posted
Theoretically, we should invade China. But the chance of winning (in the sense of ever defeating them and having a stable government and a majority of people survive) is too low for it to be worth the cost.
Israel breaks UN resolutions for one reason--to survive. The UN treats Israel as if it had no right to defend itself against the terrorists who want to annihilate it.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I freely admit that we do act to protect our own interests. Nonetheless, I believe there ought to be a "world police", and that the UN is doing a lousy job of it (perhaps because so many of the "crooks" are allowed a vote). Much of Europe, as well as some other countries--Australia, Canada, Japan, to name a small few--could do an acceptable job, but they don't seem to have the power or the will by themselves. Who's left?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The U.N. can't be a world police because it's considered intergovernmental; it's a bunch of nations agreeing or not agreeing to do this or that. With policing, you don't "agree" to be arrested and detained. To have a world police you'd need something supragovernmental, something less susceptible to the whims and interests of states. Which I don't think will ever happen. The closest the world has to anything supragovernmental are a few branches of theEU, and their success is somewhat dubious.
[ July 01, 2004, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes we should do something to China. I do not understand why we trade with them and do not put sanctions on them(Well, I know why, its because of money but...) Their human rights violations disgust me. They are communist, we are not supposed to trade with communist countries. Why China but not Cuba? Arg, stupid stupid stupid politics which do not make sense.
I am at a loss as to whether I should see farenheit 9/11 or not. On one hand I do not want to support michael moore and his whole political view. On the other hand I really want to see it because everyone will be talking about it. I feel that you should spend your money how you want the world to be. Like not buying ivory because you dont want to support killing elephants.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As law is relative and standards tend to vary from country to country, I find it frustrating that American lives and resources are wasted in vain efforts that have no real hope of succeeding.
If the World needs a police force, then the World needs to agree and cooperate.
By leaving the enforcement in the hands of any particular nation leads to accusations of "Pax Americana" in this case and with some reasonable justification.
good point, although i would argue that we're in the wrong regarding cuba, not china. prosperity brings heightened expectations, not only regarding standard of life, but the ability to live as one chooses.
regarding the UN and the possiblity of an eventual world government of some sort, i think of the UN as somewhat analagous to the pre-constitutional american government: more of an organized method of negociating between interests than an intity itself. nevertheless, the process of establishing the rule of law has been a slow and progressive one. i could see the UN as a precursor to something more powerful, especially given how many "hotspots" are demanding the world's attention, and the persistance of genocide and the like.
i also see iraq as a potentially crucial waypoint along this hypothetical trajectory: we've (hopefully) realized that removing opressive regimes is a bit more difficult than it looks on paper. the pragmatics are hard, and the international politiking is harder...
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No sanctions with China is part of Clinton's "Deep Engagement," which I think is a pretty good idea. You get as economically involved with your enemy as possible so then you're co-dependent, and then you have leverage with each other. Besides, cultural ideas get translated along in the process (hopefully liberal democracy, in this case). Right now China has the most American investment than any other nation in the world, I believe.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where? The liberal democracy quip? I actually think it'll work out. Money is the great communicator.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In an interview with Conan O'Brian, Moore stated something like "This movie is my opinion. I'm not expecting you to embrace it, it is just what I believe to be right. Who knows? You're right, I'm right? They're only opinions"
Hard to argue against a point like that. (But I'm sure someone will)
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For your reading pleasure...the definition of "Documentary" with regards to the Oscar category:
quote:Rule Twelve Special Rules for The Documentary Awards
I. DEFINITION 1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.
2. A film that is primarily a promotional film, a purely technical instructional film or an essentially unfiltered record of a performance will not be considered eligible for consideration for the Documentary awards.
II. CATEGORIES The Documentary Awards are divided into two categories: 1. Documentary Feature - films more than 40 minutes in running time, and 2. Documentary Short Subject - films 40 minutes or less (including all credits) in running time.
Having just seen this movie (and keeping in mind his last Oscar win for "Bowling...") he seems to fit THIS definition of Documentary film. So, for him to turn it down would be him stepping away from his material and saying it isn't worthy. Why would he do that? Just to make the Republicans happy?
posted
Wait, I thought that the vultures pecked at and ate Prometheus's liver...
Feyd Baron, DoC
Edit, because I missed a letter. And to add this little quip, from Farenheit's webpage ...
quote: With his characteristic humor and dogged commitment to uncovering the facts, Moore considers the presidency of George W. Bush and where it has led us.]
I love hollywood. If I went around calling myself a designer of unique and inspirational buildings, I'd be arrested the first time I actually did it.
quote: quote:as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.
Well, I think the problem might be with this part of the definition.
Dagonee
How so? He takes actual video feed of the President and his mates and uses it the film. He didn't stage those Iraq war scenes, did he? The woman in Flint who lost her son REALLY lost her son, didn't she? He drew conclusions from existing information about Bush connections (that exist) with the Sauds, Big Oil, and so on. One may not agree with those conclusions, but that doesn't make the information in the movie fictional. I am curious, what parts are fictional?
posted
That part of the definition leads no place for opinion. And as Moore stated, it's an opinion piece, not a reporting piece. Which means it emphasis conclusion over facts.
posted
Dag, I read your Richard Cohen bit above. I do agree with one thing, he does make a point to show ONLY the shiny, happy version of pre-War Iraq in ONE scene. But Cohen is a bit wrong. There are plenty of scenes in the movie with Bush talking about the Weapons of Mass Destruction and they showed the infamous scene were Powell was forced to walk the plank for the administration by presenting "factual" information and assurances of the locations of the WMD and the vehicles they were stored in. They also showed a TON of footage of Bush making his "Saddam and Al Qaeda are buddies" speeches. Snippets from lots of sources. I think Cohen is guilty of the same "pick and choose" technique that he accuses Moore of doing.
The Oil thing that Cohen feels is "conspiracy" is silly. Most people don't need Moore's movie to tell them that oil is a pretty big factor in the war. We hear DAILY that Iraq is the second largest oil field in the world. Who is working the oil rigs now? American workers for American companies. A scene in the movie took place at a conference where tons of big corps were brought together to talk about how much money can be made off of the war. Was that staged? Made up? What was the biggest talking point in this conference? "When the oil starts flowing, so will the money." Sure, maybe Moore didn't show scenes from that same conference when the big money people talked about helping the Iraqi people gain their freedom, yadda yadda yadda. Right.
Cohen points out the human rights abuses that Saddam committed against his own people as being the reason for going to war. Moore points out that Saudi Arabia is also known for human rights abuses yet we aren't invading them. Yet Cohen thinks THAT is why we are invading Iraq...because Saddam is the worst of a whole slew of bad dictators in the world. But it isn't why Bush initially said "go to war." It was a story used later when the WMD story flopped. And one used again when US troops were torturing Iraqi prisoners..."at least we aren't as bad as Saddam when HE tortured people here."
Try again, Mr. Cohen. I think it is cool that he disagrees with points raised in the movie, but calling it fiction is pretty weak and desperate. There were no "re-enacted" scenes of the Bush family and Saud family and their connections. No faked footage of war and interviews with soldiers (who, by the way, aren't all saying things Moore wants to hear...he talked to Hawks AND Doves). And if Cohen (and those who agree with him) can't see ANY connection to oil, well...
posted
Look, Moore is outraged that people are using generally accepted standards of documentaries to criticize his movie because it's not a documentary. If he's going to play that card, he needs to not accept all the consequences, good and bad, of his movie not being a documentary.
He could have chosen to make the case that his movie is a documentary and that it meets those generally accepted standards. Instead, he took the easier route and said it's not a documentary.
Fine. We'll take him at his word, even though we know his word is worthless.
Dagonee
quote:There is absolutely no part of the definition that excludes "opinion." If so, please point out.
posted
Actually, I am only a small part of this whole discussion of Documentary vs. Not. I am only pointing out one aspect of the discussion...his eligibility for the Oscar for Best Documentary. According to THAT definition, he is eligible.
I don't know why "Fact" and "Opinion" have to be mutually exclusive. What else would he have opinions on? Fictional characters in fictional situations? It simply says it needs to be a movie around factual information and it is. And he shares his opinions around those facts. So while the bigger argument of documentary can and should continue I don't think he needs to step down from Oscar consideration based on their...er...liberal rules and requirements.
posted
Fil's point is pretty good, actually. Particularly as most of the stuff Moore brings up are facts, if facts in dispute (and even if only facts not in dispute were counted, I think most of the movie would remain -- its not the factual nature, but the implications and selective use that are contentious).
It is mostly a movie about facts. A good part of the movie is taken up with real video clips (from the news and such) -- definitely facts that those video clips happened, and usually what they show as well (for instance, Bush sitting on his rear end and doing nothing even after hearing about the second plane).
Many of the financial connections he states (though sometimes presented in the worst possible light) are facts. The statements by people associated with September 11th are facts in the sense that those people did say them -- Moore is merely interviewing them (and he didn't just pull people in off the street, he found a former (as of recently) FBI official who thought the Bush admin trampled on good investigatory procedure, a woman in Flint who got notified of her son's death in Iraq by telephone, et cetera). There are tons of facts in the film, and the film is heavily concerned with them. Denying that is just being contrary.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't deny that the movie has scores of facts, bushels of `em. I just say that Moore cherry-picks his facts, and shades and distorts them when frequently.
Denying that is just being contrary.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet the larger point remains: If Moore is defending his movie not by showing his use of facts is acceptable for a documentary, but rather by denying it is a documentary, then he should be a man and live with that decision.
If the Acadamy of Motion Picture's definition of a documentary isn't the one Moore's using, he might want to let people know.
posted
I know you didn't, fugu. But it appears many people are defending the film by saying, basically, that it's full of true facts.
Well, there's more to it than that, is all I mean.
And Dag is right. Even though he is not specifically barred from the Academy Award for Documentary, if his first defense against criticism is, "It ain't a documentary!" he should not, as an honest man, accept it.
But he will, because he ain't.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I can tell, he's not denying its a documentary either, he's just avoiding mentioning the term. Perhaps its because some people might try to task him for doing so.
He is emphasizing that its filled with his own opinions and tries to suggest his side of the story, but that's not substantially different from a documentary on the civil war portraying the North as interfering aggressors and the South as righteous defenders of freedom (or the North as fighting selflessly for the slaves and the good of the nation, and the South as slaveowners out to destroy the union).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is different in one major respect, in that the events being documented are going on right now.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't deny that the movie has scores of facts, bushels of `em. I just say that Moore cherry-picks his facts, and shades and distorts them when frequently.
Denying that is just being contrary.
Who is denying it? Moore surely isn't. He was asked point blank, "are you being fair?" and he said, quite clearly..."no." Doesn't sound like denial to me.
Who doesn't cherry-pick facts and information? The news media does this daily. Bush is in the White House because of such media 'cherry-picking.' What movie ISN'T cherry-picked information? If you don't, you have C-Span..which is simply an open camera on an event without edits or choices in what is seen. The moment a filmmaker enters the editing suite, he or she begins to cherry pick. And in Moore's own words, they aren't fair. I fail to see a problem with this. If Fox and CNN can do it, why can't Moore? If Rush and Franken do it, why can't Moore? I am curious...which filmmakers, documentary or not, don't pick among takes and facts and scenes to make a movie?
posted
I'm not saying he can't do it. It's just annoying when anyone does it, and that includes Franken and especially Rush.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is different in one major respect, in that the events being documented are going on right now.
How does this make it different? fugu made a great comparison. Two movies can be done about the exact same situation (now or then) and both can be equally factual yet you can come away from the event with two different understandings of that event. Should all movies about the Civil War be "North Good/South Bad" because the North won? Or is it better to see all sides, even if I would completely disagree with opinions that pain the South in too good a light? How about WW2? Or Viet Nam? Or the Clinton Administration? Or the War in Iraq? Bush has had his chance to make his case for years now. Taking the same information, we see things in a new light. Doesn't change the facts of the situation.
I think the Republicans would have done better to make their OWN documentary (if you don't count the nearly silent major media outlets footage) that shows the Iraq War in the light that THEY want. Simply attacking the filmmaker to discount the movie vs. showing their side is having the counter effect. Look at Gibson and "The Passion of the Christ." The more people attacked Gibson as being anti-semitic and "picking and choosing" his point of view for the story, the more people who wanted to go see it. Moore loves the attention and I have seen him publicly ask for more outrage from the Right! He said the more the Right tries to block the film, the better sales have been.
posted
Rakeesh -- *shrug* why temporality should have meaning here escapes me. Either all three examples (Moore and the two civil war documentaries) are biased in essentially the same sort of way, or they aren't. If we still consider the civil war documentaries documentaries despite the biases, then we should consider Moore's work a documentary despite the same types of bias.
A similar situation could also arise contemporaneously wrt globalization. Lots of news shows spin globalization as either the solution to man's ills, emphasizing all the good things it does, while others highlight the bad side. True, each often glosses the other side, but its typically pretty clear which side is favored -- just count the minutes spent on it, if nothing else. Yet all of these shows are, essentially, fact based reporting, and are classified and represented as such.
And I fail to see a problem with us saying 1) we don't like him, 2) he's unfair and manipulative, 3) he has a proven history of lying and near-lying through creative editing, 4) his conclusions are ludicrous, and 5) we hate him.
posted
Kayla, thanks for the link (didn't need to register, either...it went right there). That actually was a neat article and one that takes a broader look at the movie and what it shows about us as a nation. Neat.
quote:When Michael Moore in his recent propaganda film ridicules President Bush for continuing his session with schoolchildren for five whole minutes after hearing about a plane crashing into the World Trade Center, let's ask ourselves: What else should the President have done? Rushed from the room and frightened the children? Was he supposed to leap into an airplane and patrol the skies himself?
Besides, it was not clear until fifteen minutes after the first crash that there was more than just one plane involved, and therefore that it was a terrorist attack.
But what do we expect from Moore? He's a hero of the Left because he tells lies about the Right.
If President Bush weren't such a good president, his enemies wouldn't have to lie about him outrageously in order to defeat him.
And what does it say about America's intelligentsia that they would rather believe lies than admit that George W. Bush has been smarter, on the issues that matter, than they are?
Don't know if OSC saw the film or not, but he didn't get the part about the planes right -- when Bush was in the school, he was told about the SECOND plane hitting the Twin Towers, and the clip from the movie was of Bush sitting there in the classroom after hearing about the second plane...
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Forgive me if this has already been posted: Michael Moore
'Nuff said.
So because he is very overweight, that is how we should judge his works? Rush Limbaugh...the Right's Michael Moore...is also overweight (though looking better). 'Nuff said?
posted
OSC, in addition to getting the story wrong from the movie (methinks he didn't see it and is relying on reviews to make his point) also is wrong about the reaction. Obviously Bush shouldn't have "rushed out of the room" and "frightened the children." But he knows that. Bush, when hearing the news, could have quietly stood up, excused himself and left. It wasn't like he was actively reading to the children. He was flipping through the book while the teacher did the reading. It wasn't hard to get out of.
I think the opposite statement from what OSC said is true: If Bush were such a good president, he wouldn't need his allies making excuses for him all the time.
Whether I like Moore or not is immaterial there. That's just funny. I'm sure you laughed when you first opened it, before the little monkey in your brain told you to get pissed.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the monkey didn't make me stop laughing. Fat jokes and Moore are about as funny as...er...fat jokes and Rush Limbaugh. The monkey just rolled it's eyes. Plenty calm here. Just rather sad. There has been some great discussion about Moore's film and its ideas but it has been typical here and in the press and elsewhere on the internet that half the time people just comment on how fat he is.
Now funny Moore stuff was on www.fark.com a while back where people photoshopped Moore doing some odd interviews (iirc). THAT was funny. Or some were, anyway.
Speaking of making fun of Moore, I heard on the Daily Show tonight they were interviewing the guy who is doing the documentary about trying (unsuccessfully) to interview Michael Moore. Someone posted a link about it a while back. Can't wait to see how he handles the Daily Show interview style!
quote:WASHINGTON, DC—According to a study released Monday by the Hammond Political Research Group, many of the nation's liberals are suffering from a vastly diminished sense of outrage.
"With so many right-wing shams to choose from, it's simply too daunting for the average, left-leaning citizen to maintain a sense of anger," said Rachel Neas, the study's director. "By our estimation, roughly 70 percent of liberals are experiencing some degree of lethargy resulting from a glut of civil-liberties abuses, education funding cuts, and exorbitant military expenditures."
San Francisco's Arthur Flauman is one liberal who has chosen to take a hiatus from his seething rage over Bush Administration policies.
"Every day, my friends send me e-mails exposing Bush's corrupt environmental policies," said Flauman, a member of both the Green Party and the Sierra Club. "I used to spend close to an hour following all the links, and I'd be shocked and outraged by the irreversible damage being done to our land. At some point, though, I got annoyed with the demanding tone of the e-mails. The Clear Skies Initiative is bogus, but I'm not going to forward a six-page e-mail to all my friends—especially one written by a man who signs his name 'Leaf.' Now, if a message's subject line contains the word 'Bush,' it goes straight into the trash."
This, btw, is a familiar phenomenon. It was a real problem during the Nixon years. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
