I've been informed that I will be attending Michael Moore's appearance in Seattle this evening; I love those pleasant surprises.

It's at Key Arena, so I'm doubting there will be much of a Q&A, but in the meantime, I thought to mention a couple of things in advance of his appearance.

What do the following have in common?

• "Phantom flight" from Tampa
• August, 2001 memo about Bin Laden and possible terror attacks
• Bush's blank stare on 9/11

The answer? They're all issues raised by Moore in his book Dude, Where's My Country, and only given consideration after publication and in consideration of Fahrenheit 9/11.

I'm looking right now at a May, 2002 Washington Post item by Bob Woodward and Dan Eggan, citation #93 in the first chapter of Moore's Dude, Where's My Country (p. 38).

The top-secret briefing memo presented to President Bush on Aug. 6 carried the headline, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," and was primarily focused on recounting al Qaeda's past efforts to attack and infiltrate the United States, senior administration officials said.

The document, known as the President's Daily Briefing, underscored that Osama bin Laden and his followers hoped to "bring the fight to America," in part as retaliation for U.S. missile strikes on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998, according to knowledgeable sources.

Bush had specifically asked for an intelligence analysis of possible al Qaeda attacks within the United States, because most of the information presented to him over the summer about al Qaeda focused on threats against U.S. targets overseas, sources said. But one source said the White House was disappointed because the analysis lacked focus and did not present fresh intelligence.

New accounts yesterday of the controversial Aug. 6 memo provided a shift in portrayals of the document, which has set off a political firestorm because it suggested that bin Laden's followers might be planning to hijack U.S. airliners.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35744-2002May17)

And yet, when the issue came up during the 9/11 hearings, people were surprised to hear about the memo.

If there's a Q&A session, I hope to ask Mr. Moore the same question nobody around here has answered for me: If the "phantom flight" story is debunked, why hasn't Ms. Steele and her named sources been hauled before Congress or a court to answer for their lies?

At any rate ... I'll let y'all know how it went.

I've been informed that I will be attending Michael Moore's appearance in Seattle this evening; I love those pleasant surprises.

It's at Key Arena, so I'm doubting there will be much of a Q&A, but in the meantime, I thought to mention a couple of things in advance of his appearance.

What do the following have in common?

• "Phantom flight" from Tampa
• August, 2001 memo about Bin Laden and possible terror attacks
• Bush's blank stare on 9/11

The answer? They're all issues raised by Moore in his book Dude, Where's My Country, and only given consideration after publication and in consideration of Fahrenheit 9/11.

I'm looking right now at a May, 2002 Washington Post item by Bob Woodward and Dan Eggan, citation #93 in the first chapter of Moore's Dude, Where's My Country (p. 38).



And yet, when the issue came up during the 9/11 hearings, people were surprised to hear about the memo.

If there's a Q&A session, I hope to ask Mr. Moore the same question nobody around here has answered for me: If the "phantom flight" story is debunked, why hasn't Ms. Steele and her named sources been hauled before Congress or a court to answer for their lies?

At any rate ... I'll let y'all know how it went.

Moore has got to be the most pathetic individual I've ever encountered.

Then my advice, Vlad, is to know thyself.

Then my advice, Vlad, is to know thyself.

Thanks for that Gandhi. I feel so enlightened. Why don't you press that fat bucket of scum about some of the many lies and distortions in his piece of cinematic excrement, Fahrenheight 9/11?

Propaganda films are usually seen as true by those that believe them, and complete lies, by those that don't believe them and are even attacked by them. Propaganda can still be true but because it is so politically energized and twisted no one will ever really know if its true or not.

Agreed. But Michaels film is certainly a propaganda film, and can be refuted easily with the slightest application of logic.

It certainly has become one, with the way its push around, his movie does state a lot of facts that he then extrapolates from, examples:

Bush and the Saudi royals have many connections and dealings: True.
Thus Bush invaded Iraq because he could not blame the Saudis: Extrapolated Opinion, Truth Unknown.

Bush and Jeb said they were going to win Florida without a doubt, long before the election: True
Thus Bush and Jeb had plans to rig the election even before the voting fiasco: Extrapolated Opinion, Truth Unknown.

For all we know Bush invaded Iraq because he actually believed Iraq was a threat and had to be stop (very possible), either that or he thought god told him to (sadly also possible). And like all politicians intense optimism of winning a elections is not uncommon, it is not a sign of election rigging.

The Movie its self is not fact, it is the personal opinions of Michel Moore based on facts. These opinion are then push around for the political goal of ousting bush, this makes it propaganda.

The popular struggle is against state-sponsored propaganda, WCF. Moore's variety of propaganda is only scary to the paranoid, and the naiive. Fight centralized, collectivized state perception-control, and leave the private-sector underdogs alone. All the truly conservative kids are doing it, and you're either with us or against us.

what state-sponsored propaganda?

Exactly.

No I mean name some propaganda that state sponsored (here in the USA that is)

Pick any major-advertising and major-lobbying corporation, and you can find their needs promoted to the detriment of your own through US government buzz, reporting, legislating, and policy. Must I name examples of these overshadowing entities affecting all our lives? The Bully Pulpit is brimming with bull.

I ment more on the lines of state runned media.

Think of it as (corporate) media and state, managed by the same hallowed, confident clique of people who are now losing touch with new realities. When government makes universally-recognized stupid strategic moves, and then the "independent" major media edits out most all embarrassments, chances are high that you are witnessing a media so influenced by the state (so indistinguishable from it) as to be largely controlled by it.

It was, all in all, a pleasant evening. The show got started late because of unexpected schedule changes. One guest was slated to speak, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), but apparently an appearance by Eddie Vedder and Mike McCready (three songs, including Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan covers) was a late surprise.

Moore seemed to operate half according to plan and half according to ramble, which was well and fine since it's what we're used to. The purpose of these shows is largely a pep-rally agenda; one could say the thematic undercurrents swirled around the notion of duty. Voter turnout was a major point, as was a plea to Washington voters to not sit on their hindquarters and be comfortable to merely be listed as a Kerry state--protect that margin. MoveOn was in attendance, organizing community efforts for to encourage people to vote, and to assist voters in getting to the polls. The most savage highlight of the evening was a series of fake Bush commercials mocking the GOP's treatment of both Kerry's military service and Kerry's willingness to adjust his opinion in response to facts.

Something I would like to thank Mr. Moore for, however, is pointing out a news article I had missed:

At least 13 relatives of Osama bin Laden, accompanied by bodyguards and associates, were allowed to leave the United States on a chartered flight eight days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to a passenger manifest released yesterday . . . .

. . . . The passenger list was made public by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who obtained the manifest from officials at Boston's Logan International Airport . . . .


. . . . Although much was already known about the "bin Laden flight," Lautenberg provided additional details, including the information that the plane, a 727 owned by DB Air and operated by Ryan International, began its flight in Los Angeles and made stops in Orlando, Dulles International Airport and Boston before continuing to Gander, Newfoundland; Paris; Geneva; and Jiddah, Saudi Arabia. The aircraft, tail number N521DB, has been chartered frequently by the White House for the press corps traveling with President Bush.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4014-2004Jul21.html)

Which leads to another duty-related theme: Moore ripped the press. I would call it savage, but he held just on this side of the line. You did not read that quote above improperly: the bin Laden family was removed from American jurisdiction on the White House Press Corps jet.

Moore pointed out to the one hand, the sheer nerve of the episode, and to the other noted that it only took the press nearly three years to figure out.

One of the lightest points in the evening came when Moore discussed the preparations of the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries for his arrival. Pfizer, according to an internal memo given to Moore by an employee of the pharmaceutical company, has established a company Michael Moore Alert hotline; if you see a heavyset, bearded man in rumpled clothing with a microphone, call in. The Pfizer memo expressed that the company was wary of Moore, as they could not figure out if he was pro or con. Whether it's that Pfizer legitimately doesn't get it, or they're merely trying to be "fair" as such, the memo got huge laughs.

As to dissent, there were apparently nine protesters outside Key Arena, and a few faithful Naderites tried to get themselves thrown out by heckling.

Of Nader, Moore had a few words, none of which were unkind. He did, however, pause to mock the feeling of "purity" that comes with holding out even when so much is on the line. While he had a point, I don't think it did much except exacerbate the Nader/Kerry division. Of course, those might have been the only Naderites there, so in the end it was just more of the pep rally.

If the underwear and Ramen gag violates election laws, those are poorly-written laws.

It was nice, I must admit, to be in a room where people didn't cover their children's ears every time a nasty word came up. Hell, my father would have called anyone using the noun "blowjob" or the adjective "fucking" in my childhood presence a bad person.

All in all, a good night. I only wish some conservatives would have been in attendance. Hell, it was only nine protesters; he should have invited them in, or sent them some pizza. (After, of course, making sure none of them were lactose intolerant.)

Lastly, I wanted to mention that Moore reminded the crowd of something I've said in the past and that many seem to wish to overlook in general. The job of the liberal, unlike the conservative, does not stop once the candidate is elected to office. Starting November 3 and redoubling on January 20, it will become our job to hold President Kerry to a proper solution in Iraq, a proper healthcare solution, a proper educational solution .... It is the duty of the liberal to not simply fall into rank behind their elected candidates, but rather to become the office-holder's biggest headache.
_____________________

• Milbank, Dana. "Plane Carried 13 Bin Ladens". Washington Post, September 19, 2001; page A07. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4014-2004Jul21.html

Why don't you press that fat bucket of scum about some of the many lies and distortions in his piece of cinematic excrement, Fahrenheight 9/11?

Such as? And please do better than the folks criticizing Bowling for Columbine.

These alegations on both sides are a bit paranoid and delusional. Farenheit 9/11 was not pure fact, no, it wasn't completely a doccumentary, more of a well informed video Essay. I don't think that Moore was particularly duplicit at any piont in it. If, going into it, you thought he was there to report the truth like some unbiased golden standard of journalistic integraty then aparently you're not familiar with Moore. He has a thesis: George Bush is an awful president, and he provides you with two hours of factual and emotional appeals to convinse you and make you think (yes, think along his lines, but what else should you expect when you go to see his movie). As usual, most of the people bellyaching about lies and propaganda didn't even see the film.

I’ve also got to hand it to Moore, I think he, like Howard Dean, helped to pave a way to really talk about this war, and this administration more critically. Like Tiassa I noticed that there were a number of issues that he raised in Dude Where’s My Country which seemed, in the months following it’s release (and especially running up too and after the release of Fahrenheit 9/11 which the more main stream media was rather slow to pick up on and begin reporting. He really put the pressure on to get America talking about these things, even if some of them were rather trivial (Bush AWOL from the national guard? Who cares about what he was doing 30 years ago? So what if he was a boozing womanizing coke head in dereliction of his duties to the National Guard while John Kerry was busy saving the lives of his crew mates, and apparently not bleeding quite enough for modern day Bush supporters, that’s old news). You’ve got to hand it to Moore, he hasn’t exactly raised the level of political discourse in the nation, but at least he’s got people talking about issues worthy of consideration.

I don't particlarly think our own news media is state controlled (save for a few sources which of course just recycle whitehouse talking points, IE Fox News), but instead the American public tends to suffer from having forgotten how to question it's leaders. Decades of relative stability and a feeling of invulnerability and ultimately apathy have left the majority of Americans, and certainly our media, unprepared for this awakening we seem to be going through under the Bush administration. I should think that this is part of why Bush has gotten a pass in main stream media. Say what you will about Bush, but part of his legacy is getting the American people interested in poletics again, we've got more registered voters nation wide than we have in quite some time.

Such as? And please do better than the folks criticizing Bowling for Columbine.

Have you seen fahrenhype 9/11? It's curt but aptly exposes Moores lying agenda.

This (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/) is little op-ed piece that I think tells the truth about what crap fahrenheight is.

This (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm) is a comprenehsive dismantling of the film.

The thing you have to realize about Moore is that is knows very well a lot of what he talks is crap. He's way to smart not to. He just doesn't care. He's worked out that the American left are a huge cash cow that will flock like sheep to with their wallets to eat up anything they that says 'America is Bad, capitalism is evil'. In short, it's a money gig

Neither of your links are impressive.

I've already responded to Hitchens' jag (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=622573). The second link you show demonstrates that people have no clue how to watch films. This is the same problem I had with people trying to discredit Bowling for Columbine. My response to Hitchens' binge covers that point.

As to the rest of the fifty-nine deceits, I'll get back to you when I find a valid one in there.

The thing you have to realize about Moore is that is knows very well a lot of what he talks is crap. He's way to smart not to. He just doesn't care. He's worked out that the American left are a huge cash cow that will flock like sheep to with their wallets to eat up anything they that says 'America is Bad, capitalism is evil'. In short, it's a money gig

Interesting, then. He was encouraging people at the show to bootleg his movies and photocopy his books. It's not about money, Vlad. It's about message.

Furthermore, I refuse to vilify Michael Moore based on your simplicity. That you're incapable of understanding certain things that are not difficult to grasp does not mean you're not entitled to your own opinion, but I can't see what respect I owe it.

Literally, he's calling on people to pirate his work. There are more important things than money, whether or not that simple reality makes any sense to you.

If Moore's film is full of blatant inaccuracies -- then why hasn't the bullshiter- I mean bushite-opposition contested a retort already, point by point? How many months have they had since Cannes to produce a counter-claim? Yet we know they can put together a film in a jiffy, like the one that is discrediting and disparaging Kerry's young military record during Vietnam.

And why would Moore take advantage of an angry American left as a huge cash-cow when he could just as easily do so much better with the angry American far right who are not petty cash-cows but excruciatingly wealthy cash-octopuses? Why, their tentacles even reach into the golden cows of the born again christians!

As to the rest of the fifty-nine deceits, I'll get back to you when I find a valid one in there.



O.K, so at the moment they stand unrefuted, because you refuse to refute them. That's 59 for David Kopel, 0 for you.

Interesting, then. He was encouraging people at the show to bootleg his movies and photocopy his books.

Right. Was that after he'd already made his 9th or 10th million?


Furthermore, I refuse to vilify Michael Moore based on your simplicity. That you're incapable of understanding certain things that are not difficult to grasp does not mean you're not entitled to your own opinion, but I can't see what respect I owe it.

Thanks for that piece of verbal masturbation.

Literally, he's calling on people to pirate his work. There are more important things than money, whether or not that simple reality makes any sense to you.

Of course there is. I wonder why Michael Moore even botheres to charge admission to his films at all? haha

Neither of your links are impressive.

I've already responded to Hitchens' jag (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=622573).




O.K, so I just went to visit your link. What I found there was absolutely nothing. Does that sit in your mind as a valid refutation to Hitchen's article? You did not even address any of his points, or make any of your own. All you did was ramble vaguely about documentary being art. Yes, well I guess we can say Moore's film is art! It's always an exercise in creativity seeing how easily Liberals will buy into vacuous rhetoric.

I think you two are being a little to confrontational to each other due to ideological differences and party bias. You can’t call the other side crap and liars without proof. If you two want to argue about F9/11 do so on a detail point-by-point attack/confirmation of the movie, do not attack each other.

WCF, I'm sorry if you find us confrontational. But how does one refute lies? If Vlad is incapable of doing the slightest amount of research, I have little respect for his vile attitude.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but your forum is at present littered with all sorts of stupid arguments that don't really deserve much in the way of a response. "I'm afraid of Kerry because he'll kill everyone in the world." "I hate Michael Moore because I don't know how to watch a film or read a book."

Sort of makes any reasonable discussion difficult with someone whose sense of reason is defined by statements like "fat bucket of scum".

I feel I have the right to be disgusted someone who feels the need to be offensive even though they can't go out of their way to put up a single original thought of their own.

Here: refute pages and pages of someone else's illiteracy so I don't have to think for myself.

Where would you like me to start, WCF? Is it not reasonable to ask that people have a legitimate point when going out of their way to be a punk?

Of course, that's the way it goes around this forum: no, a point is not required.

I will certainly go out of my way to accommodate you in your forum, WCF:

Vlad is a beautiful, literate thinker with much to say for himself and I'm sorry to be so disrespectful in your forum, WCF, in the face of such a superior and kindly-disposed intellect.

Good enough?

Or am I expected to be legitimately happy about the generally-insulting nature of the folks you allow and encourage to muck up your forum?

I'm sorry if you thought my comments amid at you alone. All I was asking for is if Vlad wants to attack F9/11 he should do it with specific attacks on details of the movie, rather then just throw profanity at it, and if you want to protect it please refrain from attacking Vald and defend the movie on specific points.

Also if you find any comments here on these subforums out of line please report them, I can't watch over every post on these to subforums alone you know (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=41144), I need people to complain and snitch.

WCF:

As long as I'm included, I'll make my response. I know I'm being confrontational.

In the meantime, I suppose I shall consider the only viable option left, and that's avoiding this forum altogether, since your legitimate concerns give the appearance of equivocation. I can't tolerate the kind of simplistic, retarded crap going on around here, and 'tis true you don't need to put up with the response. Maybe I should give some consideration to resurrecting a former method of dealing with these things and messaging such offensive folks directly. (Of course, then they whine and complain about that, so the rest of y'all get to hear about it in the end, anyway.)

As to complaining and snitching, I'll smoke a cigarette and give it some thought. I tend to think the problem's thematic, and as such, I could take up your days with the complaining and snitching.

People seem to think that equal rights means equal credibility. And that just ain't the case. Look at how pissed-off people get when I throw the "hurting children" molotov. They actually take time out from their rhetorical arsons to get upset that I set the concrete on fire. "How dare you set the sidewalk on fire while I'm burning down this church/house/place of business/school/candidate/&c.!"

What am I supposed to say then? "Fair 'nuff. Next one's coming at you." Of course, then they'd feel threatened and so forth ... it never occurs to them that setting all this stuff on fire may not be the best idea.

So, yes, we'll find another way, and they'll not bother, and I'll continue to answer for what they never do. And then this whole vicious circle will start over.

But I'll try to be nicer to the liars, and in doing so make your job ... well, give you one less thing to worry 'bout.

I think you two are being a little to confrontational to each other due to ideological differences and party bias. You can’t call the other side crap and liars without proof. If you two want to argue about F9/11 do so on a detail point-by-point attack/confirmation of the movie, do not attack each other.

I don't believe I have attacked tiassa personally in this thread, have I? She asked me to name some falsities in Moores work, so I provided her with a detailed report exposing many of them. And while she puts a lot of effort into maintaining this air of enlightened superiority, she' can't, it seems, deal with the facts on the table. She has even labeled Kopels report as 'illiterate' now..what a strange thing to say about a highly acclaimed piece of work. It's all smoke and mirrors with this girl.

Of course there is. I wonder why Michael Moore even botheres to charge admission to his films at all? haha

Theaters Charge Admissions, not directors or producers :p Go out and get a job you hippy hating bastard!

I saw Moore when he came to my town. Wasn't all that impressed. However, I was impressed by the turnout of completely anti-bush folk. Every hippie, slacker, anarchist, artist, and author from the town came out in force. I gave me a little more faith in the revolution.

There were several campus (it was held at the local Uni) republicans inside yelling at various times. Only one was kicked out because a lady yelled at him to shut up, and he called her a "stupid nigger."

Kind of sums up the whole red neck republican philosophy.

I attended the Bush rally the next day, and people were getting kicked out for having signs. It really is us and them.

Nietzsche Vs. Buddha

If Buddha and Nietzsche were confronted, could either produce any argument that ought to appeal to the impartial listener? I am not thinking of political arguments. We can imagine them appearing before the Almighty, as in the first chapter of the Book of Job, and offering advice as to the sort of world He would create. What could either say?

Buddha would open the argument by speaking of lepers, outcast and miserable; the poor, toiling with aching limbs and barely kept alive by scanty nourishment; the wounded in battle, dying in slow agony; the orphans, ill-treated by cruel guardians; and even the most successful haunted by the thought of failure and death. From all this load of sorrow, he would say, a way of salvation must be found, and salvation can only come through love.

Nietzsche, whom only Omnipotence could restrain from interrupting, would burst out when his turn came.

"Good heavens, man, you must learn to be of tougher fibre. Why go about sniveling because trivial people suffer? Or, for that matter, because great men suffer? Trivial people suffer trivially, great men suffer greatly, and great sufferings are not to be regretted, because they are noble. Your ideal is a purely negative one, absence of suffering, which can be completely secured by non-existence. I, on the other hand, have positive ideals: I admire Alcibiades, and the Emperor Frederick II, and Napoleon. For the sake of such men, any misery is worth while. I appeal to You, Lord, as the greatest of creative artists, do not let Your artistic impulses be curbed by the degenerate fear-ridden maunderings of this wretched psychopath."

Buddha, who in the courts of Heaven has learnt all history since his death, and has mastered science with delight in the knowledge and sorrow at the use to which men have put it, replies with calm urbanity:

"You are mistaken, Professor Nietzsche, in thinking my ideal a purely negative one. True, it includes a negative element, the absence of suffering; but it has in addition quiet as much that is positive as it to be found in your doctrine. Though I have no special admiration for Alcibiades and Napoleon, I, too, have my heroes: my successor Jesus, because he told men to love their enemies; the men who discovered how to master the forces of nature and secure food with less labour; the medical men who have shown how to diminish disease; the poets and artists and musicians who have caught glimpses of the Divine beatitude. Love and knowledge and delight in beauty are not negations; they are enough to fill the lives of the greatest men that have ever lived."

"All the same," Nietzsche replies, "your world would be insipid. You should study Heraclitus, whose works survive complete in the celestial library. Your love is compassion, which is elicited by pain; your truth, if you are honest, is unpleasant, and only to be known through suffering; and as to beauty, what is more beautiful than the tiger, who owes his splendour to his fierceness? No, if the Lord should decide for your world, I fear we would all die of boredom." "You might," Buddha replies, "because you love pain, and your love of life is a sham. But those who really love life would be happy as no one can be happy in the world as it is."

For my part, I agree with Buddha as I have imagined him. But I do not know how to prove that he is right by any argument such as can be used in a mathematical or a scientific question. I dislike him Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end.

[Keep in mind that Russell wrote this in the latter stages of WWII
as Allied armies were closing in to defeat Nazi Germany]

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:JXxryGiKo-kJ:www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/nietzsche/russell.html+russell+nietzsche&hl=en

Well I always did hate Bertrand Russell...

Even the encyclopedia Britannica explains that Russell misunderstood Nietzsche.

I think you hate Russell because he did understand Nietzsche; he just didn't agree.

You may think it is an unfair caricarture of Nietzsche's outlook, but you seem more sympathetic to Russell's version of him than his version of Buddha. You seem quite proud of your elitist outlook. Don't mind us if we treat such an anti-democratic attitude with the contempt it so richly deserves.

I think you hate Russell because he did understand Nietzsche

O.K fine, but a LOT of people disagree. Have you read russells "history of western philosophy'? You can't deny that the few pages or so in which his dismissed nietzsche as a meglomaniacal idiot (basically) shows that russel hardely even READ Nietzsche.

WCF, Vlad, Tiassa:

Settle down folks. I find this to be an excellent site with many well reasoned and interesting posts. Sure, there are a few trolls and many threads degenerate into adhoms, but less so than most other boards. This board allows me to hone my arguments, clarify my positions, and sheds some light on the logic (and I use the term loosely :D ) behind those on the left. Keep up the good work, WCF.

i think that michael moore is a great, intelligent and wise man. almsot everything he supports i agree with. if i had to criticise one thign about him, it would be that he is showy/flashy, and uses gimicks to get his messege accros (tho i guess. whatever the public will listen to)