revolutionary" thought. Those pockets scream out to be heard and I know some of those places to which they go but the immediate dismissal of left-wing bleeding hearts and Bush's defensive statement regarding the lack of support for "our soldiers" drowns out intelligent dialogue every time. Bush, with the limited equipment he possesses is unable to engage the nation's true concerns. "In Canada, we are prisoners of US hegemony. Currently, the US Ambassador to Canada is attempting to create fears in the hearts of Canadians as we ponder our support for the US missle defence system, a project which has a long, long history of abject failure and which, like most military programs, is really about largess for the Pentagon and for American business, (Newt Gingrich and Lockheed, etc). "As we talked about, once the principles are understood, the actions of the US make complete sense. Trouble is, regardless of who is elected, our very survival on the planet is what is at stake and that is something neither candidate is capable of seeing except in "power" terms. The US comprehension of "survival", which may not be too far from some of Hollywood's efforts, is on the same level as their intention to bring "democracy" to Iraq by bombing it and killing its civilians, (between 13000 and 15000 according to iraqbodycount.net) so far and that doesn't count those killed through US sanctions. "This depressing view is only mitigated by an equally reassuring history of the outcomes of state brinksmanship. History's documents reveal we came closest on October 27th, 1961 to a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union. A submarine lieutenant intercepted the order to fire missles when the US blockaded Soviet vessels and did not obey*. Today, with much fissionable material unaccounted for, the danger in unstable hands is clear, the delivery has always been the problem except for North Korea. Yet we survive, turning away at the last moment. Not a nice game of chicken. "The importance of being a witness and holding to account by speaking up has never been more critical however and if X can find some measure of solace in these actions alone, (which I believe to be immensely positive and even effective - take a look at the campaign, even given the above views) then at least for one's lifetime, all (as the phrase goes) is not lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croc Dundee Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Wow, I wish I could write like that! You are a great writer in my eyes. I need a beer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Hey Croc...I'll join you...Guiness or something less frothy? (Lessee, somewhere there's a symbol for Geenisss )... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingjockey Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 For another documentary that is a real eye opener and not quite so political I would strongly recommend "Super Size Me". It is largely due to this movie that McDonald's stopped super sizing their orders. Although I see that they are slipping back with the monopoly game. I find it very hard to go with the kids to McD's now or for that matter most fast food burger joints Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Super-size me ?...ok, I'll try to find it. I haven't seen 9/11 yet but may get around to it. We found Wendy's about the best in kid's food...early on, (pre 1990) they had salads, chili and fresh stuff on their burgers. Can you imagine working an eight-hour shift in McD's? Come home smelling like fries. Yuk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croc Dundee Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 I managed a DQ for a while. After cooking burgers all night I could hardly see out of my glasses for the layer of grease! Not the best moisturizer out there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 McDonalds Chickem McNuggets NOW made with seasoned white meat......What the @#$% were they made with before????? B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rookie Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 For another documentary that is a real eye opener and not quite so political I would strongly recommend "Super Size Me". It is largely due to this movie that McDonald's stopped super sizing their orders. Although I see that they are slipping back with the monopoly game. I find it very hard to go with the kids to McD's now or for that matter most fast food burger joints They only stopped supersizing in the states. In fact in Canada, with their new monopoly game, you have to supersize to get the game pieces. (we all have weaknesses ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JakeYYZ Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 The link is to a new film that’s an informative and entertaining look at the four years of the Bush Administration It’s a short film (20 minutes), with a tone quite unlike MM’s 911. Well worth watching. GDR may wish to avert his gaze….lest he turn to a pillar of salt. There's something about W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted October 22, 2004 Author Share Posted October 22, 2004 with a tone quite unlike MM’s 911. ...I just watched all 5 of the little shorties in the link you posted, and I found they had a tone very much like MM's f-9/11... a typo on your part? Anyway... I think I've come to the conclusion that GWB should not just be defeated in this coming election, but he should probably also be imprisoned for his incredible acts of deceit and obviously corrupt and selfish intent. He and his administration seem to have have done more to destroy America than anyone else I'm aware of. ...including BinLaden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.