Fahrenheit 911

[Lex]

So.... anybody see it yet? Do you think that only people who already agree with him will go see the movie? Will it attract Bush supporters and fence straddlers?

I'm going to check it out tonight. Moore's tactics are pretty out there. I did view the trailer (http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/) . The last scene of Bush playing golf is.... disturbing. :eek:

[St0n3y]

I try to avoid propoganda.

[St0n3y]

An interesting article about the "facts" presented in the film.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek

One of the more telling lines:

“Moore twists and bends the available facts and makes glaring omissions in ways that end up clouding the serious political debate he wants to provoke.”

[seobook]

“Moore twists and bends the available facts and makes glaring omissions in ways that end up clouding the serious political debate he wants to provoke.”

news printed on MSNBC would likely tend to favor large corporations and the people helping them bleed the country. I am not saying that Moore's movie will be the best at not omitting stuff, but who ever actually gives you ALL of the news?

in the past even the Wall Street Journal partnered with MSN to help determine the outcome of the browser wars. news is a very dirty and often somewhat selective and dishonest business.

[Lex]

Has anybody seen it yet? I couldn't get in, it was sold out.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

> Moore twists and bends the available facts and makes glaring omissions

I don't really see what makes that any different from the majority of other news and documentaries we see ... Also, who ever said a documentary had to be objective? Off course he is bending the facts as much as he can to prove his case. I am not saying it's good or bad just that it's not something that makes Moore very outstanding :)

Sometimes I wish we where back to the good old days of quality jounalism when jounalists followed leads to uncover interesting storries - now it seems most of them have decided on the story they want to tell in advance and are just leaving the office to collect "evidence" to support it. Moore is probably as guilty in that as most others in his field.

However, with all the limitations of modern journalism I do personally think Moore does it better than most. I enjoy his documentaries and shows.

However, I do not think his film will directly affect people that do not agree already. He will not make people change their minds on a large scale but his films does surve another purpose, I think: It gives all the people that agree with him a voice. It puts the "case" on the top of peoples minds (at least for a while) creates headlines and unite likeminded people. It makes them stronger. So, indirectly I do think Moores films, like all other well created films, books, music and any artform can change people.

[seobook]

I don't really see what makes that any different from the majority of other news and documentaries we see ... Also, who ever said a documentary had to be objective? Off course he is bending the facts as much as he can to prove his case. I am not saying it's good or bad just that it's not something that makes Moore very outstanding :)
yes, but he is doing it against the poor indefensible president. he must be an evil person.

Sometimes I wish we where back to the good old days of quality jounalism when jounalists followed leads to uncover interesting storries - now it seems most of them have decided on the story they want to tell in advance and are just leaving the office to collect "evidence" to support it. Moore is probably as guilty in that as most others in his field.
with enough money you can probably prove and print any news you would like.

However, I do not think his film will directly affect people that do not agree already. He will not make people change their minds on a large scale but his films does surve another purpose, I think: It gives all the people that agree with him a voice. It puts the "case" on the top of peoples minds (at least for a while) creates headlines and unite likeminded people. It makes them stronger. So, indirectly I do think Moores films, like all other well created films, books, music and any artform can change people.
it also has a few other purposes. it gives republicans a case study for how crazy some liberals are.

it also creates this sort of feedback (or meta data if you will) which many people are exploiting for profits just like moore is, but on the other side of the fence.

in the future you will be able to tell the success of anything based on how many people are advertising a product against that person, company, or idea.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I think you find a wide array of crazy people across the enire political scope :)

[seobook]

I thought that movie resonated rather well with me. The single biggest takehome from the movie is leadership through fear is not really leadership.

It reminds me of when I was in the navy. I met the best leader I have ever seen (this is you Master Chief Troy Myers wherever you are). I also met some of the worlds crummiest leaders who felt the need to punish people who did not understand them, or try to manipulate people using fear. These were some of the worste human beings I have ever met. Eventually I will write a book to "promote" them :)

There is also a bunch of conspiracy theory type stuff (or stuff that says did you know how this relates to that).

Even if you believe that the tale is one sided and leaves a bunch of truth out of the story you should remember that:


we do not do our best work (and are not really alive) when we live in fear.
fear drives us to do irrational things we would not normally do.
leadership through fear is not really leadership.

[St0n3y]

Leadership through fear? The only fear mongering I see is from people like Michael Moore and those trying to scare the bejezus out of everybody with their hate-bush routine. Leadership is about doing whats right regardless of public opinion. If a leader tells the truth, especially in these days of terrorism on our own shores, then fear will certainly play a role, but not fear for the sake of fear, but fear for the sake of being prepared to do the right thing. I believe we went through 8 years of a president who decidely DID NOT lead on these important issues of national security, because he wanted to paint a rosy picture so the boat would not be rocked during his administration. Unfortunately, when you refuse to deal with important issues sooner or later they deal with you.

[seobook]

Leadership through fear? The only fear mongering I see is from people like Michael Moore and those trying to scare the bejezus out of everybody with their hate-bush routine.

we all have our own reality goggles we put on in the morning.

I am not saying personally that Bush is bad or Moore is good, just generally from my own experiences that leadership through fear is not really leadership.

I will also state that some of what Moore stated in that movie was wrong. things like "Iraq that never killed a single American" are somewhat out of line with reality.

his documentary was obviously biased and one sided but it was eye opening nonetheless.

[St0n3y]

eye opening nonetheless

lies usually are, that's why they are told.

[seobook]

lies usually are, that's why they are told.
indeed this is true.

[Kal]

Leadership through fear? The only fear mongering I see is from people like Michael Moore and those trying to scare the bejezus out of everybody with their hate-bush routine. What about Bush trying to scare the bejeezus out of the world with his accusations of "weapons of mass destruction"? Moore is just presenting HIS opinion and HIS take on the whole scenario. That's what freedom of speech is all about. I wonder if some US media agencies have the cajones to stand up and report all the facts? Or do they cower down to political bullying and network $? In my opinion, Moore is just trying to get Americans to look at the issues beyond the media bias and political hype.

[St0n3y]

What about Bush trying to scare the bejeezus out of the world with his accusations of "weapons of mass destruction"?

so you're saying it would be better to just ignore the evidence so nobody gets scared by the facts? Sorry, I don't want a leader like that. We had 8 years of that before and who knows, maybe a little fear of the possible could have prevented 9/11.

[NetinsertGuy]

Out of a pure coincidence, I read the latest Moore book "Dude, where's my country?" on the plane back from China (the guy next to me lent it to me when he was finished).

It is a political pamphlet, and it is a biased document. Nevertheless, it gives you a completely different picture of american politics than the one you get in the official news media. In that regard, it is an interesting contemporary document of our time, and it is a worthwhile read.

I think the upcoming presidential election in the USA will be one of the most interesting events happening this year...

[AdamJewell]

Moore's timing was perfect, hopefully it'll encourage more than 50% of the US population to go out and vote this year and elect who ever the best candidate may be.

[pleeker]

we all have our own reality goggles we put on in the morning.

I am not saying personally that Bush is bad or Moore is good, just generally from my own experiences that leadership through fear is not really leadership.

That's kinda funny, because I clicked that link to MSNBC and saw this big animated advertisement that went like this:

"What if Bush won the election by only 500 votes?"

"REGRET is EXPENSIVE. As little as $50 can help elect John Kerry."

Talk about "leadership through fear." Let's scare them into a vote! Hold on, here's the ad right here (http://spe.atdmt.com/b/M0SHCJK04JKP/KER0413I_300X250_A.gif).

As for the original question, I've no intention of seeing Moore's story. I'm generally repelled by the blowhards on both sides, like Moore and Limbaugh, who have mastered the art of manipulating truth to fit their own vision of reality.

[Shak]

I am off to watch it in a few hours, so shall report back with me findings.

Shak

[St0n3y]

I think a 2-hour bowel movement would be more exciting... and would probably contain a lot less crap. ;)

[Kal]

so you're saying it would be better to just ignore the evidence so nobody gets scared by the facts? Sorry, I don't want a leader like that. We had 8 years of that before and who knows, maybe a little fear of the possible could have prevented 9/11.So where's this evidence?? That's right, Bush is yet to produce it. Even Tony Blair had to admit they didn't find anything and he made a mistake. But someone had to pay for 9/11 right? Might as well be Iraq :rolleyes:

But I don't want to derail this thread into a political argument so back to the topic. Haven't seen the movie yet but looking forward to it. For me, Bowling for Columbine was one of those films you keep thinking about for weeks. It certainly contained a lot of bias but beyond that was much food for thought. I'm very curious to see what this one is like.

[St0n3y]

Aside from the argument of whether the intelligence believed by the U.S. (Past two administrations), U.K., Russia, France, Germany, the U.N. and more, actually turns out to be true or not, the fact remains that the WORLD believed saddam to be in the WMD business. To not act on that intelligence, especially after 9/11, would have been folly and completely devoid of any kind of real leadership. Isn't that what the whole 9/11 investigatinos are about, finding out if we SHOULD have acted before we did? Well now we did act, based on intelligence, and of course the same people are clamoring to have it both ways. He didn't act/he did act. Throw in a few lies and we have a case for impeachment!

[Lex]

Hey St0n3y,

You've made your political views quite clear. This thread is about Moore's movie so please confine your comments to specific reference to the movie.

I'm still curious about it... hoping to go see it tonight.

[Shak]

Well I had a superb afternoon in London yesterday and experienced a sell out showing of the film.

someone else who has seen the film posted their views to the bbc website, and I thought I might aswell do a cut n paste, as that is exactly how I would describe it:

================
I think there's nothing new in it for the already cynical. But, it
will be an eye opener for those on the right who haven't adopted the
ostrich position. You have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by
the second half of the film irrespective of your views, and for that
reason alone I especially recommend this film to people who think the
concept of a pre-emptive war is sound!
Richard, Glasgow, UK
================

Shak

Lex >>> enjoy the film, and remember Pop-corn is for eating, NOT throwing at others ;)

[St0n3y]

Hey St0n3y,

You've made your political views quite clear. This thread is about Moore's movie so please confine your comments to specific reference to the movie.

I'm still curious about it... hoping to go see it tonight.

My apologies. Didn't mean to get off topic and I'm certainly not trying to force my views on others. Just enjoying good ol' bantering.

[seobook]

I think there's nothing new in it for the already cynical. But, it
will be an eye opener for those on the right who haven't adopted the
ostrich position. You have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by
the second half of the film irrespective of your views, and for that
reason alone I especially recommend this film to people who think the
concept of a pre-emptive war is sound!
Richard, Glasgow, UK

that is a great review independant of political alliance. I did find it kinda disturbing how exploitative Moore was of that one lady (in much the same way he was with the rabbit lady in Roger and Me), but sometimes you need to show pain and loss for people to see things as they effect other people, and he did an exceptional job of activating emotional response in the audience.

[St0n3y]

sometimes you need to show pain and loss for people to see things as they effect other people

Very true, but where is the balance. Where is the pain and loss from those under Saddams Regime? What about the pain and loss from the future victoms of Saddams alliances with terrorists and his pursuite of WMD (active or otherwise)? Can't show the latter because we can only monday morning quarterback.

This is why Moore's films are so disturbing. He twists facts to fit a pre-determined outcome, rather than actually trying to show all the facts. I think in a matter as serious as this it serves and EXTREME injustice to truth and the lives of all Americans to deliberatly only show partial facts and twisted truths.

[seobook]

Where is the pain and loss from those under Saddams Regime? What about the pain and loss from the future victoms of Saddams alliances with terrorists and his pursuite of WMD (active or otherwise)? Can't show the latter because we can only monday morning quarterback.

We were not asking these same questions when we were giving Iraq biological weapons while they were actively using them on Iran or when they were using them to slaughter off their Kurdish population.

The single biggest problem when you pull anything out of context is that "it is out of context." When it is us suddenly issues become much more important, but we should not forget the news from when I was 9 years old.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&q=iran+air+290+dead&btnG=Search

There are a ton of what ifs and we all have an opinion. I think it is great that Mr. Moore was able to express his opinions in such a moving way.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

> I think in a matter as serious as this it serves and EXTREME injustice to truth and the lives of all Americans to deliberatly only show partial facts and twisted truths.

I ask again, how does that make More any different from the majority of other news and documentary makers? As others have said, Mores is just expressing his oppinion and view of the world. If this is what he believe is the truth he should be allowed to tell it jut as anyone else is free to give their version.

What is the truth? Most often I do not think there is just one big objective truth. It could be nice and easy if there was but most often all we have is oppinions. And thats fine.

Are you telling me that one side give us all the important facts and the other (More) dosen't? I do not find it to be so. But that dosen't mean I can't learn from the examples and arguments presented by both sides of a case - even though each of them are not "complete" or include all accesible facts. Thats where my personal judgement steps in. I may end up taking the side of More and use his examples to defend my case but that dosen't mean I do not know Mores films dosen't present all facts. Just because I see one of his films and like the examples used dosen't mean my education stops here.

[Lex]

Finally managed to see the movie. Great stuff in there that I'm glad people are finally seeing, regardless of political affiliation. This quote nailed it:
But, it will be an eye opener for those on the right who haven't adopted the ostrich position.

I did find much of Moore's voice over to be somewhat extreme. Every fact presented in the film is either incontrovertible or easily verifiable. His "wondering" of what Bush was thinking during the now-famous 7 minutes is gratuitous. The footage speaks volumes by itself. The audience should be permitted to draw their own conclusions.

The story of Lila's loss is exploitative. Having that poor woman's fresh grief pushed down my throat was unnecessary. I have a son. I only need to close my eyes to imagine what it might feel like to lose a child to war. Indeed, I believe that most people are capable of envisioning that type of loss, be it a brother, sister, cousin.

The film would have been more powerful and found an even wider audience if the information had been provided and then allowed to stand on its own.

[seobook]

The film would have been more powerful and found an even wider audience if the information had been provided and then allowed to stand on its own.

I think it is sad that some people need to be exploited to envoke emotional response, but I think it makes it far more powerful to an audience that has refused to accept any responsibility for the pains of others.

From what I have seen most people do not care much about alot of things until it hits them or someone close to them.

When a person is a number it is hard to make that loss tangible. When you see that loss then you can extrapolate it out to the numbers and realize the great horrors that are occuring.

[seomike]

http://factsofisrael.com/en/images/articles/3rd-infantry-saddam-911.jpg

Let me offer the translation. :)
The Arabic in the middle of the circle.
Translation: Bagdad School of Flight

Transcript under saddam:
Funded by The U.N. Oil for Food Program, Micheal Moore and Al Qaeda.


he he :D Michael Moore has it all wrong. Cause if he was right there should be a line of oil barges from the Persian Gulf to the Mississippi and gas would be like $.25 a gallon.