Michael Moore newsletter 7/4/2004

Quote:

Originally posted by glsunder
I can't make a copy of a dvd and give it to my friend. That would require using something like deCSS -- it's illegal in the US. Also, IIRC, copyright law allows me to make a personal backup copy, not distribute it to my buddies. On the music front, there's copy protection coming to CDs. Unless something has changed, the dmca makes it illegal to use and own software which does breaks that.

Actually, the DMCA makes the distribution, or even writing of a tool like deCSS illegal. Discussions about how to use deCSS or 'macrovision scrubbers' to defeat copy protection are also illegal under the DMCA. Writing a tool that even *accidentally* fails to maintain a "do not copy" bit somewhere in an undocumented file format (like fonts), and even reverse-engineering file formats, is illgal under the DMCA.

In other words, there's a lot of unconstitutional rubbish written up to prop up the recording industries who are feeling the effects of changing technology, and don't want to adapt. They're just hoping nobody sticks it out to see a case through to the supreme court and 'win'.

As for "copy protection" on any digital audio format, it doesn't protect the analog audio signal comming out at all, or it will be 'noisy' to audiophiles, and too unpopular to be adopted widely to supplant any established formats. Any 'noise' they introduce will adversely affect fidelity. Resample the analog output to format of your choice, and it will be in an 'open' format again.

There is even software like 'Total Recorder' that will hook in as a sound card driver and capture the original digital signal of any media being played. On top of that, there is open source 'virtual machine' software where the very audio and video driver being used is virtual, and capable of being 'hooked', as is the very 'hardware driver' model of modern operating systems its self. Whatever they do in computer software is vulnerable, and whatever they attempt to sell through in hardware will be unpopular, so the recording industry isn't left with 'good options' for protecting music, other than trying to enforce limitations on free speech, eliminate fair use, intimidate the public people with harrassment lawsuits, etc.

So basically, even if they make totally perfect digital copy protection, if it can be played, it can be copied. Yes, there will be a one-time generational loss when you go digital->analog->digital again (when it's resampled and recompressed) but that's all the loss it ever gets. If people can tolerate second-generation analog video bootlegs, second-generation digital video bootlegs will not be a problem for them.

The ultimate and reasonable solution that the video industry adopted has been to keep DVD movies cheap, and only make "special edition" versions a little more expensive than 'regular' editions, and actually make the difference seem worth it. There is little waiting between most theatrical releases and a DVD release as well. Remember when videos were $50 and $90 and more for a casette, and took years to come out? And piracy was rampant? Hmm, I wonder why?

The differences between DVD and CD music media are very clear. A DVD will generally contain one thing that the end-user wants that has 90 minutes or more of play time, and is utterly nightmarish to download. A CD will generally contain about five minutes' worth of tracks that the end-user wants, and a bunch of stuff that they don't, and individual tracks are trivial download. Hmm. Makes you wonder why consumers aren't buying up CDs by the bundle.

Fon instance, it will probably take you a week to get the 'DVD Preview' version of Moore's film with bittorrent. If you wait a few weeks, it will be available for $10~$14 at a store near you with a bunch of extra tracks and features. Probably with another film-making documentary, outtakes and previews of other things too.

Broadband does not buy you infinite bandwidth. No matter how fat your pipeline to download with, you will only ever receive as much data as people upload, and many such people are sitting behind paranoid firewalls built into their MODEMs with the ports to connect to them blocked; i.e. they can't upload at all. Even if you had T3 going straight to your computer, the video will take a week to download.

Also beware: Windows file formats like .AVI can host trojans. Invalid data plus stack overflow plus broken Windows security equals big risk to your computer. Don't download any Windows media (.avi, .wav, .wm, .wmv, .wma) and expect it to be anything but a trojan (virus). People are also fond of 'sharing' things titled to be something desirable, and actually containing junk. You could download Moore's film for a week, and discover the file is nothing but random numbers, or discover it's a porn video, or discover it's mostly noise, but contains a 'payload' to install on your machine.

[crimresearch]

Quote:

Originally posted by gethane
....Now, as I've already taken too much time on this ridiculous thread, that I only responded to because Jocko called MM a hypocrite, I am finished here. I am also putting you on ignore. The viciousness with which you attacked me was largely unprovoked and I don't feel the need to punish myself by undergoing it any longer. You will be in good company on my ignore list, as the only other person residing there is Jedi Knight.

Ahh, the last refuge of an internet scoundrel...

[Batman Jr.]

Quote:

Originally posted by Segnosaur
The fact that Lions Gate films consented to the illegal distribution is not totally relevant.

There is no guarantee that other film companies (such as Disney) would be so happy to see their property (i.e. distribution rights to the movie) lost to illegal copying.

At this point, widescale copying of movies is simply not feasable (at least to the point where it would seriously impact profits). However, if such copying were an issue, then any distributor should have concerns distributing a Moore film if they knew he was going to encourage people to "steal" their investment.

So Mikey will just have to stick with Lions Gate.

Copyright law as it stands allows for a person who creates intellectual property to decline the limitations the laws normally impose on his/her work. Moore chooses to not endorse copyright in a legal way by taking advantage of the privileges he is given in regard to what he produces. This is not to say that he consequently appreciates copyright's holistic construction, only that he approves of those parts which allow one to opt out of the other parts. And nor does it mean that he will attempt to sabotage others' claims to their intellectual property. Some people with an animus toward the excessively monarchial undertones of a knighting ceremony will refuse to be knighted if given the opportunity (e.g. John Cleese). Just because the system bestowing the distinction of knighthood allows for one to abnegate it, it's not said that those who do renounce the practice conversely approve of the rest of the system's components.

[Segnosaur]

Quote:

Originally posted by Batman Jr.

So Mikey will just have to stick with Lions Gate.

He has that right... however, he cannot go and cry "censorship" if he tries to find another distributor and no other company wants to deal with him due to his stance on copying. (And there is no guarantee Lions Gate will always want to carry his movies... the topics of some movies may not be appealing, or perhaps in the future Lions Gate will decide that they don't want their films copied anymore because it does cut into their profits. (I'm talking about when technology has progressed to the point where its feasable.)

Quote:

Originally posted by Batman Jr.

Copyright law as it stands allows for a person who creates intellectual property to decline the limitations the laws normally impose on his/her work. Moore chooses to not endorse copyright in a legal way by taking advantage of the privileges he is given in regard to what he produces..... And nor does it mean that he will attempt to sabotage others' claims to their intellectual property.

Well, there is still the issue about whether Moore has the right to dictate that his film can be copied. Yes, he was the director and was the chief person working on the movie; however, the copyright is likely owned by others, as is the "distribution rights".

I write software for a living; I write it for a company. The company owns the copyright on any software I write, unless I make special arrangements with my employers. I suspect the copywrite for the movie is handled the same way.

[Batman Jr.]

Quote:

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Well, there is still the issue about whether Moore has the right to dictate that his film can be copied. Yes, he was the director and was the chief person working on the movie; however, the copyright is likely owned by others, as is the "distribution rights".

I write software for a living; I write it for a company. The company owns the copyright on any software I write, unless I make special arrangements with my employers. I suspect the copywrite for the movie is handled the same way.

If the Lions Gate guys weren't so permissive, he might not have submitted those statements for public scrutiny. The fact is that Lions Gate agrees with him.

[Segnosaur]

Quote:

Originally posted by Batman Jr.

If the Lions Gate guys weren't so permissive, he might not have submitted those statements for public scrutiny. The fact is that Lions Gate agrees with him.

The question is, is Lions gate agreeing with him because the company as a whole agrees that copying movies should be allowed, or are they just agreeing because they realize that they are (A) currently earning a lot with F 9/11 and don't want to rock the boat, and (B) realize that copying will not affect their profits at this current time.

Hey, maybe Lions Gate does have a "go ahead and copy anything" policy. (I've got some videos at home that are from Lions Gate; I'll have to check to see if they have copy protection.) Frankly, any company willing to have its products "given away" will likely have a very short lifespan.

[Skeptic]

n 1984, people exhibited a strong emotional reaction, because the government vaporized the ones that did not.

You completely missed the point of 1984. No, the HERO exhibits strong reactions because he sees through the propaganda; but the vast majority of the masses do not. They accept it as gospel truth. T

Their emotional reaction is genuine--just like that of Moore's crowd. They are emotionally manipulated by "Big Brother" for political gain--just like Moore's crowd is manipulated by Moore.

But to emphasize, imagine the opposite. Imagine if a right-wing filmaker would be bragging that his film is causing people to cry, scream, and throw things at John Kerry's image as it appears at the end; that it makes those who watch it vow never to vote for Democrats ever again; and so on, like Moore's bragging.

Would you say, "wow, that movie must have discovered some awful truths about Kerry!"? Or would you say, "hmm, emotional manipulation for political gain--political propaganda!"?

[Blue Monk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
n 1984, people exhibited a strong emotional reaction, because the government vaporized the ones that did not.

You completely missed the point of 1984. No, the HERO exhibits strong reactions because he sees through the propaganda; but the vast majority of the masses do not. They accept it as gospel truth. T

Their emotional reaction is genuine--just like that of Moore's crowd. They are emotionally manipulated by "Big Brother" for political gain--just like Moore's crowd is manipulated by Moore.

But to emphasize, imagine the opposite. Imagine if a right-wing filmaker would be bragging that his film is causing people to cry, scream, and throw things at John Kerry's image as it appears at the end; that it makes those who watch it vow never to vote for Democrats ever again; and so on, like Moore's bragging.

Would you say, "wow, that movie must have discovered some awful truths about Kerry!"? Or would you say, "hmm, emotional manipulation for political gain--political propaganda!"?

It's called the dissenting opinion and I do not fear it.

I want to hear both sides.

[Skeptic]

Quote:

Originally posted by Blue Monk


It's called the dissenting opinion and I do not fear it.

I want to hear both sides.

"I want to hear both sides"--sure; but why choose to hear one of the sides from someone like Moore, who is taking his cue, apparently, from Big Brother's newsreel editors in "1984"?

I mean, if you want to hear both sides about (say) Winston Churchill, you might want to read both a "positive" and a "negative" biography. There are many other reasonable ways to educate yourself about him. But you wouldn't bother with Goebbles' or Ribbentrop's speeches about him, would you?

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic

You completely missed the point of 1984. No, the HERO exhibits strong reactions because he sees through the propaganda; but the vast majority of the masses do not. They accept it as gospel truth. T

You know this because... You don't. You are making an unfounded assumption. Winston thought the girl was genuine as well...

Anyway, you also miss the point. They simply are not free to dissent. Whether this means they are faking, delusional, or the result of some freaky darwinistic culling, they still have no choice.

Quote:

Their emotional reaction is genuine--just like that of Moore's crowd. They are emotionally manipulated by "Big Brother" for political gain--just like Moore's crowd is manipulated by Moore.



But to emphasize, imagine the opposite. Imagine if a right-wing filmaker would be bragging that his film is causing people to cry, scream, and throw things at John Kerry's image as it appears at the end; that it makes those who watch it vow never to vote for Democrats ever again; and so on, like Moore's bragging.

Sounds like an Ann Coultier book. Except the right can't do it without fabrication that would by default make Moore look even more reasonable. Go for it.

Y'all ain't got the goods. Bring it don't sing it.

What I am saying is that you make yet another assumption. That such a movie is possible without completely and immediately backfiring. I'm sure (not really, I'm guessing) someone will try, that it will be a stinking piece of crap, and righties will whine about liberal dominance of whatever when it goes over like a lead balloon.

Quote:

Would you say, "wow, that movie must have discovered some awful truths about Kerry!"? Or would you say, "hmm, emotional manipulation for political gain--political propaganda!"?

Depends on the audience that was going nuts. If it were a bunch of Young Republicans I wouldn't care. A larger cross section I would suspect the film was a little of both, and I'd look a little closer.

I wouldn't be baseing my objection just on the fact that it agitated people. The truth agitates people as well, and there are a lot of people that have bought into the current conservative power structure without really thinking about what was really going on. This sort of sudden revelation can be powerful.

I see it often, usually in the form of nice "God fearing country folk" that are big on law and order. Until they realize that as poor people they are mainly getting the business end of the order. They ask why the law doesn't protect their rights, as they see a son or friend go off to jail. When they see that a lot of what politicians call "law and order" means not worrying a whole bunch about the rights of the poor when some cop thinks they committed a crime.

These reactions usually make the reaction to Moore's film look tame, and I don't think my dry explaination of the law is exactly the stuff of rabble-rousing. People get upset when they think they are lied to or misled. If it turns out Moore is lying, it will come back around, don't you worry.

[Regnad Kcin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
...But you wouldn't bother with Goebbles' or Ribbentrop's speeches about him, would you?

Godwin.

[MacGuffin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jocko


He had problems securing a distributor. He made great noises about censorship, even though there was nothing unsavory (or even surprising) when Disney declined to handle it (which had even been reported almost a year ago).

I guess it was also not unsavory that Disney happened to get a big tax break in Florida and then went on to lay off thousands of employees there. Disney is just a happy jolly company right? No need to court Jeb's favor in FL.

And it is not a coincidence at all that they wouldn't support a film that exposes bush-saudi connections when Disney themselves got million$ in Saudi royal family money to get Euro-Disney out of the red.

Nope you are right, Disney not supporting this film is no suprise at all but it certainly is unsavory.

And for the money is everything crowd - If Moore was really all about the money would he be a documentary film maker? Since everybody knows thats the industry you go into if you really want to be rolling in it. He has been one of the few who has done well and thats good for him. However you can't be in that business very long if you are just in it for the buck and not about the message. Kind of like all those money-driven poets out there.

Michael Moore, a great American. Keep standing tall.

Share and Enjoy - Aaron

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacGuffin



And for the money is everything crowd - If Moore was really all about the money would he be a documentary film maker?

Are you suggesting (giggle) that he IS?

[Skeptic]

I guess it was also not unsavory that Disney happened to get a big tax break in Florida and then went on to lay off thousands of employees there. Disney is just a happy jolly company right? No need to court Jeb's favor in FL.

< Michael Moore Mode >

ALL I AM SAYING IS CONNECT THE DOTS!!!

< /Michael Moore Mode >

You do realize two things, namely:

1). If Disney really broke a contract with Moore, he would be suing their @$$ for millions (and rightly so, I might add) and shutting up about it in public at the advice of his attorney; and

2). He made this accusation in the same speech where he said, "as you know, all this controversy isn't helping me sell tickets", which is the equivalent of saying, "as you know, all this controversy is making the mind-control aliens on the mothership really angry".

And for the money is everything crowd - If Moore was really all about the money would he be a documentary film maker?

1). Sure worked; he's a multimillionaire, unlike the poor slobs he is so sympathetic with in the movies. Moved out of Flint, too, for central park west... which might mean he doesn't despise the evil capitalist thieves as much as he says he does, moving to live in their neighborhood and all.

2). "Documentary" can only be very loosely applied to Moore's films.

However you can't be in that business very long if you are just in it for the buck and not about the message.

Yeah, just like the fact the 99% of rappers never make it is proof that you couldn't POSSIBLY be a successful "gangsta rapper" if you are in it for the money and not driven to poetry to express the evil racist limitations imposed on your broken childhood by the heartless establishment.

Let alone lottety winners--with such small chances of winning, surely those who buy tickets consistently must be motivated by some higher purpose, like giving their winnings to charity.

[tamiO]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
[b]
1). Sure worked; he's a multimillionaire, unlike the poor slobs he is so sympathetic with in the movies. Moved out of Flint, too, for central park west... which might mean he doesn't despise the evil capitalist thieves as much as he says he does, moving to live in their neighborhood and all.

What source is telling you that he is a rich capitalist who has abandoned the people of Flint?

Like most genuinely caring people, Michael Moore hasn't bragged about all the things he has done for Flint Michigan. I have just now been learning about some of his quiet charity. He has donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Flint schools and local charities. He has helped individuals in Flint with many of their personal needs. He has set up scholarships and held fundraisers. He has employed people from Flint, Michigan and found work for people outside Flint and paid for their moving expenses.

If you would like, I will dig up a comprehensive list of his charity.

[AtheistArchon]

- I've been keeping up with this topic, and as heated as it is, I've been pretty neutral so far I think... I've always taken everything Moore has said with a grain of salt. No, really. I'm experienced enough to know that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

- However, in THIS particular case, I'm noticing a lot of blanks being fired at Moore.

1. Yes, Moore is a millionaire. I'd love to be a millionaire myself, and I wouldn't feel bad about making money in an honest fashion. Moore is an entertainer. To my knowledge, he doesn't outsource his labor... I'm not aware of any proclimation from Moore that he is a communist... I fail to see what the big deal is here. Has Moore ever said that being rich is a bad thing? If so, I haven't heard it.

2. Yes, F9/11 is biased. So what? No, really, so what? I recognize his bias. I'm also interested in what his research has turned up, and what he thinks about it. His style is calm and he's articulate. He's funny and self-depreciating. If I find him more agreeable to watch than Ann Coulter, then who here is going to fault me? Anyone?

3. Suddenly said it earlier: bring the facts. I'm fully prepared to watch Moore's facts get shot down in flames, and their validity has nothing to do with HIS bias, nor mine. And I'm sure there ARE a few that can be shot down... but really, I can't justify completely ignoring everything he says as being a lie. Because he's opinionated doesn't mean he's lying. Catch him in a lie, show it, and I'll come on board.

4. "He doesn't make documentaries"... why not? "He makes propaganda"... okay, how so? Is he lying? You're going to have to do more than insinuate and voice your disapproval with him.

- Treat Moore like Coulter and Hannity if you must, but when I attack Coulter and Hannity I usually have specific examples of lies, distortions, and so on.

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by AtheistArchon

3. Suddenly said it earlier: bring the facts. I'm fully prepared to watch Moore's facts get shot down in flames, and their validity has nothing to do with HIS bias, nor mine. And I'm sure there ARE a few that can be shot down... but really, I can't justify completely ignoring everything he says as being a lie. Because he's opinionated doesn't mean he's lying. Catch him in a lie, show it, and I'll come on board.

It's already been done. You must admit that the editing of Rice's comments wasn't an unfortunate oversight, but a deliberate measure to paint her as saying something completely to the contrary of what was really addressed. What, couldn't Moore afford the extra 10 seconds of film it would have require to get the thought in toto?

A real documentary would have done it. Cheap shot edits aren't just dishonest, Moore has a record of using them.

Besides, after all the glaring holes in BFC were exposed, Moore's fans still choose to ignore the evidence and carry on fawning instead. What's the point of digging up the inaccuracies (deliberate or accidental) when the core audience is utterly immune to them?

[AtheistArchon]

Quote:

It's already been done. You must admit that the editing of Rice's comments wasn't an unfortunate oversight, but a deliberate measure to paint her as saying something completely to the contrary of what was really addressed. What, couldn't Moore afford the extra 10 seconds of film it would have require to get the thought in toto?

- I really haven't been exposed to this criticism... do you mean Rice's comment on the title of the intel report?

Quote:

A real documentary would have done it. Cheap shot edits aren't just dishonest, Moore has a record of using them.

Besides, after all the glaring holes in BFC were exposed, Moore's fans still choose to ignore the evidence and carry on fawning instead. What's the point of digging up the inaccuracies (deliberate or accidental) when the core audience is utterly immune to them?

- I'm not the "core audience". And besides, I'd wager that there are some people on these forums who do believe that it's worthwhile to debunk inaccuracies where we find them. If we do them for Coulter, I say we should do them for Moore. Randi does it, and he's aware of how iron-headed the "core audience" for woo woo stuff is as well.

- I haven't seen BFC, and I haven't been exposed to any real discussion about the facts in it, so I just can't comment on that movie. Maybe I should rent it.

[crimresearch]

Ahhh...we wouldn't be seeing a tap dance here would we?

...whether or not people should go to see Moore's work is a different question from claims that Moore's latest work contains nothing factually untrue.

The question has been asked about the accuracy of the Tanner portrayal, among other items, and so far the braying that anyone who questions Moore must be a right-winger, hasn't paused long enough to address those questions.

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by AtheistArchon


- I really haven't been exposed to this criticism... do you mean Rice's comment on the title of the intel report?

I'm sorry, I thought this was up on this thread, when it's actually on another. Rik quotes Moorewatch thus:

Quote:

At the end of F911 Michael Moore quotes Condoleeza Rice as saying, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.” As usual, just like he did with the Charlton Heston speech in BFC, Mike plays fast and loose with the truth through the world of editing.


Pretty damning stuff, isn’t it? But that was the truncated, Michael Moore version. Now for the full, unexpurgated quote:

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”

I can't do Rik's neat trick of framing a post within a post so you can find more here.

Quote:

I'm not the "core audience". And besides, I'd wager that there are some people on these forums who do believe that it's worthwhile to debunk inaccuracies where we find them. If we do them for Coulter, I say we should do them for Moore. Randi does it, and he's aware of how iron-headed the "core audience" for woo woo stuff is as well.

Yes, I've admired your independent stances on many issues. But there is some kind of huge blind spot that otherwise normal people suffer from when these holes are exposed; they wind up being painted as right-wing propaganda... as if Dick Cheney was in charge of editing the things.

Quote:

I haven't seen BFC, and I haven't been exposed to any real discussion about the facts in it, so I just can't comment on that movie. Maybe I should rent it.

A worthwhile exercise is to watch it with an open mind, then read up on the criticism and the documented errors and distortions. If you want to experience your heart being pulled one direction and your mind in the other, that's how you do it. In matters like these, however, I perefer to follow the gray matter.

[tamiO]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jocko


I'm sorry, I thought this was up on this thread, when it's actually on another. Rik quotes Moorewatch thus:

Here is the quote in it's entirety.

Quote:

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”

To me the editing doesn't change the meaning. She states there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11 and supports that statement by saying it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”

What was the context of the statement Condi Rice made? What question was she answering?

Her statement, if made to support the idea of going to war with Iraq, would indicate that every country that had ideologies of hatred caused the Saudis to fly into the towers. Why choose Iraq? It has been proven that there were no ties between Al Queada and Saddam Hussein.

Osama bin Laden caused the Saudis to fly into the towers; not Saddam Hussein. She tried to spin it so it supported the march to war, but it seems to me her answer did not justify the war in Iraq, which I think was the point Michael Moore was trying to make.

I think the major point of Michael Moore's film was that there were no good reasons to go to war against Iraq.

Are you saying that Condi's entire quote justified the war?

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by tamiO



Her statement, if made to support the idea of going to war with Iraq, would indicate that every country that had ideologies of hatred caused the Saudis to fly into the towers. Why choose Iraq? It has been proven that there were no ties between Al Queada and Saddam Hussein.

Untrue. There are proven ties, just no proven collaboration. And no one has claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11 particularly.

Quote:

Osama bin Laden caused the Saudis to fly into the towers; not Saddam Hussein. She tried to spin it so it supported the march to war, but it seems to me her answer did not justify the war in Iraq, which I think was the point Michael Moore was trying to make.

Then why did he have to resort to dishonest editing to make it appear she said something she did not? I'm sure he has lots of points, but if he can't produce untainted evidence to support them, I frankly don't give a rat's ass what he thinks.

Quote:

I think the major point of Michael Moore's film was that there were no good reasons to go to war against Iraq.

Arguably true. But the question at hand is Moore's dishonesty in making his case. Thankfully, he is not the only one. There are many arguments with integrity out there; it seems silly to hang your beliefs on flawed reasoning and deceptive presentation Moore supplied.

Quote:

Are you saying that Condi's entire quote justified the war?

No. No one is saying that. What I am saying is that Moore resorted to unethical editing decisions that make his work highly suspect. I would also add that the blind spot his fans suffer from is the only reason this debate is taking place at all.

The man lies. Even if it's with the best of intentions, they are still lies - and certainly below the serious consideration of a skeptical mind.

[Renfield]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacGuffin


I HOLD IN MY HAND A LIST OF 205 KNOWN COMMUNISTS!

When all else fails, call your enemy a Commie, it has always seemed to work in the past.

I again commend Michael Moore on his great pro-America film and to keep up the good work.

Share and Enjoy - Aaron

Indeed. Sending GWB packing is about the most patriotic thing any American can do.

97% true is probably about right re Moore's film. His critics, like Fred Barnes and C. Hitchens , have not been particularly convincing. Either their accusations don't hold up, or are largely a matter of interpretation - such as all the supposed contradictions Hitchens' mentioned in his hit piece on Moore.

[Skeptic]

You know this because...

...I've read the book.

Sounds like an Ann Coultier book.

My point exactly: Moore is using the same sort of method Coutler does--only he's better at it, which is not exactly a big compliment. So why do you believe Moore and not her? Surely both are unreliable.

Except the right can't do it without fabrication that would by default make Moore look even more reasonable.

"Even more" reasonable than what, exactly?

What I am saying is that you make yet another assumption. That such a movie is possible without completely and immediately backfiring.

Moore's "9/11" is rather good evidence that it is. Try Soviet-era "anti-capitalist" films and nazi-era German films and you'd see it's possible, too. Do you REALLY think ALL those who admired the wonderful, humane, moderate man who was the hero of Lenni Reifenstahl's "Hitler Over Germany" (to name one) were just scared of the Gestapo? No, they believed it.

The truth is, people can--and are--fooled by the crudest propaganda; and the more they think they're too smart for it, the more easily they fall for it. It's quite possible to be brainwashed by propaganda without any coersion, or for that matter realizing it; in fact, that's what it's trying to achieve.

Advertisers know this damn well. Think about it: you see a 30-second broadcast on television that you KNOW is sent to you by those who have a vested interest to buy X, that you KNOW have no way to force you to buy X, that you KNOW will only tell you what they think will make you buy X regardless of the truth...

...and you still go and buy X. How much more easily can you be brainwashed if you don't know--or refuse to believe--that the advertiser (Moore, in this case) is only telling you what he wants you to see with the purpose of making you vote for X? In fact, it's effective even if you DO know that.

I'm sure (not really, I'm guessing) someone will try, that it will be a stinking piece of crap, and righties will whine about liberal dominance of whatever when it goes over like a lead balloon.

They already did. There was a movie, very similar to Moore's, "connecting the dots" about Bill Clinton and "proving" he is a murderer, a drug runner, etc., etc., etc.

Not only did it flop, but it was the republicans and other conservatives themselves that renounced it as utter nonsense, fearing that such conspiracy theory loony idea will rub off of them. Nobody in the conservative circles claimed there was a "liberal conspiracy" against it (at least not in mainstream republican party people or other reputable organizations), and they actually breathed a sigh of relief when it flopped.

The truth is, that while the liberals keep ranting about republican "lies", the record shows that it is them, not the right, who are masters of stretching and manipulating the truth for their purposes, or embracing those (like Moore) who do.

People get upset when they think they are lied to or misled. If it turns out Moore is lying, it will come back around, don't you worry.

Indeed so. After all, once it became totally clear that the Marxist revolution has been an utter disaster--the mid-30s at the latest--it didn't take longer than, oh, 50-60 years for most marxists in the west to renounce it.

You're quite wrong, Suddenly. People WANT to be lied to and mislead--as long as the lies are pleasant to their self esteem. Moore capitalizes on this fact (in both senses of the word). Even if it turns out (as is already the case) that Moore's "Bush is evil and we liberal people are the true heroes of America" schtick is, to say the least, inaccurate, getting them away from this comforting fantasy would be like taking a chicken bone from a dog. Look how long it took to get them to let go of the "capitalists like them evil, socialists like us good" mantra.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jocko


Then why did he have to resort to dishonest editing to make it appear she said something she did not? I'm sure he has lots of points, but if he can't produce untainted evidence to support them, I frankly don't give a rat's ass what he thinks.

The original quote in context was an example of dishonest speaking to begin with. It was an attempt to suggest a connection without actually suggesting a connection so that there was a defense against fabrication. Really a brilliant use of the press to suggest a claim you want people to adopt but also being sure to admit the lack of evidence in case anyone bothers to listen to the whole thing...

Quote:

Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.

Moore could go on explaining the Rhetorical nuances of this statement, or just cut through the B.S. and just use the first sentence, which represents the impact that the administration hoped would be felt by the people. The latter is better storytelling.


One of those things that when I first saw the quote in context, Moore's use looked fishy. However, when looked at in the larger context I think that the only objection is rather technical.

I mean, wasn't this supposed to be a straight talking administration? Why the attempt to make a connection when no evidence exists besides to both hope to be sometimes quoted in brief to spread the conception of a Iraq-911 connection but yet have the larger quotation to defend against later accusations of fabrication?

A brilliant piece of rhetoric worthy of the label "Clintonesque." Except that Moore is in the process of trumping it using the same kind of tactic is an equally brilliant move.

Calling it dishonest just makes me wonder what the heck the original statement was meant to do...

[Lurker]

If I recall correctly rice made this statement in defense of a statement by Bush about their being ties to Al Qaeda. She was trying to get her story in synch with Bush while still having some plausibility.

Someone, find the full context of Rice's quote here.

Lurker

[Renfield]

Quote:

Originally posted by Suddenly



Moore could go on explaining the Rhetorical nuances of this statement, or just cut through the B.S. and just use the first sentence, which represents the impact that the administration hoped would be felt by the people. The latter is better storytelling.

Well put. I don't think you can blame Moore for getting into all the arguments and semantics used by the Bushes to justify their statements. Statements like this were clearly meant to create the impression of an important connection. I bet that line is what got played in the news media as well, the part that made the impact they wanted.

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by Suddenly


The original quote in context was an example of dishonest speaking to begin with. It was an attempt to suggest a connection without actually suggesting a connection so that there was a defense against fabrication. Really a brilliant use of the press to suggest a claim you want people to adopt but also being sure to admit the lack of evidence in case anyone bothers to listen to the whole thing...

So the only way he could "prove" this was the case was to do it himself? I expect a little more from my documentaries, thankyouverymuch.

Quote:

Moore could go on explaining the Rhetorical nuances of this statement, or just cut through the B.S. and just use the first sentence, which represents the impact that the administration hoped would be felt by the people. The latter is better storytelling.

Or, he could have let her speak for herself. But no, we can't have any thoughts getting out there that haven't already been passed through Moore's political colon, so they're nice and soft and pre-digested for the easy consumption of the audience.

This is the blind spot I keep pointing out. I can't believe you don't see the manipulation at work here - would the extra 10 seconds (where she explains what she's saying, probably in the very same breath fer chrissakes) have fouled up the "storytelling"?

Quote:

One of those things that when I first saw the quote in context, Moore's use looked fishy. However, when looked at in the larger context I think that the only objection is rather technical.

Shoulda stuck with your first impression, and you should have wondered why he would edit that way - exactly as he's done before, in BFC for instance, for the very same effect. Surely you see the pattern?

Quote:

I mean, wasn't this supposed to be a straight talking administration? Why the attempt to make a connection when no evidence exists besides to both hope to be sometimes quoted in brief to spread the conception of a Iraq-911 connection but yet have the larger quotation to defend against later accusations of fabrication?

Conjecture, nothing more. Neither you nor Moore can find any instance of the claim, so he invents it and you defend it.

Quote:

A brilliant piece of rhetoric worthy of the label "Clintonesque." Except that Moore is in the process of trumping it using the same kind of tactic is an equally brilliant move.

Amazing, how certain folks can paint Bush as a bumbling idiot and a master schemer all at the same time.

Moore deceived. That you imagine there may be equivalency has no relevance whatsoever, even if true - freshen up on the tu quoque fallacy and you'll see.