« Marine Taken Hostage | Main | Iraqis Control "Their Own Destiny" »

Things that make you go hmm...

Ok, so let me get this straight. The top selling film at the box office - a film which has made 20 million dollars already - is a purported documentary whose sole purpose is to discredit, disgrace and oust the sitting president. Who is paying to see this film? Why, the very people who cry that America is now a police state where dissent is crushed and our civil liberties have been taken away. Strange, that.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Things that make you go hmm...:

» A Good Question... from Cuz We Said So
...from A Small Victory Ok, so let me get this straight. The top selling film at the box office - a film which has made 20 million dollars already - is a purported documentary whose sole purpose is to discredit,... [Read More]

» Link Love - The Worthy Cause Edition from INDC Journal
Pledge update completed, let's get on with the link love for blogs that have generously donated money and/or publicity for my pledge drive. First up is Michele of the one "L," proprietor of a little known blog called "A Small... [Read More]

» More Rope-a-Dope? from blogoSFERICS
You know, I meant this comment, on this post by Michele, to be funny. But then I read this (via Little Miss Attila), and I got to wondering. The relevant portion is here: This month, some Republican leaders demanded that the film not be allowed to adve... [Read More]

Comments

Black is white, up is down, fat is thin...

...Cheech is Chong, Kerry is electable, dinner is ready...

I did the math and figured that Ted Rall must have seen the movie about two million times this weekend at a Manhattan movie theater.

Actually, Rall is pissed at Mikey for not inviting him to the movie and now Rall refuses to do anything nice for Mike, like review his movie.

Why, the very people who cry that America is now a police state where dissent is crushed and our civil liberties have been taken away.

I was thinking the same thing. If nothing else good comes from this movie, at least it'll shut these fat fucking cretins up about the "chill wind" or whatever.

As for the box office: It's a tiny minority of extremists.

I paid to see it and have claimed none of the things you mention.

Why oh why do you lay out the welcome mat for the moonbats?

Oh, wait - cause its easy like that - sorry.

And now, for some reason, the left is suddenly in love with profits.

Ted Rall is an asshole, but I saw the movie Friday night. It was really emotionally jarring, especially the war scenes. It's easy to forget how horrible war is.

My favorite line in the film is when Moore says that the men and women in the armed forces are willing to lay down their lives for America, and we owe them a debt that we can never repay. And all they ask in return is that we never send them to war unless it is absolutely necessary.

Better make your choice, Glenn: you either (1) didn't see the movie; (2) have claimed all of those things; or (3) got the ticket for free. In any event, we can all agree that you're a tiny extremist minority and have hypocritically embraced profit-making after a lifetime of moonbat leftism.

I'm more concerned about people who see Garfield: The Movie, personally.

Mike Myers better not be Garfield, is all I have to say. The Cat in the Hat as a yenta. Gghah.

Come on folks, like the guy in the other post said, Dale Earnhardt Jr. endorsed it!!!

I actually went and saw the movie. I'm not lefty, and love capitalism. And even moreso complete dislike Micheal Moore.

I'm going to write something up on my blog soonish about it because there were some parts that were good, along with a lot of crap. Mind.

And by the way, why do you conservatives refer to us liberals as "moonbats"? I thought Rev. Moon supported the Republicans.

War is Peace

Love is Hate

Shit is Shinola

Didn't see it and I'm not a leftist moonbat.

This still bodes very bad for the boy in Washington though. Seems he can't even manage a good case of slander against the charges promoted in the film.

Thats just gotta hurt.

I'm a leftist moonbat and have no intention of paying for it. I have this silly concept that documentaries should contain, you know, facts.

I'll probably scoop it up P2P at some point just to see what everyone is talking about but really can't see paying for it. I don't want to line Moore's pockets and my conscience really won't allow me to put any more food on that boys table. Besides, I blew the charity fund over at MoveOn. Anyway, good socialist that I am, I just know the information in the movie wants to be free.

Here in Vegas, MoveOn.org protestors are assaulting moviegoers!

(Link opens in new window)

Michele: Who is paying to see this film? Why, the very people who cry that America is now a police state where dissent is crushed and our civil liberties have been taken away.

Strange, that.

You don't think John "Crisco Kid" Ashcroft would have stopped us from seeing it if he could? I mean, really-- you people had an internet campaign to send letters to the theater owners to intimidate them to refuse to show the film. Now you make it sound like we're supposed to thank you for preserving our freedom.

Just listen to your tone:

...a purported documentary whose sole purpose is to discredit, disgrace and oust the sitting president.

I know damn well you think it should be illegal to show it.

You hate us for our freedom.

Riesz

What's illegal about writing letters? Or is it the usual leftist position of "freedom for me, not for thee"?

I know damn well you think it should be illegal to show it.

Nice to know you read minds. Do you also read the future? Got some Lotto numbers to share?

I'm sorry to see that liberalism, a wonderful political position, has been coopted by the left, and by a left which has embraced all those elements that are decidedly anti-western (ie Islamism, socialism, communism, fascism).

MM's mastubatory endeavor is propaganda without even the artistic genius of Leni Riefenstahl. It's a religious experience for the koolaid drinkers and won't even rate more than a historical footnote for thinking Americans.

You don't think John "Crisco Kid" Ashcroft would have stopped us from seeing it if he could?

Oh, another crock. Care to point out where the naysayer internment camp is as well? Trying to invent more 1984 nonsense I see...

So, Darleen, I take it you saw the movie? Cuz you said it is "without even the artistic genius of Leni Riefenstahl".

Just askin'.

Did I need to see the beheading of Paul Johnson to declare it indecent?

I've seen "Triumph of the Will" ... exceedingly creepy due to what one knows of the politics, which makes the art of it even more sinister. And it contain no lies. Amazing piece of propoganda.

I'd have no problem spending $7.50, but my TIME is much more valuable. I've read and seen enough in trailers and clips (and interviews with MM, a man as slovenly in his 'thinking' process as he is with his personal hygiene) I don't need to waste the 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back sitting among the cultists. MoveOn is among those taking "to the streets" to promote this mockumentary. I'd no more give $$$ to a film recommended by them then I'd give to a film recommended by the KKK.

Now, tell me what is illegal about letter writing?

Strange, that. You don't think John "Crisco Kid" Ashcroft would have stopped us from seeing it if he could?

Y'see, people, Ashcroft is a fascist, and really wants to curtail all freedom of speech. Really. I mean, despite the fact that Ashcrost hasn't made any attempt to do so and our buddy Reisz has no proof that that is what Herr John wants to do. Reisz knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, and he knows that conservatives secretly hate freedom of speech.

I mean, really-- you people had an internet campaign to send letters to the theater owners to intimidate them to refuse to show the film.

"You people?" Excuse me? I must have missed the part where I signed off on that, or showed any kind of support for any such idea.

I guess this is Reisz point #2: if SOME conservatives do or believe something, they must ALL believe it. We're the borg, I guess. Reiszistance is futile.

Now you make it sound like we're supposed to thank you for preserving our freedom.

Wow, did you ever miss the point on that one. Whoosh, right OVER your head. Swing and a miss, and any other cliches I can come up with.

Just listen to your tone:

...a purported documentary whose sole purpose is to discredit, disgrace and oust the sitting president.

I know damn well you think it should be illegal to show it.

You hate us for our freedom.

You "know" it? Oh, right, it's the whole "conservatives secretly want to take away our freedoms" bit again. Hey, I guess if you've got one argument, you can milk it for everything it's worth no matter how wrong it is. I mean, I wouldn't want to force you to reconsider your apparent belief that everyone who disagrees with you is Pure Evil™ and just wants to lock you away... that would be wrong of me.

I mean, here I thought that Michele just disliked Michael Moore, didn't intend to see his movie, AND WAS EXPRESSING HER FREEDOM OF SPEECH BY STATING HER OPINION ABOUT MOORE'S MOVIE...

I guess I was wrong. Michele, when you take over the government, can I have a high-ranking position in the Gestapo?

You don't think John "Crisco Kid" Ashcroft would have stopped us from seeing it if he could? I mean, really-- you people had an internet campaign to send letters to the theater owners to intimidate them to refuse to show the film. Now you make it sound like we're supposed to thank you for preserving our freedom.

What was Riesz' reaction to the boycott against Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage radio shows & their sponsors? Their tv shows? Spare me this indignation about "letter writing" campaigns from the right, as if the left has never attempted to censor views they dislike.

Oh, and just in case anyone thinks this big opening for Moore's film is any big news, I'd just like to remind them that "Batman and Robin" did 42 million dollars its opening weekend.

Batman and Robin.

"Fahrenheit 911 Pounds of Fried Cheese" is currently enjoying the surge of the already-converted, who've just GOT to see this movie. It won't last, and my guess is that the box for the movie will drop fairly rapidly they see it.

"as" they see it, dammit. Preview is my friend.

I'm a leftist moonbat and have no intention of paying for it. I have this silly concept that documentaries should contain, you know, facts.

Then you're not a moonbat. Riesz, on the other hand, does seem to be a moonbat, based on his belief in his ability to read minds. (It's got nothing to do with Moon, Riesz. I've seen righty moonbats, too, but most of them seem to be in the middle of their eight-year hibernation cycle.)

Big Brother has a point. F9/11 has been a subject of great anticipation by Moore's fans. They'll all see it in the first couple of weeks, and then the numbers will plummet. (It was the same, sadly, with the MST3K movie.)

Angie,

I wish it was the same. ;-) My home town never even got the MST3K movie. I didn't get to see it until it came out on video.

I've been reading about F9/11 for weeks now. About the fifteen frikkin' minute standing ovation it got at Cannes. About Morre's lies about Disney distribution. On and on and on. Of course Moore's movie is going to open big. People like Reisz are going to line up and see it as if it was some sort of grand revalation from God ("Hey, Mooore just implied that Bush was bad! BRILLIANT!!! I never would have expected that."), but there's not as many of them as they'd like to think. They'll see the movie first thing, but the fact is that most of America couldn't care less. Once the initial burst is done, it'll drop. Remember, Spider-Man 2 opens Wednesday, a movie that has far more to do with reality than Moore's film.

Riesz, politically I'm pretty far left and have expressed my concerns about the Justice Dept, the Dept. of Homeland Security and an activist and/or partisan Supreme Court both here and other places. However, your contention that there was some sort of right wing conspiracy to prevent the showing of this film doesn't hold up very well.

Of course John Ashcroft would rather it wasn't shown. I'm sure there are millions of others who agree with him -- people have opinions and I doubt that Ashcroft and Moore share any two (well, except for the arrogant conviction that they know what is best for everyone else). The point is, there wasn't anything he or anyone else could do to stop it. Lions Gate, in contrast to Disney/Miramax, decided they could make a buck distributing this film. Theatre owners, despite the letter writing campaign (or possibly because of it, there is no such thing as bad publicity in show business), decided they could sell tickets.

Hence, the movie is in the theatres. It's very simple really and as long as people buy tickets it will remain in the theatres. When they stop buyng tickets it will vanish as quickly as the last masterpiece from the Olsen girls.

Myself, I think it's a good thing the movie is being seen, reviewed and discussed. Even the most vocal administration supporter has to acknowledge in light of the released portions of the upcoming 9/11 report, procedural concerns about the alloting of NGO contracts in Iraq, the administrations continuing close relationship with Saudi Arbia and the ongoing Plame investigation that there are legitmate questions that deserve answers. I don't know what those answers are, but anything that pushes these concerns to the fore is of some benefit.

I'd like to think that gathering the facts to make informed decisions is important to all of us.

Well, Darleen, I just think the movie might be a real eye-opener for you, and you're on shakey ground as far as criticizing it if you haven't seen it.

You know, you don't have to like Michael Moore, or agree with his politics, but the guy is pretty smart. When he was 18 years old and still a student at Bentley High School he ran for the school board and won a seat. So he was the principal's boss.

He may not be as great a filmmaker as Leni Riefenstahl, but his movie won the Palme d'Or (sp?) or whatever, at the Cannes Film Festival.

I think you'll find that the movie is very respectful toward the troops. He doesn't blame the war on them, and in fact he always sides with the little guy.

I encourage you to check it out and judge for yourself, don't take other people's word for it.

Now, tell me what is illegal about letter writing?

My point was that many (not all) (I don't want to piss off Big Brother) conservatives tried to keep the movie from being distributed. That's not illegal, or even wrong, but I just thought it was funny that Michele was taking credit for our freedom to see it when so many on your end of the political spectrum would have preferred that we didn't have that freedom.

I don't believe I'm on shaky ground at all, Riesz. I'm not a movie reviewer, I'm just a citizen expressing my opinion, based on what I've learned about the movie about why I won't see it.

I don't think I've ever characterized MM as "not smart." Intelligence and moral character are not corollaries.

And do please understand that censorship can only be done by government fiat. Writing letters, marching with signs, even organizing boycotts is very American and very protected speech.

BTW... IMHO (which is held by others too) MM's "award" in France has the same moral cache as Jhimmi Carter's Nobel "Peace" prize.

Backpedalling, Reisz? You go from

I know damn well you think it should be illegal to show it.

to

That's not illegal, or even wrong, but I just thought it was funny that Michele was taking credit for our freedom to see it when so many on your end of the political spectrum would have preferred that we didn't have that freedom.

Quote me the passage where Mishele is "taking credit," Reisz. C'mon, I want to see her exact words. What she ACTUALLY WROTE was

Who is paying to see this film? Why, the very people who cry that America is now a police state where dissent is crushed and our civil liberties have been taken away.

Are your reading skills at the high school level? The POINT of her post is that the very same people who bitch about living in a police state are going to see a movie immensly critical of those in power. AND NO ONE IS ARRESTING THEM. No one from the Bush administration is throwing them into camps. Michael Moore has not disappeared into the night. No one will be knocking at your door tonight to drag you away for what you've posted here today, despite all of your fantasies about what John ashcroft would suppostedly like to do to you.

Do you get it? That's not "taking credit" for anything. I don't know how much more clearly it can be made. Next time, read the post before you comment.

Now, as for me, I'm not going to be seeing this movie. Michael Moore does not get one Moore dollare from me, ever. I saw "Bowling," and there's two hours of my life I'll never get back. You want to see it? Knock yourself out.

I'm sure that the movie isn't all lies. I'm sure there are a couple well-done moments in it.

But I'm not going to see the movie.

Neither would I dig through a 500-pound pile of cow dung to find a couple shiny new nickels and for exactly the same reason. Sure, you have ten cents, but you just spent a couple hours digging through feces to find them. That's not worth my time.

Oh! I went and saw the Harry Potter film today.

Now THAT was worth both the price of the ticket and the time in a theater seat. I heartily recommend it.

Michael Moore sure does like canoles.

Michele, I look forward to seeing your predictions proved correct.

Honestly, I believe the Left will implode before November. I don't think they'll be able to keep functioning too much longer.

(And I dearly hope that I'M correct on that prediction.)

Everyone in America will see the Moore movie, Kerry will win, and Kerry will sign an executive order declaring Glenn Reynolds illegal. It's gonna be fun ;-)

Are your reading skills at the high school level? The POINT of her post is that the very same people who bitch about living in a police state are going to see a movie immensly critical of those in power. AND NO ONE IS ARRESTING THEM.

So, let me see if I'm getting this: Michele's point is that a group of people had a concern that something terrible was taking place and that concern hasn't been realized? That's her point? Her whole point? She's not suggesting that people who are worried about that kind of thing are idiots or anything?

Things that make you go hmm indeed.

Would this be a good time to make a comment about people who are constantly freaking out about terrorist attacks on the U.S. that don't happen? Maybe make a crack about Michele applying one of her many double standards to people she disagrees with? No? Would that be a waste of time?

Yes. Of course it would.

jonnieQtsie

Far be from me to speak for Michele, let me give you my opinion on this.

From Tim "chill wind" Robbins to tag-team Democrats screeching about their patriotism being questioned, they do think they are living in Ashkkkrofistan, and that the black helicopters are scooping up dissenters to secret bunkers as we speak (did you hear that knocking at your door right now??). Not one person who trots out the "shredding the Constitution!" line can ever cite one case of jackbooted thugs dragging off "critics" of the administration. But you know, thinking and logic don't really have a place in anti-American Leftist dogma.

And in case you missed it... terrorists HAVE struck right here in the USA... WTC TWICE, and with terrorist organizations quite upfront and vocal about wiping out Jews and American Crusaders where ever they can. "Freaking out"? Care to give a cite to a "freak out"...maybe right after the cite you have to a case of "crushing of dissent."

Step away from the koolaid, if you can.

Darleen, there's no point in trying to debate Johnny Q. 9/11 may have happened, but it's all chimpycowboybushitler's fault anyway. So was the '93 attack and the Cole and the embassy bombings.

Michele is just "freaking out" because she lost people she knew. I guess that's not a big deal for Johnny Q. Maybe if there were some more attacks he'd feel better.

If you guys somehow read into my post that I'm taking credit for your freedoms, then there really is no point in trying to debate with you because it's obvious you see/hear only what you want to see/hear.

Oh, and there's a huge difference between someone wanting to stop the film from being seen and having actual laws on record that stops it from being played.

Reisz says: I know damn well you think it should be illegal to show it.

Damn, that's a pretty good trick. Quick, what am I thinking now? Oh, damn, wrong. I was actually thinking "My god, that Reisz guy sure knows how to twist words around so they support his theories!"

Me. That's who.

"And in case you missed it... terrorists HAVE struck right here in the USA... WTC TWICE"

and civil liberties were trampled during the civil war, world wars i and ii, and during the hoover, mccarthy, and nixon eras. and there's more im missing im sure. it's been worse, but the threat is still real. it's not implausible to think that when the executive branch expands its power (through the patriot act in this case), it'll abuse it. hell, i thought that's something conservatives worried about. not everyone in guantanamo bay is a terrorist. college activist groups have been infiltrated. torture is encouraged by this administration. none of this is a leftist conspiracy theory, but it all of it IS something to be concerned about if you give a shit about human rights.

Billy, YOU'RE missing the point. They are screaming about "crushing of dissent", yet no one is stopping them from doing anything.

Michael Moore complains about people complaining about his movie, Mike Farrell complains that refusing to pay to see movies is McCarthyism, the DNC complains that Republicans compared them to Hitler (when all they did was show what the left puts in its ads), the list goes on.

Yes, the threat is real. That's why we need to make sure it doesn't happen. But the whole point is, don't complain that it's happening unless it actually IS.

And please try to back up your assertions.
civil liberties were trampled during the civil war, world wars i and ii, and during the hoover, mccarthy, and nixon eras.
And the Constitution and Supreme Court recognize that war time is not the same as peace time (and the "trampling" went away after the war). That's still a long way from claiming it is currently happening.
it's not implausible to think...
Many things are "not implausible" - absolutely irrelevant except for the matter of vigilance.
not everyone in guantanamo bay is a terrorist.
So? The only ones who aren't were Taliban regular army. All others are being treated far more humanely than required.
college activist groups have been infiltrated
Proof? I've seen nothing on this
torture is encouraged by this administration
Blatant fucking lie. The only interrogation techniques approved cannot accurately be described as torture.

"And the Constitution and Supreme Court recognize that war time is not the same as peace time (and the "trampling" went away after the war). That's still a long way from claiming it is currently happening."

The problem is that this war is a little more open ended. For example, if the war was intended to force a regime change in Iraq (re: Germany, Italy, Japan) it's already over. On the other hand, if the goal is to rid the world of terrorism, it's not likely to ever end. There will always be some asshole willing to chop a head off to make a point. The raises the question of when, exactly, we can expect a return to peacetime norms.

As far as 'trampling' goes, that seems a little extreme to me. I don't feel particularly trampled or downtrodden and clearly dissent is alive and well. That said, it's not exactly black and white. While I don't anticipate being hauled off to Guantanamo any day soon I do see a gradual erosion of long cherished rights to privacy, chinks forming in the wall between church and state and a continual insistence that if you disagree with the administrations means you also disagree with the desired ends. Nobody is in favor of terrorism, however we're not all willing to pay the same price to stamp it out on a global scale.

Well, Allah said way up the thread that the movie's not being shut down would shut up the moonbats. Way to throw down the gauntlet, Ever Merciful One. Of course You knew they couldn't pass up that challenge, didn't You? ;-)

torture is encouraged by this administration

What now? The Bushies are actually encouraging people to see the movie? What?

Why is it that some people are so unwilling to see this movie? I mean is one afraid that they may actually agree with some of the things you see and you may begin to reevaluate your views on the current adminstration?

Drew, I do plan on seeing it. But I think I'll download it off of a P2P program. Because, you know...everything should be free.

Or remind me and I can pick up a copy from the street guy for a low price.

Hopfully everyone will see it and then share their views on it. Interesting to see if any before/after are different.

Reisz - I think you'll find that the movie is very respectful toward the troops. He doesn't blame the war on them, and in fact he always sides with the little guy.

Moore recently said:

"I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let.."

Moore also calls the ultraconservative Islamist insurgents who are killing our soldiers 'minutemen'.

(Ex-?) Naderite Michael Moore doesn't like John Kerry, but he avoids the issue because he knows his audience. Democrats love him but he doesn't love them back.

He doesn't side with the little guy, he always sides with big fat guy - millionaire Michael Moore.

I want to scream.

Again with the "trampling of civil rights" crappola from people who don't seem to have a grasp of the historical and legal precedents, not to mention the reality of the current situation!

Does Ex parte Quirin ring any bells? UCMJ (specifically Article 104)?

No?

Then do read, carefully and thoughtfully, this legal analysis, American Bar Association Task Force on Terrorism and the Law, Report and Recommendations

By the way, Al, I interpret your remarks, and correct me if you wish, that you reject the old-fashioned liberalism of JFK (I mean the real JFK- John Fitzgeral Kennedy) and are squarely in the leftist-liberal camp (JFK liberalism wasn't left). As illustration, please do cite me one contemporary liberal political position that is not a leftist one.

"I mean is one afraid that they may actually agree with some of the things you see and you may begin to reevaluate your views on the current adminstration?"

Don't know about anyone else, but I'm skipping it because I've seen every one of his points and accusations on the Internet, for free, already.

It would be a waste of time and money to listen/look at the propaganda he and his ilk have been spewing for months, years actually.

Darleen, I'm not clear on how I can answer that. I don't know what a 'contemporary liberal' is and I don't know how your defining 'leftist'. Are we talking Nader left, Biden left, or Lenin left? Left of what? Hell, I don't even know where the center is.

This is why these discussions are so frustrating. Your idea of liberal values may (are likely) be quite different than mine and I'm trying hard to avoid pigeonholing people based on any particular view. Do keep in mind that it is possible to be pro choice and pro arts funding while also believing in a strong defense and fiscal responsibility.

Al

I talked specifically of JF Kennedy's liberalism. Do address that.
Kennedy advocated four major positions -- lower taxes, expanded military, the use of American power to fight evil, and the centrality of God to American life and to morality.
Not one of those points are considered "liberal" today. Contemporary American liberalism is rarely distinquishable from Marxist based leftism. It emphasizes the "personal as political", class struggle and is, to greater and lesser degrees, anti-capitalist. It is also hostile to the military, to nationalism, traditionalism and religion.

Do you disagree?

Thoughts and impressions from friends(I have yet to see it maybe tonite):

Roommate(master's in PoliSci starting his Phd at UC-SD): Called it disjointed. He loved Bowling and was looking forward to this. He also invoked the dread Remi comparison. The conflux of imagery and presentation is literally designed to make you hate Bush. He felt this was red meat to the partisans. He was wavering on Bush(he has a libertine flavor to his GOP roots) but stated he was so pissed off he may vote for him now.

Friend: She's not politically active and voted for Nader in 2000. Was not a likely Bush voter. She was pissed after it but the most telling comment was that she wasn't sure everything presented was true. We are planning to see it together.

Neighbor: Likely Kerry voter but since we're in CA Ralph still has a shot. He thought it was decent, not nearly as good as Bowling. Laughed his ass off at what he called the built in cheering section(apparently 20 people went nuts whenever a point was made).

Those are just brief impressions. Hopefully I'll be able to add my own soon. This much I'll say for Moore. My roommate hated the film but called his cinematic treatement of the 9/11 a thing of beauty, the best he has seen.

Why is it that some people are so unwilling to see this movie? I mean is one afraid that they may actually agree with some of the things you see and you may begin to reevaluate your views on the current adminstration?

No, just not willing to give someone like Moore any money. I've already researched what he pulled in Bowling for Columbine and don't have any desire to see what he'll do in this one.

"Why is it that some people are so unwilling to see this movie? I mean is one afraid that they may actually agree with some of the things you see and you may begin to reevaluate your views on the current adminstration?"

Why are you attempting to shame people into seeing the movie?

I am planning on seeing it let's refraim from cult brainwashing tactics to get others to see it.

What's next a circle of shame to explore why we don't like Michael Moore and how that can be corrected?

Sheesh. Y'all think that MM actually had artistic or political or 'visionary' reasons for producing this film? It was for money people. No other reason. At all. He's a film maker, nothing more, nothing less. No different than Speilberg or the pasty-faced kid with the Super-8 you knew in college.

See it, don't see it, whatever... Just don't plan on getting any more factual information from this film as you would get from, say "Lord of the Rings".

>> MM's "award" in France has the same moral cache...

uhhhh, awards have nothing to do about morality...it's all about polishing the ego (and any cash prizes that come with it).

Personally, I find it funny that suddenly everybody is an expert on documentaries:

'Is the label "documentary" appropriate for this openly activist movie? Of course it is, unless you cling to some idealized notion of "objective" film that bit the dust at least as far back as 1922, when director Robert Flaherty passed off re-created settings and events as factual footage to enhance the realism of his generally true "Nanook of the North."'

-Christian Science Monitor

Oh, I see: because truth is a construct of language, it's objectivity can never be determined. Therefore, all truths are contingent. Therefore, all truths are relative.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong.

Just because, the pomo materialist universe, there is no available metaphysical position from which to declare with certain objective "truth" does not mean that Michael Moore can say whatever he wants.

This is about intent. "Documentarians" who deliberately and knowingly distort connections, misrepresent images, or leave out important facts known to them so that the impression opposite of what the facts show is left on with the viewer, is a propogandist.

So please, stop trying to justify the conflation of the documentary form with manipulative propaganda by introducing into the conversation irrelevant observations about the nature of language.

Try paragraph 3 again: "Just because, IN the pomo universe, there is no available metaphysical position from which to declare with certainTY THAT SOMETHING IS OBJECTIVELY TRUE does not mean..."

I've decided that tonight I am going to see a documentary with 9/11 in the title.

You know, a REAL documentary, not a propaganda piece.

Big Brother

I found it interesting that documentary was shown only ONCE on broadcast TV. I even wrote CBS several times around both annual remembrance days asking whether they were going to broadcast it again, and if not, why not.

Never got a reply.

Not really surprised.

Of course not, Darleen. They don't want people all riled up and remembering how they felt on September 11th, 2001. That wouldn't serve their purposes, especially as an election draws nearer. Can't have anyone knowing there are psychos out there who want us dead.

too many comments.

it isn't a police state yet. That takes time and finesse. If there is another terrorist attack, I'm sure it will speed things along.

This film is for people who've already made up their minds and just want reasurance that thier voting the right direction.

It's not going to convince a hard like Bush supporter to chuck in a ballot for the oposition man.

In a real fascist state, Moore would have been shot during the filming of Roger & Me.