sorry if i spelled it wrong...



anyway, well, all the BS propaganda aside, there were several facts mentioned in that film that made my blood boil

1. our relationship with Saudi Arabia makes me furious
2. the army recruiters made me furious
3. the "collateral damages" in Iraq made me furious
4. the appointment of Hamed Karzai made me furious

Hmm. You know, I really wasn't all that swayed by F-9/11.

First, I thought that maybe it's because I'm already converted, but that doesn't make any sense since most of the audiences have been predominantly left-leaning and have embraced the film with open arms.

But then I thought about it some more, and I realized that all the movie does is string together already well-known facts in an attempt to put them into a linear framework. There were a few things that were new and interesting to me--the missing names on the president's military paperwork, the footage of black House Republicans trying to find a Senator to go along with them--but for the most part, people who have kept up with the president's administration knew about most of this stuff.

As a film, I think, that's where it really fails. Am I really supposed to believe, for example, that the president's response to 9/11 was swayed more by some business ties than by his responsibility to the American people? And, ultimately, what's the final point? But maybe there isn't one. Because as a polemic, the movie is spot-on--which, in turn, is why you're so pissed off. It's a much more effective and on-message film than Bowling for Columbine or Roger and Me, but it's not nearly as entertaining.

When Karzai signed that oil pipeline paper, I almost punched the screen.

A very astute friend of mine, who works with me, wrote this review for it as a political-sided view of the film. He was the editor of World Magazine and has served as Vice Chairman of the Republican Party in the 90s, so he comes from a very rich political history.

I don't agree with a lot of his take, but it does show the film lacks in many ways.

By Roy Maynard,
Tyler Morning Telegraph

It was very high praise when British journalist G.K. Chesterton said of his brother, "We often argued but never quarreled."

To understand the difference between arguing and quarreling is to understand what's wrong with Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" - indeed, what's wrong with much of political discourse today.

I like an argument. In fact, I teach debate. And the first thing I teach my students is that an argument is a claim supported by reason or evidence. A claim without support is merely an accusation, a complaint - a quarrel. Good arguments win people over, I teach my debaters; quar-rels convince no one.


Moore's film is full of claims, but they're not supported with good evidence. He offers polemics, but not proof.

For example, the film begins with the claim that President Bush stole the election, and that "every recount" showed that Al Gore actually won Florida.

This is demonstrably untrue. In 2001, the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center conducted a thorough, six-month study on behalf of eight news organizations. It found that Bush won Florida after all.

Nor are Moore's claims supported by clear, consistent reasoning. In fact, he often makes contradictory claims.

For example, he slams the Bush administration for its dealings with Saudi Arabia before and after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Why did the administration allow some Saudis to fly home soon after the attacks? Why hasn't the administration seized Saudi assets in American banks, since most of the Sept. 11 terrorists were Saudi? And why was Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador, invited to the White House just days after the attacks?

And yet later in the film, Moore slams the rednecks who say they mistrust foreigners now. So which is it? I don't believe Michael Moore really intends to say that we should all be tolerant - except of Saudis. But because of sloppy reasoning, that's what comes through.

Moore makes similarly schizophrenic demands on his audience when he looks at the U.S. military. His portrayal of a slain soldier is nearly hagiographic. And then he shows U.S. troops at their worst, piping heavy metal music through a tank's intercom while shooting Iraqis.

Which would he have us believe? That American soldiers are innocent victims of a Bush/Saudi conspiracy, or that American soldiers are brutal victimizers of innocent Iraqis?

There are other logical fallacies in the film; Moore seems to spend a great deal of time and film stock trying to convince us that President Bush has an annoying laugh, and that Republicans all get made up before they go on camera. OK, Michael, granted - but what's your point?

Moore's point, it seems, is a wilder conspiracy theory than anything mainstream Hollywood has come up with lately. The war in Afghanistan was really launched because a big oil company wanted to build a pipeline. The war in Iraq was launched because Saddam picked on Bush's daddy. Cultural fascists were delighted with Sept. 11, because it allowed them to goose-step all over the Bill of Rights.

Such theories - and his ham-fisted sermonizing - show that Moore's movie is merely a quarrel. It's not a debate, nor a discussion. It's an impassioned row. And that's what much of political discourse seems to be devolving into lately.

We've heard it from both sides. Bush isn't merely wrong; he's evil. Those who speak out against the war in Iraq aren't just misguided; they're treasonous.

It's a mistake to dismiss it as election-year rhetoric. That's an injustice to the word rhetoric, which means effective communication. "Effective" is exactly what such discourse isn't. Moore's movie, I predict, won't have any impact at all on the 2004 presidential election, though his expressed purpose is to do so.

Many of the points that Moore has made - though made poorly - are worth considering, but his movie won't convince anyone to do so. Quarrels can't convert.

I'm always up for a good argument. But when faced with a quarrel, the only sensible thing to do is walk away.

©Tyler Morning Telegraph 2004

Originally posted by sppunk


And yet later in the film, Moore slams the rednecks who say they mistrust foreigners now. So which is it? I don't believe Michael Moore really intends to say that we should all be tolerant - except of Saudis.

...

Which would he have us believe? That American soldiers are innocent victims of a Bush/Saudi conspiracy, or that American soldiers are brutal victimizers of innocent Iraqis?


both, dumbass! how in the hell are those contradictory?


Moore's point, it seems, is a wilder conspiracy theory than anything mainstream Hollywood has come up with lately. The war in Afghanistan was really launched because a big oil company wanted to build a pipeline. The war in Iraq was launched because Saddam picked on Bush's daddy. Cultural fascists were delighted with Sept. 11, because it allowed them to goose-step all over the Bill of Rights.

Such theories - and his ham-fisted sermonizing - show that Moore's movie is merely a quarrel. It's not a debate, nor a discussion. It's an impassioned row. And that's what much of political discourse seems to be devolving into lately.


wow, your debater friend sure knows how to dismiss actual pressing questions and issues as conspiracy theories without proving them wrong because the film "brought them up poorly." good stuff.

you know what pissed me off about farenheit 9/11? the fact that i had to pay $10 to see what should be common knowledge and in the newspapers and on TV.

Originally posted by thrillhouse
wow, your debater friend sure knows how to dismiss actual pressing questions and issues as conspiracy theories without proving them wrong because the film "brought them up poorly." good stuff.

No, he's not trying to prove or disprove anything. He's just saying the film comes to some pretty far-reaching conclusions from the set of facts it presents. And about that, he's absolutely correct.

It is somewhat out there, for example, to suggest that the president of the United States risked his political and personal future on a selfish revenge mission. It's Moore's job to offer some proof that his conclusion is accurate when lots of other scenarios, even given the facts he presents, seem more plausible; the film does little to nothing to present that proof, instead deciding that because Bush is a bad man, the farthest-reaching conlcusion must be correct. It's a polemic, not a well-formed argument, and anyone on either side of the political spectrum can pick it apart rather easily.

Also, concerning your second point: 90 percent of the facts presented in F-9/11 had been reported by the mainstream press. That's been stated by Moore himself on more than one occasion. Granted, Moore is probably justified in criticizing the media for sitting on its hands during the buildup to war, but it's also fair to criticize the American people--even those who consider themselves politically aware--for not bothering to keep up with things or paying attention to only one side of the issues.

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants
Hmm. You know, I really wasn't all that swayed by F-9/11.

First, I thought that maybe it's because I'm already converted, but that doesn't make any sense since most of the audiences have been predominantly left-leaning and have embraced the film with open arms.

But then I thought about it some more, and I realized that all the movie does is string together already well-known facts in an attempt to put them into a linear framework. There were a few things that were new and interesting to me--the missing names on the president's military paperwork, the footage of black House Republicans trying to find a Senator to go along with them--but for the most part, people who have kept up with the president's administration knew about most of this stuff.

As a film, I think, that's where it really fails. Am I really supposed to believe, for example, that the president's response to 9/11 was swayed more by some business ties than by his responsibility to the American people? And, ultimately, what's the final point? But maybe there isn't one. Because as a polemic, the movie is spot-on--which, in turn, is why you're so pissed off. It's a much more effective and on-message film than Bowling for Columbine or Roger and Me, but it's not nearly as entertaining.

i usually dont agree with or like much you say, but i think your quite correct with this. quite correct

Originally posted by sppunk

By Roy Maynard,


:rockon:

Originally posted by sleeper


i usually dont agree with or like much you say, but i think your quite correct with this. quite correct

That's pretty big of you considering that you hate America

Originally posted by mpp
When Karzai signed that oil pipeline paper, I almost punched the screen.

Did you run down the aisle, swinging your arm in a circle like Popeye before thinking better of it?

Originally posted by sppunk
Nor are Moore's claims supported by clear, consistent reasoning. In fact, he often makes contradictory claims.

For example, he slams the Bush administration for its dealings with Saudi Arabia before and after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Why did the administration allow some Saudis to fly home soon after the attacks? Why hasn't the administration seized Saudi assets in American banks, since most of the Sept. 11 terrorists were Saudi? And why was Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador, invited to the White House just days after the attacks?

And yet later in the film, Moore slams the rednecks who say they mistrust foreigners now. So which is it? I don't believe Michael Moore really intends to say that we should all be tolerant - except of Saudis. But because of sloppy reasoning, that's what comes through.

But they weren't 'some Saudis', they were the Bin Laden family - relatives of the guy actually suspected of orchestrating the attack. And the whole point about freezing the assets is that there's a completely different approach towards Saudi Arabia regarding suspected terrorists in their country than towards other countries. Lots of tiptoeing around and not rocking the boat too much.

So where's the, uh, 'slam'? He shows a bunch of people in small town America saying they mistrust foreigners in general, which is more a reflection of the climate of fear and the lack of education in these areas than a condemnation of inherent bigotry. How you can make the logical leap from mentioning that Bin Laden's family were flown out of the country specially and that the Saudi government weren't very co-operative, to 'we must not be tolerant of Saudis' is beyond me. Sounds like MAYNAAAARD likes jumping to his own misguided conclusions for the purposes of a good story.