|
22 Jun 04 - 04:18 AM (#1211891) Subject: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: Bo Vandenberg This is a film about Bush & Iraq by the director of 'Bowling for Columbine.' It is supposed to come out on the 25th in N America. I really think its important for all sorts of reasons. Its actually a film I want to take friends to. There is so much right wing press, I hope this does really well. Sigurd |
|
22 Jun 04 - 11:19 AM (#1212135) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: Ben Dover My name is also my hobby. |
|
22 Jun 04 - 12:50 PM (#1212222) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: DougR Michael Moore, in a recent TV interview, stated that the film is intended as an Op-Ed piece, not a typical documentary. As we all know, an "Op-Ed piece" is a representation of the writer (filmmaker)'s point of view. If audiences view the film as such, rather than as a factual documentary, which, I believe, is what a true documentary is supposed to be, it becomes just another trip to the local theater. Unfortunately, most will probably take the film as truth. Parts of the film have already been proven to be incorrect (particularly the portion regarding Osama Bin Laden's relatives' flights out of the U. S. following 9/11) Moore has also taken a lot of heat from the author of Farhenheit 2001 because he did not ask permission to use the title of the film. I hope he sues his ass to pieces myself. DougR |
|
22 Jun 04 - 01:49 PM (#1212270) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: CarolC Moore has also taken a lot of heat from the author of Farhenheit 2001 because he did not ask permission to use the title of the film. I hope he sues his ass to pieces myself. I don't see how he could realistically expect to be able win a suit like that, considering the fact that Fahrenheit 2001 is a rip-off of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. |
|
22 Jun 04 - 03:02 PM (#1212324) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: Bev and Jerry He evidently didn't ask Ray Bradbury either and Ray's on his case too. Bev and Jerry |
|
22 Jun 04 - 03:11 PM (#1212329) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "Parts of the film have already been proven to be incorrect (particularly the portion regarding Osama Bin Laden's relatives' flights out of the U. S. following 9/11)" Doug, could you elaborate? What did the film show and what was proven wrong? |
|
22 Jun 04 - 04:55 PM (#1212397) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: Amos The person who is giving Moore "heat" is Ray Bradbury, the author of Farenheit 451, who feels his title is infringed upon by Moore's title. It is problematic, but who would want to ever offend a titan like Ray Bradbury?? :>) Farenheit didn't complain about Bradbury using his name, after all! DougR, I am looking forward to your answer about the inaccuracies you mentioned,. A |
|
22 Jun 04 - 05:08 PM (#1212406) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: GUEST,guest from NW "Moore has also taken a lot of heat from the author of Farhenheit 2001 because he did not ask permission to use the title of the film." for those of you unfamiliar with copyright law (i guess this includes you dougR) you can't copyright titles. so moore needs noone's permission for his title. plus the fact that he's not actually using anyone's title. the word "fahrenheit" is not copywritable either. so neither his ass nor any other body part will be sued on that account. nor should it be. "As we all know, an "Op-Ed piece" is a representation of the writer (filmmaker)'s point of view." as most of us know, all content contains a "point-of-view". you may not realize it, doug, but even foxnews has editors who decide what stories are shown and how they are presented. those people have a point of view, even if they act like they are "objective reporters". they just don't admit it as moore does. "Parts of the film have already been proven to be incorrect..." please cite some relavant news articles (not "op-ed pieces" like william safire's) that illustrate your point like other responsible posters on mudcat do. altho i suspect you generally subscribe to the method of logic your hero GWB uses (it's true cuz i say it's true!!) |
|
22 Jun 04 - 05:13 PM (#1212411) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: Nerd Actually, I bet DougR didn't see the film yet. That would mean he's just repeating what some right wing news outlet has said about it. As to hoping Ray Bradbury sues Michael Moore's ass to pieces, I don't think it'll happen. Could George Orwell's estate sue the makers of "Class of 1984" just because it had the same year in the title? With a resemblance as general as this one, you would have to show that there was confusion about whether the two titles were related. And the great thing is, if he tries, it'll just be more publicity for Moore, as when Bill O'Reilly tried to sue Al Franken and put him on the bestseller list. so you go, Ray! Sue away! |
|
22 Jun 04 - 05:15 PM (#1212413) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: Nerd Thanks to Guest from NW! I didn't know you couldn't copyright a title! |
|
22 Jun 04 - 05:16 PM (#1212415) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: Bev and Jerry Bradbury's not suing Moore. He's just giving Moore a hard time because Moore didn't ask permission to use the title. As far as we know, there's nothing of a legal nature involved. Just professional courtesy. Bev and Jerry |
|
22 Jun 04 - 05:29 PM (#1212418) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: Cluin The Bush/Bin Laden families' connections and the flights allowing the Saudi nationals out of the country (without being questioned) shortly after 9/11 when every American citizen was grounded was investigated pretty well by the Canadian news program W-FIVE last year (They also did a pretty good IR on the cover-up of lies surrounding US missile technology). I am looking forward to seeing Moore's take on things. "Bowling" was pretty damn good. |
|
22 Jun 04 - 05:33 PM (#1212420) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: GUEST What kind of idiot actually thinks Bush is worth defending? Four more years of this kind of crap and we can just kiss it "goodbye". What is funny is witnessing people like DougR trying in vain to justify what is unjustifiable. |
|
22 Jun 04 - 06:30 PM (#1212471) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: Bill Hahn//\\ Guest from NW: A wonderful tale is the Groucho Marx letter (probably can be found in his writings) that he sent to Jack Warner when Warner was going to sue them for using Casablanca (as in NIght in Casablanca--not one of their good films). Groucho urges them to go ahead since his countersuit will be that The Marx Brothers were there ahead of the Warner Brothers---so--"brothers" is theirs and woe if the Warners abscond with their name. Lucky for them, Groucho points out, that none or the brothers was named Jack or they would proceed with another suit. Bill Hahn |
|
22 Jun 04 - 07:19 PM (#1212506) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: DougR No, Guest NW, I AM aware you cannot copywrite a title. I hope Brandbury can find something else to sue over. Carol C: you caught me. It didn't sound right when I typed it, but I had a brain "you-know-what" I guess. Ron: I heard Moore interviewed on CNN (I doubt he would talk to Fox News)and I cannot remember who did the dirty deed. However the interviewer pointed out that the FBI did, in fact, clear the members of the Bin Laden family to fly back to Saudi Arabia and Moore, reportedly, says in the movie they did not. He also stated that the planes were allowed to take off while the nation's airliners were grounded, and this was not correct either. It was in the interview that Moored said that the film should be considered an "Op-Ed" piece, and as a newsman, I'm sure I don't need to explain the meaning of that to you. DougR |
|
22 Jun 04 - 07:26 PM (#1212516) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: GUEST,Desdemona I'm seeing it Friday night, and fully expecting to leave the theatre even more horrified by the whole situation than when I entered, which is sayin' summat! D |
|
22 Jun 04 - 07:36 PM (#1212523) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: Deda If you're in the Denver area and can spend some extra bucks, you can see it a day early: This Colorado premiere screening will be Thursday, June 24thÊ 7pm at the Landmark Esquire Theatre, 590 Downing Street in Denver.Ê Proceeds willÊsupport the important work ofÊFree Speech TV and Deep Dish TV.ÊÊ Ticket donations for this exclusive showing are $40. Tickets can be reserved by credit card at http://www.deepdishtv.org Tickets also available at the Boulder Bookstore 303-447-2074, the Esquire Theater before the show (if not sold out in advance) by phone Present Tense Phone line 303-938-1132 ÊÊÊ ÊÊÊ ÊÊÊ ÊÊÊ Julie Crosby, Free Speech TV, 303-542-4803 ÊÊÊ ÊÊÊ ÊÊÊ ÊÊÊ Brendan Schwartz, Deep Dish TV, 303-589-7016 Ê Urban Hamid, a CU-educated Iraqi-Swedish journalist and videographer, will introduce the film. Hamid was embedded with American troops during the invasion and on subsequent tours in December and January. His shocking footage of American treatment of Iraqi civilian detainees is featured in Farhenheit 911. The footage was originally obtained by Deep Dish TV from Hamid and was provided to Moore for his film. Deep Dish has just completed a series of 11 half hour programs entitled Shocking and Awful - A Grassroots Response to War and Occupation that will air on Free Speech TV this summer. The series contains more of Hamid's reports. Free Speech TV http://www.freespeech.org Deep Dish TV http://www.deepdishtv.org Present Tense Films Ê http://www.rmpjc.org/PresentTense/ |
|
22 Jun 04 - 07:48 PM (#1212537) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko DougR - I have not seen the movie yet since it hasn't officially opened, so I can't comment on what Moore said. You are correct about the FBI giving the Bin Laden relatives, but that is only part of the story. The complaint is that the FBI only interviewed family members at the airport before they were about to leave. Yes, they did give "clearance", but the question that people are asking is how through the check was. As for the flight, you are also correct when you say that when their flight left the U.S., the travel ban was over. What you are missing though is the fact that members of the Bin Laden family were flown to various assembly flights in the U.S., |
|
22 Jun 04 - 07:55 PM (#1212542) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko oops.. hit send by mistake... As for the flight, you are also correct when you say that when their flight left the U.S., the travel ban was over. What you are missing though is the fact that members of the Bin Laden family were flown to various assembly flights in the U.S - WHILE the travel ban was on. It should also be noted that many of the people who left the U.S. were students, and that many (if not all) of them had disowned Osama many years previous. This whole affair poses many questions - why were they allowed to fly in the U.S., how in-depth was their interogation, and why the secrecy? |
|
22 Jun 04 - 08:41 PM (#1212563) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: GUEST In an interview I saw with Moore, he said he got the title on 9/11, when someone emailed him with the title as an acronym for what had happened that day, but he didn't decide at that time to use it as a film title, because the film wasn't even conceived at that point, of course. While it invokes Bradbury's book about censorship, which does dovetail with Moore's examinations of the Patriot Act, I think Bradbury is being a jerk, and trying to get some free publicity and attention. As to the inaccuracies you are claiming DougR, Moore has hired an army of oppositional researchers, to correct/counter the well organized and financed right wing disinformation campaign, and says he will sue anyone who libels him this time around. He learned a thing or two from "Bowling for Columbine". Remember, it is VERY important to see the film opening weekend, and to bring families, friends, and aliens from other planets. The more people who see it opening weekend, the better chance of it being shown on more screens. "Bowling for Columbine" opened on 8 screens in North America. "Fahrenheit 9/11" will open on over 750! However, to put it in perspective, big Hollywood films open on 3,000 screens. |
|
22 Jun 04 - 08:42 PM (#1212564) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: Bill Hahn//\\ Good points, Ron. You will also find after hearing the 9/11 commission hearings and the findings by some authors of books on the subject that the people spoken of (Bin Ladn family members) did, in fact leave while a flight ban was in effect on "general"( if that is the proper term for non-commercial) aircraft that were given flight clearances. The question then is---who cleared that? Don't ever forget that Prince Bandar (spelling may be off here) is a personal friend of the Bushes--and very influential in getting things done---read "favors". To me---there are a lot of questions about this administration and its governance and loyalties to this nation that really have to be answered. Hopefully in November. We surely do not, I hope, want to continue in a manner that might make the pledge of allegiance sound like this: I Pledge allegiance to the profits of Carlyle, Halliburton and for all the owners for which it stands. Bill Hahn |
|
22 Jun 04 - 08:54 PM (#1212570) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: GUEST,guest from NW "However the interviewer pointed out that the FBI did, in fact, clear the members of the Bin Laden family to fly back to Saudi Arabia and Moore, reportedly, says in the movie they did not. He also stated that the planes were allowed to take off while the nation's airliners were grounded, and this was not correct either." since you seem to remember the interviewers points so clearly, dougR, do you happen to recall moore's reply to the challenge? was he allowed to reply or were these points made after he was no longer on camera? just curious. |
|
22 Jun 04 - 09:34 PM (#1212583) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: catspaw49 Damn you Bill Hahn!! I was really looking forward to telling the Groucho story!!! Oh well........ Spaw |
|
23 Jun 04 - 02:23 AM (#1212690) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: Devilmaster Thanks to those in this thread who saved me from explaining my point. You guys explained it better than I ever could. I can wait a long time before seeing Fahrenheit 9/11. |
|
23 Jun 04 - 08:16 AM (#1212802) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: GUEST DougR, apparently you and your right wing nuts aren't well versed in the art of the documentary film. A documentary film is ALWAYS presented with a point of view. Which is, I suppose, why we have a documentary film program on my local public television station called--wait for it--POV/Point of View. Michael Moore says he stands behind every single fact presented in the film. He acknowledges that as a documentary filmmaker, he must present generally known and accepted facts, as no one gets their own sets of facts (except the right wingers, of course, who ignore and defy them all the time), he uses cinematic techniques that presents them in his own unique and inimitable style of documentary film. Many of us appreciate that style as much as we do the substance, and Barbara Koppel has said that she thinks he has not only made the best and most powerful film of his career to date, but that he has created a new style of filmmaking that we will be seeing for years to come. That is quite the achievement for a filmmaker. As to the content, if the worst complaint that can be made is that it isn't a "fair and balanced" examination of the Bush administration, my response is, American mass media coverage isn't fair and balanced reporting either, which is why this type of documentary film becomes so important. It is an entirely necessary exercise to provide some much needed balance to the skewed reporting and journalism that is the hallmark of American mass media coverage of politics. The collective conventional wisdom of the American mass media in the wake of 9/11 has been proven wrong again and again. The supposedly most distinguished and revered institutions of journalism have, in the past year particularly, been proven to have gotten "the facts" spectacularly wrong, and to have grossly distorted their so-called news reporting by being "patriotic". They don't teach you to be patriotic reporters at journalism school--that is a tactic and practice that is handed down by editors and news directors, who are looking to please publishers and media owners. And finally, I'd just like to say the Ten Years After song for the trailer is fucking brilliant. |
|
23 Jun 04 - 08:38 AM (#1212816) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: GUEST Or as the logo for AlterNet says: "The mix is the message". |
|
23 Jun 04 - 01:30 PM (#1213008) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: Nigel Parsons Of course, as there's no copyright in titles, perhaps Bradbury could arrange for a mass re-release of the book 'Fahrenheit 451' with a new cover showing two stacks of books (positioned to resemble the Two Towers) and make a fortune. Possibly he could arrange for the film to be re-released too! Nigel |
|
23 Jun 04 - 02:07 PM (#1213034) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: DougR Bill: as I recall, Moore was given an opportunity to reply and it is my recollection that he stuck by his version. I should think when the 9/11 Commission releases it's final report a lot of these questions will be answered. To set the record straight, I have no problem with Moore making his film. He admits that it represents his point of view and that he wants to see Bush out of office in Novemeber. That's his right. It is my right not to support his POV with my entertainment dollars knowing in advance that the information he is presenting may be questionable, and that his POV is not the same as mine. DougR |
|
23 Jun 04 - 02:24 PM (#1213044) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: GUEST Yes DougR, you do have those rights. But I think you should try and open your mind up a bit, and actually see the film. Of course you don't have to see it. But really, considering your level of interest in politics, I have to say I'm really surprised you don't want to see it for yourself. And if you don't see it for yourself, nothing you say in conversations about the film will have any validity whatsoever. As to the accuracy of the information in the film, the conventional political pundits have all vetted the claims in the film, most of them without ever having seen the film. The issue seems to be coming down to the facts in the film are very accurate, and the sources are conventional news sources of mainstream journalism institutions. Footage is provided by both American and non-American journalism sources. The "fact" that has been challenged by the Newsweek article misses the point entirely. Moore didn't have access to the most recent revelations of the 9/11 commission, so first off, it is only fair to say that it is perfectly reasonable to allow there may (not that there will, but that there may) be a fact or two that turns out to be different from what Moore claims in the film. That is a given in any continuously unfolding non-fiction narrative. The 9/11 story is still unfolding. We can't condemn Moore or the film on the basis that he used the best information available at the time, that later turns out to be inaccurate, false, misleading, etc. The bin Laden family being hurriedly flown out of the country being 'approved' by the FBI is still an issue, because anyone with any common sense knows you should never allow that many people with ties to the main suspects in a criminal investigation, to flee the jurisdiction. The FBI and the Bush administration should have held the bin Ladens and Saudi royals while we had them, and they should certainly have been rigorously interrogated as to what they knew not just about bin Laden, but about all the shady Saudis involved in the 9/11 plot. To let them go only days after the attack is a disgrace, and a slap in the face to the American people, especially those who lost loved ones in the attack. So sure DougR, you are fully within your rights not to see the movie. But by not seeing it, I think you will be missing a lot. Even though I don't agree with Fox News, I do still watch in on occassion, if for no other reason than to be informed. But stick your head in the sand if you want. It isn't going to change the fact that this is a watermark in American film, as well as a watermark in the political discourse of our day. |
|
23 Jun 04 - 02:45 PM (#1213063) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: GUEST Try this http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ Its by Christopher Hitchens |
|
23 Jun 04 - 03:02 PM (#1213075) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: Nerd Well, if there's anyone more smug, self-righteous, self-obsessed and partisan than Michael Moore, it's Christopher Hitchens. At least Moore is self-deprecating; Hitchens is venally focused on deprecating his perceived enemies. |
|
23 Jun 04 - 03:12 PM (#1213081) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: GUEST I agree 100% with you on Hitchens, Nerd. Guest 23 Jun 04 - 02:45 PM, Slate is a subscription only site. Could you give us some information or quote some excerpts of the article? |
|
23 Jun 04 - 03:31 PM (#1213096) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: GUEST Oops, sorry there Guest 2:45. I just read the screed. Predictable elitist moral absolutism. What an ass. If you had your choice, who would you rather have a few brewskis with, Moore or Hitchens? Stating that Michael Moore's filmmaking style doesn't match Sergei Eisenstein's or Leni Riefenstahl's is supposed to be a criticism? Give me a break. He criticizes Moore for being scatter shot, when being scatter shot is a hallmark of his film style. And I suppose this line is intended to be legitimate film criticism too: "He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction." Yawn. How terribly British of you there, old chap. Then there's this statement, and what it reveals about Hitchens, not Moore: "I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either." That's the moral absolutist Hitchens for you, trying to suck somebody else into his narrow black and white paradigm, where Moore clearly doesn't reside in thought, artistic body of work, or promotional deed. Apparently, Hitchens is most outraged that there is no outrage against the 9/11 terrorists, as if every polemic against attacks must contain some obligatory oblation to the Gods of American Imperial Patriotism. I couldn't read the whole bloody thing, and not because I disagree with Hitchens opinion. I couldn't read it, because Slate couldn't be bothered with editing that bloated windbag's mind numbing and eye crossingly long paragraphs. If the Slate editors can't stand to edit Hitchens, then I fail to see why I should bother myself with wading through his venal, spiteful rants. I think Hitchens hates Moore because people tend to like Moore as a person, but loathe him. |
|
23 Jun 04 - 03:39 PM (#1213100) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy dilemna, the film opens this Friday, and last week the local chain (as opposed to National chain) of theaters that has booked it decides to lock out the union projectionists and hire lower paid part timers. I will not cross the picket line, so I will have to wait till the DVD is released. Would love Moore to come join the picketers and discourage them from seeing his own movie! |
|
23 Jun 04 - 03:46 PM (#1213105) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: GUEST Nah! This baby is the summer anti-blockbuster, Bill. If the number of screens keeps growing to meet the demand as they appear to be (the film was originally scheduled to open on 350 screens, and it will now open on over 850), you'll likely see F9/11 at your national chain too, so you can thumb your nose at the anti-union local jerk too. |
|
23 Jun 04 - 03:49 PM (#1213106) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: Nerd Here's a Hitchens excerpt: A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off. The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. What Hitchens does NOT mention is that Bush took as many vacation days in three years as Clinton did in his entire eight years. In other words, it's perfectly true that Bush takes a whole lot of vacation time. This is the kind of disengenuous crap Hitchens likes to push. Or take the following: To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Using Clintonesque legalistic mumbo-jumbo, he gets to call the movie childish names while claiming that he's actually NOT calling it childish names. To call Hitchens an overblown self-important windbag would be intemperate; to call him a lying sack of shit would (to use his own phrase) risk a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental; to call him a poor wounded ex-liberal who on feeling raped by Clinton was transformed by victim's rage into a bizarre self-caricature would descend to mere pop psychology. Let's just say he's neither fair nor balanced... |
|
23 Jun 04 - 03:56 PM (#1213109) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: GUEST Or rational. The guy is a flaming loonie. |
|
23 Jun 04 - 06:53 PM (#1213203) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: Peg I saw it last week in a press screening. Very powerful stuff. Moore does not make his presence felt in the usual grandstanding ways, he acts more as a commentator, an editorializing analyst, as he offers his take on the news media footage he has selected to prompt and provoke people to really think about some of the connections he proposes...the Saudi royals and the Bush family's close ties, for example... The footage of Dubya staring blankly into space in the moments after he heard about the Twin Tower and Pentagon attacks is absolutely priceless...as are his sound bytes about declaring war on terror right before he slices into a gold ball on the putitng green... I did not like the way Moore spends so much time on a grieving mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, in his hometown of Flint. It seemed a wee bit exploitative to me. But most of the other content was extremely thought-provoking and insightful. I tend to agree with the points of view espouses here and think Moore does our country a great service by trying to get beyond what the mainstream media dishes out. I hope everyone in America sees this film. Don't miss the first five minutes. |
|
24 Jun 04 - 03:19 PM (#1213698) Subject: RE: BS: Can't wait for Fahrenheit 9/11 From: GUEST So today, the neocon Republicans have gone to the FEC, to try and get the ads for the movie banned under campaign finance laws. They're starting to look as bad as the anti-Nader Democrats in Arizona. From ABC News: "WASHINGTON June 24, 2004 — A conservative group asked federal election officials on Thursday to investigate whether television ads for director Michael Moore's anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" violate campaign finance law regulating when commercials may feature a presidential candidate... ...The group Citizens United contended that commercials for "Fahrenheit 9/11" fall under federal campaign finance law. Regulations prohibit the use of corporate money to air ads identifying a presidential candidate in the 30 days before his party's nominating convention and the 60 days before the Nov. 2 election. Bush will be nominated by the GOP during its New York convention Aug. 30-Sept. 2. Citizens United argued that "Fahrenheit 9/11" ads that identify Bush and are paid for with corporate money should be banned after July 31." |