Still wanna defend him?

Foxfyre, I admitted I've read Hitchens in Vanity Fair. Embarrassed

As I'm sure you've noticed, the advertising there is not quite the type you'd find in radical mags like Mother Jones, Time or Newsweek. Their target audience (or was, the last time I read Advertising Age) is fairly gated community.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

McG - this is what I said.

ehBeth wrote:
I've seen the film.
I'm comfortable with my feelings about it.
No quibbles.

That lack of quibbles is about my feelings.
I'm not defending Moore.
I'm trying to defend the right to discuss the film with other people who've seen the film - not with people who've only read opinion pieces. Which is why I ask people if they've seen it.

Fine and dandy, ehBeth, but the OP was

Quote:

BLOOMINGTON, Ill. ? Filmmaker Michael Moore's Bush-basing documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11"
apparently has upset more than Republicans.

The [Bloomington] Pantagraph newspaper in central Illinois has sent a letter to Moore and
his production company, Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., asking Moore to apologize for
using what the newspaper says was a doctored front page in the film, the paper reported
Friday. It also is seeking compensatory damages of $10M.
A scene early in the movie that shows newspaper headlines related to the legally contested
presidential election of 2000 included a shot of The Pantagraph's Dec. 19, 2001, front
page, with the prominent headline: "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election."
The paper says that headline never appeared on that day. It appeared in a Dec. 5, 2001,
edition, but the headline was not used on the front page. Instead, it was found in much
smaller type above a letter to the editor, which the paper says reflects "only the
opinions of the letter writer."

"If [Moore] wants to 'edit' The Pantagraph, he should apply for a copy-editing job," the
paper said.

Lions Gate Entertainment did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment Friday.

© 2004 Associated Press.

So, given that it is their newspaper, and they presumably know what ran where, and when, how do you feel about Moore's presentation of their paper in his film that you saw, F9/11?

0 Replies

Way to get the thread back on track PP.

0 Replies

Well, since we've already discovered that the lawsuit was not for $1 million, but apparently $1, I think I can afford to be sceptical about the rest of that article until at least tomorrow morning.

0 Replies

I would mention that Chris Hitchins also had seen the film when he wrote about it. Smile

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Since I'm not clear on the latest definition of neo-con --- it seems to be a moving target --- let's just do a quick Google and see what we get

...

Quote:
Neo-Con Christopher Hitchens Rebels Against Bush

Quote:
Hitchens stays true to his curmudgeonly essence even as he continues to evolve into a neo-con

Quote:
Rupert Murdochs pet and Neo-con warmonger and active Trotskyist, Christopher Hitchens

Quote:
Didn't neo-cons used to be called neo-liberals? Or is Hitchens a neo-con and Corn a neo-liberal?
my personal favourite, I think

Quote:

Quote:
Hitchens, the latest neo-con convert, attacked any commitment to "preserve the Iraq state."

Quote:
Christopher Hitchens's review in Slate has been widely cited, and thus deserves a lengthy reply. He and other appoplectic neo-con critics

and on and on

I used to read Mr. Hitchens opinion pieces/articles in Vanity Fair. An interesting writer. Maybe a neo-con, maybe not, but a lot of people seem to think he is.

How's the fedora, Foxfyre?

from the opinion piece that the last quote ^^^ came from

Quote:
Any movie that can provoke this much outrage and debate is worth seeing.
link

I'm not sure if anyone here read when I posted about going to see the film. I was with some right of centre colleagues, in the financial district. Not a lot of 'lefties' to be found round there.

I got this interesting link

Quote:

...people who accuse him of being a "Zionist neoconservative." (Never mind what the Zionist neoconservatives think of him.) As Shakespeare put it, wisdom and goodness to the vile seem vile, but filth savors but itself (King Lear, IV.2). A look at Hitchens's critics, especially but not exclusively on the Left, suggests the extent to which filth has now become the currency of the discursive realm.

0 Replies

Why is it that Michael Moore's alleged "creativity" is viewed as dishonest, but Fox's relentless, unabashed, agenda-driven spin is viewed (by some) as "news" ?

Even if most but not all of what Moore says is true, that much is appalling.

Did our Commander-in-Chief continue to sit in a classroom for seven minutes after being informed that the country was under attack, or not ?

Enough said.

0 Replies

Foxfyre, you know that hat you're gonna eat? You might not want to hang it on what Mr. Hitchens said.

Download the film and watch it.

I'd be interested to hear what you think of it. Once you've seen it.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Since you've asked me directly, nimh, I'll tell you. I don't really think anybody should be posting about things they don't know about - haven't experienced in most cases.

That's one of the reasons I've only made a few comments about the Democratic convention, for example. I've commented only on what I heard or saw myself. Transcripts just don't cut it for me. Without the context, it's meaningless to me.

Then we can count on a lot less involvement on A2K from ehBeth since she will be either spending all of her time experiencing things directly or simply not commenting upon them. :wink:

I didn't experience any of history prior to 1954. Does that mean I can't post about anything that happened prior to my birth.

And you're right, the transcript of Kerry's speech is meaningless without the experience of watching him recite it from a teleprompter. Words don't mean anything. it's all about body language and how and when the partisan crowd reacts. Laughing

Please climb down from that high horse, you might fall and hurt yourself.

If you want to impose strict standards upon your posting, by all means do so, but try to be indulgent of those of us who can't live up to your standards of intellectual discipline.

0 Replies

That footage of Bush sitting in the classroom after he heard the news that the second tower had been hit and the nation was "under attack" was priceless.

The beady little eyes shifting back and forth like a couple of crazed goldfish in a bowl, the low brow furrowing in an attempt to process a thought, the skinny little neck wavering in a futile attempt to keep the hydracephalic head in balance.

Yep, that's the guy who is leading our country.

Scary friggin' thought.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Quote:
Neo-Con Christopher Hitchens Rebels Against Bush

Quote:
Hitchens stays true to his curmudgeonly essence even as he continues to evolve into a neo-con

Quote:
Rupert Murdochs pet and Neo-con warmonger and active Trotskyist, Christopher Hitchens

Quote:
Didn't neo-cons used to be called neo-liberals? Or is Hitchens a neo-con and Corn a neo-liberal?
my personal favourite, I think

Quote:

Quote:
Hitchens, the latest neo-con convert, attacked any commitment to "preserve the Iraq state."

Quote:
Christopher Hitchens's review in Slate has been widely cited, and thus deserves a lengthy reply. He and other appoplectic neo-con critics

and on and on

Hmm - totally off-topic (and I dont know anything about Hitchens) - does it strike you too that when one reads this list of quotes, it appears that "neo-con" is as casually and sweepingly used a put-down as "liberal" is for right-wingers?

Even within the part-sentence wrapped around the very word, "neo-con" somehow seems to be perpetually accompanied by some kind of negative descriptor ("warmonger and active Trotskyist", "the latest [..] convert", "appoplectic"). The parallel with how "liberal" has become some kind of opaque pejorative container term for conservatives is eye-catching, really.

And me too, I loved the "Didn't neo-cons used to be called neo-liberals?" one <grins> - its true, I think I remember that - puts a wholly new turn to the definitional debate, eh? ;-)

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Then we can count on a lot less involvement on A2K from ehBeth since she will be either spending all of her time experiencing things directly or simply not commenting upon them. :wink:

That is one of the reasons I've been posting a lot less frequently in the past few months.

I didn't experience any of history prior to 1954. Does that mean I can't post about anything that happened prior to my birth.

That's one of the standard debates/discussions Setanta and I have in real life. Can you guess where Mr. History stands on this?

0 Replies

angie wrote:

Why is it that Michael Moore's alleged "creativity" is viewed as dishonest, but Fox's relentless, unabashed, agenda-driven spin is viewed (by some) as "news" ?

Yeah <sighs>. That sucks, huh, that partisan, selective outrage?

So, eh - if we agree that "Fox's relentless, unabashed, agenda-driven spin" is, well - that, exactly; can we then mention Moore's film's tendency to be, well, much of most of that too, as well?

Cause you know, otherwise "the other side" may well end up going,

Quote:

Why is it that Fox News' alleged "creativity" is viewed as dishonest, but Michael Moore's relentless, unabashed, agenda-driven spin is viewed (by some) as "news" ?

0 Replies

If Moore fudged the headline, he should acknowledge it, notwithstanding the fact that the fudged headline was true.

As I said, however, if most of what was in the film is true, it is appalling.

Moore's film clearly made some excellent points, not the least of which is that our Commander-in-Chief sat there for seven minutes doing nothing,..... to quote the author of this thread "still wanna defend him ?"

0 Replies

angie wrote:

If Moore fudged the headline, he should acknowledge it, notwithstanding the fact that the fudged headline was true.

As I said, however, if most of what was in the film is true, it is appalling.

Moore's film clearly made some excellent points, not the least of which is that our Commander-in-Chief sat there for seven minutes doing nothing,..... to quote the author of this thread "still wanna defend him ?"

Go to http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=752648#752648 and discuss this. Read the thread first as your feelings may have already been insulted.

0 Replies

I'm not sure what your point is. I read some of the thread at that link. It doesn't change my mind at all about my feelings regarding Bush's reaction. or lack thereof. He could easily have calmly informed the children that he had to leave. As many have said, seven minutes is a long time.

My feelings may have already been insulted ? How do feelings get insulted ? At any rate, my feelings remain the same.

0 Replies

Well, It was also a gentle nudge for you to post in that pre-existing thread regarding the 7 minutes instead of hijacking this one.

0 Replies

McGentrix, we don't talk very often, but I feel as if I know you.

Would you be willing to participate in a cage-match some time? One of those "to the death" events?

I appreciate your feedback.

0 Replies

Several people are wondering about Moore's honesty.
I would like to refer you to this site...
http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/

From this site,which lists some of the outright lies and distortions Moore is guilty of from the movie,comes this interesting part,talking about the 7 minutes that all of the Dems want to condemn Bush for...
"Fahrenheit Fact no. 9: Vice-Chairman of the 9/11 commission applauds Bush for the infamous "7 minutes"
Michael Moore points out that during the attacks on 9/11, President Bush remained in the Florida classroom in which he was situated for five to seven minutes after he had learned of the attacks, which is true, and independently verifiable. Moore sneeringly mentions that Bush was reading to the students from a book called My Pet Goat and uses scorn and mocking to imply that it was stupidity and incompetence that kept the President in the classroom.

The Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission has a different opinion:

If the 9/11 commission isn't worried about Bush's reaction, why should we be worried?

"Bush made the right decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the classroom," said Lee Hamilton, vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a former Democratic congressman from Indiana.
Go look it up yourself,don't take my word for it.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Well, since we've already discovered that the lawsuit was not for $1 million, but apparently $1, I think I can afford to be sceptical about the rest of that article until at least tomorrow morning.

That is a very funny comment, Beth.

A gem.

0 Replies

Still wanna defend him?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know