Fahrenheit 9/11

Spider-man 2 comes out wed., so I dont think it's going to happen.

I enjoyed seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 if only for the the footage that has been missing from the mainstream media. Mainly, I refer to the personal stories involved in the war; such as the personal dissent of soldiers on the front line, the civilian deaths in Iraq, the grief of families of slain soldiers and civilians, and the fact that war is hell.Besides that, many of the arguments seem thin and the result of data mining. I found this article by Christopher Hitchen's extremely informative as to the merits of this movies arguments, and I recommend anybody who plans on seeing it or has seen it to read it.http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

JustinCY,Just checking: so do you agree this statement from the link you provided is an accurate assessment of the film overall?

quote:

---

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.

---

I haven't seen it yet (not out yet where I am), but I plan to.My expectation is that I am going to see something that contains facts I agree with, some views of a subject I have not seen in mainstream media, some exploitation of people for the benefit of tear-jerking, perhaps some untruths, and definitely no solutions or implied contradictory solutions... all wrapped up in something that is entertaining.I read the linked article and it sounded the alarm for some things which I did expect (especially the contradictions which were loaded in Columbine).Yet that is to miss the point that there are some truths and they do count, no matter Moore's other problems.I find it interesting that this author used Clarke to cut down Moore's film, yet dishonestly excises Clarke's ongoing support for the film and Moore's message, even if he takes exception to some of the mistakes.Gosh looks like that author knows how to do a Moore-style documentary just fine.For the left to embrace Moore as infallible is a huge mistake, and kind of embarassing. To present him as a crude messenger and liberal counterpoint is more accurate.For the right to demonize him is the height of hypocrisy. If William F Buckley were on the air as the popular voice of the right, instead of Limbaugh and O'Reilly and Evangelicals and Hannity etc etc I might cut the right some slack. But if one wishes to discuss MAJOR CONTRADICTIONS when it comes to solutions, and GLOSSING OVER FACTS WITH HYPE AND TEARJERKING, every popular rightist "journalist" has Moore beat hands down.As a fledgling documentary maker I am in awe of Moore's style, which is very very good, yet am offended with his lack of coherence in making a point, as well as his willingness to stretch a truth, or exploit people for his own ends.That is why I support other documentaries. Oh yeah, does anyone on the right know that Michael Moore is NOT the only documentary film maker? The fact that all of the doc makers stood with Moore at the Oscars meant something beyond their appreciation for his work as a director.He delivers a general message which is usually right on the money. Kind of like an airraid siren lets you know something is bad, and you need to find out more.Personally I support other doc makers. On EvC I even asked others to support a real documentary on Iraq, made by an Iraqi going back to Iraq after its "liberation". No one gave. Ah well.(added note: And just so people know before slamming me. I am not a utopian pacifist. I was for the war in Afghanistan. I was against the Iraq war because it made no sense, and hindered our efforts in Afghanistan. If Moore was against Aghanistan and now acts as if he was for it, that makes him as wobbly as any person on the right I've heard. For those on the Right who take offense at this comment, all I have to say is: Pakistan, N Korea, Uzbhekistan, Sudan, Rwanda, etc etc).This message has been edited by holmes, 06-29-2004 05:44 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

quote:

---

Crashfrog, the Islamofascists, were they to gain power, would seek out "tolerant liberal academics" such as yourself as among their first victims.

---

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that "Islamofascists" are trying to gain power in the U.S.? It would appear that, with GWB as President, the Christofascists are the ones to be feared.

---

How true. Indeed, it seems to me that the Christofascists are and have been busy at work in this country for some time and, frighteningly, making some headway.It astounds me that few seem to see the parallels between the 'we must support Bush'/'if you disagree with Bush on ANYTHING at this time of war, you are a traitor' crowd and the Brown Shirts...

Thanks for the link, JustinCy. However, I think that it is the height of hypocrisy for Christopher Hitchens to be calling anyone else a liar.I remember when he was still writing for The Nation (he eventually left since the editorial policies of that magazine seems to support "Islamofascism" -- the first time I heard that term used). He was not simply trying to support the "war" in Kosovo/Yugoslavia, but actually denigrating the people who were against it.Now, I think a case could have been made for military action in the Kosovo thing -- and some people did, in my opinion, have good arguments in favor. But Hitchen's tactic was to simply mislabel the intentions of the anti-war crowd -- set up straw men and so forth.The last straw for me was after Milosevic capitulated, and NATO occupied Kosovo, without any casualties on the NATO side. Hitchens tried to portray the entire anti-war argument as being about American casualties, and so the fact that there were none proved that they were all wrong, the war was justified after all, etc. (By, the way, how are those folks doing these days? Don't hear to much about our successful operation there anymore.)After that, and after he left The Nation in a snit, I loved reading Alexander Cockburn's completely personal attacks on him in Counterpunch. (Okay, so I'm not such a nice guy.)

Yeah, but Bill Buckley was a libertarian. Just curious, do you lump libertarians in with 'the right?'

Well, it seems that whenever given the choice, libertarians ally themselves with the right more often than the left.I have no problem with calling the libertarians right-wing. However, I do acknowledge that a libertarian is not the same as a conservative. How's that for a wishy-washy compromise?

It's about what I expected. I get painted with the 'other side' brush constantly. I'm pretty much a libertarian, but more as a concept than a party (which I think is common among libertarians).That means I get labeled a right wing fascist when it comes to most economic and political policies involving big government, but I'm an amoral left-wing pinko when it comes to personal choice.So I'm nobody's friend and everybody's enemy. C'est la vie.

EVERYBODY...DOG PILE!

No. I view the spectrum as a ring rather than a straight line and libertarians take up the long back half of the ring which connects left and right.Thus they straddle between both, but have a whole range within themselves. Libertarians are the back.I am technically a libertarian, but believe many libs fall too much for the Utopian economic models the right uses and so most candidates are disappointing.Now I just consider myself an independent as a practical political title.And like you said, that makes me an enemy of the state... well that and the porn thing.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Lucky for you, I do have the URL. You probably won't want to watch the whole thing -- it's about two hours long, maybe. I think the fireworks start in the middle of the clip.http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?schedid=196&segid...Enjoy!--Macavity

"Was"? He's still alive, as far as I know. Or did you mean he's not a libertarian any more?

I didn't ask, but thanks anyway. What's great is the clip (in addition to watching Al and Bill go at it) actually got me interested in another author as well.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Oh yeah, I should make clear I meant that if the popular voice of the right had his style and interest in real debate on issues, not that they held the same views as him.Even as a libertarian he was definitely of the right wing.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)