Fahrenheit 9/11

Originally posted by ExCyber@Jun 29, 2004 @ 08:19 PM

I've read very little of Franken's writings, but it sounds like he's doing spoof interviews...

He does spoof interviews all the time. They're not meant to be taken seriously. But it's also really obvious when he is, so no one should be complaining that he's making stuff up (he is, but he admits it fully--it's called satire). And, to his credit, when Franken misquotes someone or goofs on a fact, he admits it and corrects it. He even has a segment on his show specifcally to do so. I wonder, do Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly et al. have similar segments? Not that I know of.

To me it would seem that although the left can exaggerate and hype as much as the right, the left gives the right a chance to speak their piece. The mouthpieces of the right tend to shout down and belittle anyone who questions their beliefs. Once you start calling people unpatriotic for trying to have a civil political discourse, you lose pretty much all my respect.
 
Those who want to see the movie can find a Bittorrent link over at Little Gamers (together with a small clip where Moore says he thinks it's OK to download it).
 
To me it would seem that although the left can exaggerate and hype as much as the right, the left gives the right a chance to speak their piece. The mouthpieces of the right tend to shout down and belittle anyone who questions their beliefs. Once you start calling people unpatriotic for trying to have a civil political discourse, you lose pretty much all my respect.

Heh, I generally agree with you (in fact, did anyone see Bush's interview with Carole Coleman? Google it if you haven't seen it, it's pretty funny), but once my boss had the radio on at work, and it was tuned into some talk show (a local one, I believe), where the host was trying to convince everyone that Republicans had lower IQs on average than Democrats. Of course, that was pretty silly, but that kind of thing makes people angry and grabs their attention, which is what radio and TV producers care about. All of these public figures have a persona that they put on; it may be even be in conflict with their private life (see Rush).

And MTXBlau, I've always heard NYC referred to as Gotham. Is that incorrect? I always thought it was simply a generic descriptive term.
 
Just want to throw this out:

Has anyone else realized that no matter who is president there is always going to be a large group of people that aren't happy?
 
I saw it. I'm sure I'm somewhere in that picture Moore has on his site of opening night in North Canton, Ohio.

This film is less "entertaining" than Bowling for Columbine, for good reason. Bowling for Columbine was meant to be a clever glance at America's obsession with guns and violence, and meant to spark discussion and debate. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary, showing facts and backing them up with sources and evidence. Other than the ice cream truck, we don't see Moore pulling any of the stunts and gags that he's known for. This time, he takes the time to show where his facts come from. "According to the Washington Post," and "The New York Times reported," are both heard in his narration.

The only claim he makes without any direct evidence is that Bush was behind the evacuation of members of Osama Bin Ladden's family in the days after 9/11, while all airline traffic was supposed to be grounded. However, he provides enough documented evidence to show the links between the Bushes and the Bin Laddens that, ask any trial lawyer (or regular Law and Order viewer), this circumstantial connection can be made and would hold up if presented in court.

As for Moore's voter registration... Hey, Bill O'Riley claimed to be independent, and Al Franken tracked down his Republican registration. Thing is, I'm registered Democrat, yet consider myself independent. I'm registered Democrat because I voted in that primary (for Dennis Kucinich, I'll have you know). However, I feel that the Democratic party is far too conservative these days on most topics, and yet I tend to agree with the Republicans on certain other topics (I'm anti-abortion for instance, though not for any religious reasons). (Thinking about it, I'm pretty much a Socialist the way by beliefs run, so maybe I should register with the Communist party... LOL)

The one thing in Fahrenheit 9/11 that bothered me the most was how much time he spent with the woman whose son was killed in Iraq. He spent so much time with her, her reading her son's final letter, then her confronting the anti-war protesters in Washington DC, it became extremely uncomfortable to watch. Then, when the movie was over and I was walking back to my car, it hit me. The pain and discomfort I'd felt watching those sequences wasn't even a TENTH of the pain that woman was experiencing. My discomfort wasn't even enough to register compared to what she was going through, loosing her son to a war he didn't believe in, in a place he should have never been sent to. And perhaps that was the point Moore wanted to make. Forget the disaster the economy has turned into, forget all the shady back room deals and former G.W.B. business partners that now hold powerful positions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The real point of this film is to show what the actions and policies of our current president have truly cost us: A generation's innocence.

I encourage everyone, even you racketboy, even you Iceman, to try to see this film with an open mind. Sure, it has plenty of left wing "propaganda" to go around, but if you can get past that you'll see some truly moving filmmaking at the core.
 
Originally posted by VertigoXX@Jun 30, 2004 @ 11:40 AM

(I'm anti-abortion for instance, though not for any religious reasons).

Hmm. See, this is something I never understood. Now I have a chance to ask a question about it (purely for curiosity's sake, please don't think I'm attacking you; you're entitled to your opinion and I respect it).

Here's the way I see it. No one is "pro" abortion. It's not like people who think abortions should be legal, or those that have had them or need them, WANT them. I don't think there's one person out there that looks forward to having an abortion for any reason. But, there are situations where it needs to be legal (ie: incest, rape, health risk for mother). Negating any religious reasons (which you have), why would anyone want to stop people who need (not want) an abortion from having one?

Now that's somewhat of a simplified argument just so I don't get too long winded. But barring any kind of religious reasons, I can't figure out why someone would be against a medical procedure that could possibly save someone's life.
 
Originally posted by Quadriflax@Jun 30, 2004 @ 04:58 PM

Hmm. See, this is something I never understood. Now I have a chance to ask a question about it (purely for curiosity's sake, please don't think I'm attacking you; you're entitled to your opinion and I respect it).

Here's the way I see it. No one is "pro" abortion. It's not like people who think abortions should be legal, or those that have had them or need them, WANT them. I don't think there's one person out there that looks forward to having an abortion for any reason. But, there are situations where it needs to be legal (ie: incest, rape, health risk for mother). Negating any religious reasons (which you have), why would anyone want to stop people who need (not want) an abortion from having one?

Now that's somewhat of a simplified argument just so I don't get too long winded. But barring any kind of religious reasons, I can't figure out why someone would be against a medical procedure that could possibly save someone's life.

because you think it's morally wrong to kill a human being? (even if they aren't born yet)
 
Originally posted by racketboy@Jun 30, 2004 @ 12:05 PM

because you think it's morally wrong to kill a human being? (even if they aren't born yet)

Well, that's where I guess this ends. I don't really see a few cells as a "human being."
 
Originally posted by Quadriflax@Jun 30, 2004 @ 05:06 PM

Well, that's where I guess this ends. I don't really see a few cells as a "human being."

what if those few cells were you?
 
Quad,

You're echoing a lot of what I believe there.

EDIT: at least you were until you said "I don't really see a few cells as a 'human being.'"

I am not a christian person. I was raised catholic, but have long since renounced any form of organized religion. That does not mean that I am not a moral person, however. One big thing people in this country need to realized is that morals and religion are two completely different things (though one can influence the other).

On a moral level, I belive that abortion as a form of birth control is wrong. As early as the pregnancy can be detected, you have a viable life. I dream of the day that we see abortion clinics across the country close their doors for good. However, I don't want to see that happen because abortion has been made illegal. I want to see that happen because there is no longer a need for them to stay open. You're right, it needs to remain legal for use as a medical procedure when the mother's life is at risk or when it is the more humane thing to do (IE: severe birth defects, brain damage, etc.). But there is really no other time it should be necessary. I'd like to see birth control pills become available over the counter. Many women would use the pill if they weren't too embarassed to go to their family doctor to ask for a prescripiton. As for cases of rape, when a woman goes to the hospital and reports a rape, one of the things the hospital does is give her a "morning after" pill, even if she says the rapist wore a condom. If we, as a people, would get over the stigma of "oooohhh, she was raped..." it would be a lot easier for rape victims to come forward. As for incest... well, that's a whole different thing there. Incestual rape, see above. That's something this country needs to work on as a whole. As for general incest, it would just depend on whether the child was going to be born with a birth defect or not.

Sad thing is, what I just said up there (in bold) is exactly what I've been hoping for Kerry to say. That's the biggest issue he has refused to give any clear statement of his beliefs on, always skirting the issue or delivering some mumbo jumo to make the reporter think he answered, but not be sure what he said. He's catholic, so he probably has anti-abortion leanings, but is a Democrat, so is probably afraid to state so for fear of backlash from his party. But if he was to make a statement like the one I made above, he would please people on both sides of the issue. Granted, there will always be the religious extremists who believe any form of birth control is evil, but the majority of anti-abortionists (or pro-lifers if you prefer) will accept the middle ground of legal but unnecessary.
 
in many cases, I think adoption is a much better option than abortion. I have heard countless stories of women (some I know personally) from many circumstances say they regret they're abortion.
 
I can see your point in an ideal world. Unfortunatly, many rape victoms do not come forwrad. Most incestual rape victims never come forward. And as for the morning after pill, it does not work 100% of the time. And the effectivness seriously drops after 24 hours.
 
Originally posted by schi0249@Jun 30, 2004 @ 05:46 PM

I can see your point in an ideal world. Unfortunatly, many rape victoms do not come forwrad. Most incestual rape victims never come forward. And as for the morning after pill, it does not work 100% of the time. And the effectivness seriously drops after 24 hours.

who says they have to "come forward" they don't have to say anything more than they would at an abortion clinic. Besides, it's not like an abortion is an easy thing to do.
 
Originally posted by racketboy@Jun 29, 2004 @ 09:37 PM

in many cases, I think adoption is a much better option than abortion. I have heard countless stories of women (some I know personally) from many circumstances say they regret they're abortion.

And there's many more where they're thankful that it was legal.

And then there's even more that during the late 70's performed back alley abortions and completely lost the ability to give birth to children, or worse, lose their life.

Adoption isn't a 'loving' choice, it's a choice. Reason being, adoption is this nebulous choice where every child gets adopted and they're happy. No. For the uninitiated, close to one million foster children last year were abused by their foster parents.

One such story was a family with five foster children. Starved, one died from lack of eating. Cigarette burns. Scars from beatings. How can they get all those foster children? Because the screening process is very limited. And you get cash per child you 'fosterize'.

Why? Because social services are cash strapped. Terribly. It's one of those things no one ever mentions - social security funding and military funding get mentioned before it. People want their tax breaks, and they want their social services, but you can't always have it both ways.

Even worse, social workers barely make any money. My aunt is a social worker, and I've done a LOT of volunteer work with foster children. She's barely making a pittance. And there are certainly not enough volunteers. And even if there were, there isn't enough trained workers to deal with these situations that run rampant.

Even better still, the Bush administration has promoted abstinence as birth control. fine. However, they spent close to $1 billion in those adverts, and next to none of that money went to social services. It's a state problem or some such. And the states clamor for money. It's a federal problem. Very nebulous.

And now the bush administration coerced the FDA to not allow the morning after pill. So they want no abortion, don't want the morning after pill, and don't want to fund social services. Let's stick our heads in the sand with them and see if everything gets better?

Back in the 70s you could have a procedure done outside of the US if you had a significant medical emergency. That is, you had get a doctor's note to leave the country. One such doctor commented (name withheld, I will try to find the book) that he had expected younger women to come... but instead it was late 20 early 30s women who had married. In fact they came with their husbands. They just weren't ready to have a child. It's an odd demographic that at least I didn't expect would be the ones looking for this service.

In regards to Quad, I agree. It is only cells. I love how the conservatives like showing off signs of aborted fetuses - illegally obtained fetuses in the third tri-mester, when procedures are legally limited to the mother having a better than 50% chance of dying.

Before the third tri-mester, a fetus isn't viable. It isn't 'alive', that is, it's life cannot be sustained by its own faculties. At least to me, calling that gelatinous blob life and trying to give it legal standing is ludicrous. Then goes the slippery slope argument. What about cows?

I'm a male. And not having the faculties to give birth, I don't feel like I have any right to dictate what I woman can or can't do with her body. Trust me, if a bunch of conservative white old females made laws regarding men's penises, there would be an uproar.

Having an abortion isn't easy either. I volunteered at a clinic. I didn't do that long because it was heartbreaking. You have these females who are terrified, who are angry, ashamed and hurt, then you have these idiots protesting with their holier than thou arguments. Not an adopted child among them (and trust me, anti-choicers love ballyhooing their adopted trophies). Screaming epithets. For most of them, the choice was painfully hard. You can see some with the deer in headlights look too. Those I imagine are the ones that regret it.

I love the anti-choicers who say 'I had x number of abortions, but I regret all of them, and you should too!' My thing is, I don't like the procedure. I hate the idea of it. But if you don't like abortions, don't have one.

Talk to me when you petition your senator (as I have, numerous times) about increasing funding for social services.
 
Originally posted by racketboy@Jun 29, 2004 @ 09:51 PM

who says they have to "come forward" they don't have to say anything more than they would at an abortion clinic. Besides, it's not like an abortion is an easy thing to do.

They have to say a lot more at an abortion clinic. It's a three day process, and they grill you with questions and force feed you the other alternatives to make sure it's what you want to do.

Some places its more. And some states require parental/guardian or husband consent.

Depending on the state, rape services can be pretty lousy. At least in Philly (a progressive medial thing) there's a specialized team to handle rape cases. There's a huge psychological burden that regular doctors can't possibly comprehend (especially in PA, where the medical situation is absolutely terrible - another present from the wonderful conservatives of the state... idiots)
 
in many cases, I think adoption is a much better option than abortion.

I agree, but it's also much more expensive on several levels for a woman to give birth, regardless of whether or not they raise the child afterward. If society did more to alleviate that cost, maybe we'd see fewer "convenience" abortions. I've held for a while now that the best way to fight abortion is to encourage the alternative and fight the causes that motivate people to choose it, not to merely criminalize and treat as an isolated phenomenon something that is a symptom of a larger problem. That's why I am "pro-choice" - not because I am for abortion, but because I am against the drug-war approach to fixing society.

I'm registered Democrat because I voted in that primary (for Dennis Kucinich, I'll have you know)

Thanks. Regardless of whether or not he could have won (the defeatism projected toward him was a self-fullfilling prophecy IMO) or would have made a good president, I think the debates were seriously enhanced by his presence, more so than Dean, Sharpton, and Moseley-Braun. In my view he is the most eloquent and least "political" of the candidates. Browsing through his website to remind myself of some of his messages, I found this particularly striking passage (from this essay:

Capitol Hill today is abuzz with busy people. We run, under the watchful eyes of a large security force, past the metal detectors, from meeting to meeting, tethered to our cell phones and our pagers, in a time famine, starving for an extra moment, rushing headlong as to the Mad Hatter's tea party, just a step ahead of an avalanche of details. The pace of Congress is not a human pace, and one gets the feeling of the rehearsed, automatic activity of a supernumerary who is not permitted to know the main plot. As we hurry from vote to vote, the most frequently asked question members ask on the floor of the House is: "What are we voting on?" No time to say hello or good-bye, we are already late for our next meeting. We are bombarded with information that will be absolutely meaningless 50 years from now, sapping us of the time we need to do things that will matter 50 years from now.

Incidentally, that may be the first time I've ever had to grab a dictionary when reading a statement by a modern politician. :eek:mg:
 
Originally posted by ExCyber@Jun 30, 2004 @ 07:08 PM

I agree, but it's also much more expensive on several levels for a woman to give birth, regardless of whether or not they raise the child afterward. If society did more to alleviate that cost, maybe we'd see fewer "convenience" abortions. I've held for a while now that the best way to fight abortion is to encourage the alternative and fight the causes that motivate people to choose it, not to merely criminalize and treat as an isolated phenomenon something that is a symptom of a larger problem. That's why I am "pro-choice" - not because I am for abortion, but because I am against the drug-war approach to fixing society.

That's what a lot of conservatives are actually doing now.

You may think all conservatives are out protesting abortions and calling the poor girls evil and all that, but that's just some people -- and unfortunately the stereotype.

I support a program that is run by some people that go to my church. They help council women that are in situations where they are considering abortion. They don't preach to them or anything like that. It's not tied to any religious thing. The help them consider options and help them along as much as they can. In fact every year my church has a donation drive for the organization and the responce is very positive.

I personally get upset when liberals stereotype us conservatives as all being holier-than-thou and screaming "you're evil" all the time. In fact I hate it when other Christians do that. It's not a good attitude to have. The Bible says that we are to love each other no matter what. As some have put it, we are to "hate the sin, but love the sinner". If a girl has an abortion, I'm not gonna get on her case, but I am going to be saddened by the situation.

If a person does act like the holier-than-thou stereotype, that's a problem with that person, not a problem with Christianity
 
Heh... I'm still holding out hope that Kucinich will be offered the vice presidental spot on Kerry's ticket. Out of all the guys running in the primary, he was the only one who could stand there and say, "Here, this is what I'll do and this is how I'll do it." All anyone else could say was, "Oh, yeah, I'll do this and this and that and that..." Nobody else could say how, nobody else had a plan ready.
 
Back
Top