Posted on 06/21/2004 4:25:32 PM PDT by The Raven
One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.
>>>SNIP<<<
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...
Isikoff was just on O'Reilly's show talking about an upcoming issue of Newsweek in which he takes Moore to task for playing loose with the facts. Aside from the misrepresentations made about the Saudi flights out of the US after 9/11, Isikoff also takes issue with the Carlysle/Bush cabal, pointing out that GW cancelled one of the most lucrative Carlysle contracts...something extremely rare in this post 9/11 world. If Moore is going to sue everybody who attacks his movie, he's going to be a very busy man-boy.
So,the darling of Hollywood and the Democrat Party believes that Osama is innocent until proven guilty.
I wonder if the Democrats will put that in their party platform at the convention.
Point of the first: Mr. Moore, having caught your act twice now, you are intentionally, personally, repugnant. I think perhaps you are trying to cash in on the minority/oppressed/disabled list, but I do not see piggish lack of manners as a DSMIV recognised disability, though that is subject to change at a moment's notice.
Does make a body wonder why I work 2 jobs plus to keep body and soul together and this turd with two feet probably has more money than I will ever see.
My congratulations to Ray Bradbury, who is sueing Mr. Moores' slovenly ass off for ripping his title from the 60's.
I was sweating reading this. Moore is pummled into a thick soup.
Thanks for the SCHADENFREUDE bump...this is hilarious.
I am not sure which I enjoyed more...this or the NY Times review of Bills book.
If he's forced to change the name, he could always call it what it is: Unfair-n'-hype 9/11
Don't look for Hitchens to be interviewed about this film on any lib "fairminded" tv talk show. Moore continues to get the fawning treatment from a succession of lib toadies and fellow travelers. Dissenters from the Lets-get-rid-of-Bush movement will not be asked questions.
Sheeple also watched the German films "Triumph of Der Will" and "The Eternal Jew". Michael Moore's film should be discussed in relation to these works of propaganda.
In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
I am not sure which I enjoyed more...this or the NY Times review of Bills book.
Maybe if enough FReeper mail him the link or article he would read it. He does acknowledge that he has since learned of the lies in Bowling For Columbine:
Roger Ebert: (Fahrenheit) '9/11': Just the facts? (in defense of Michael Moore documentaries)
The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.
Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.
[snip]
Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies.
Great Hitchens article.
This and David Horowitz' latest are just what the doctor ordered.
Could you "Berg list" this one?
The left doesn't like to learn of Ray Bradbury's politics.
Isn't this an excellent article? I have been angry at Christopher Hitchens, but there is no doubt that he absolutely skewers Moore in this piece.
"Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything."
That says it all.
(Attn: Mr. Hitchens - I'll forgive your anti-Reagan tear a couple weeks ago. You obviously got better ice cubes this week. That being said, I say "Brilliant, Sir!")
By the way folks - read ALL of this. It is a devastatingly-accurate recitation of the facts!
Bravo Mr. Hitchens. When Christopher Hitchens takes on a liar and a phony he is simply the most devastating writer alive.
When he takes shots at people like George Will, he is amazingly ineffective and weak.
In general when he speaks as a leftist, attacking the right, his writing his thin and his argument lacks force. When he attacks the left his writing is passionate and powerful. I think some deep part of his soul senses the evil and dishonesty of leftist ideology. I wish like David Horowitz he could make a clean break with left wing thinking.
It would be so nice to have such a powerful voice with us on most of the issues, not just some of the issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.