] One friend I know describes working in the media as
] shoveling coal for Satan. That's about right. A worker in
] a tampon factory has dignity: He just uses his sweat to
] make a product, a useful product at that, and doesn't lie
] to himself about what he does. In this business we make
] commodities for sale and, for the benefit of our
] consciences and our egos, we call them ideas and truth.
] And then we go on the lecture circuit. But in 99 cases
] out of 100, the public has more to learn about humanity
] from the guy who makes tampons.
]
] I'm off on this tangent because I'm enraged by the
] numerous attempts at verbose, pseudoliterary, "nuanced"
] criticism of Moore this week by the learned priests of
] our business. (And no, I'm not overlooking this
] newspaper.) Michael Moore may be an ass, and impossible
] to like as a public figure, and a little loose with the
] facts, and greedy, and a shameless panderer. But he
] wouldn't be necessary if even one percent of the rest of
] us had any balls at all.
]
] If even one reporter had stood up during a pre-Iraq Bush
] press conference last year and shouted, "Bullshit!" it
] might have made a difference.

Wow, this is the kind of media rant I have been wanting to write for quite some time now. Please go and read it.

NYPress: SHOVELING COAL FOR SATAN: Christopher Hitchens collects check from Microsoft, calls Moore a coward.

] Tarnished by financial scandal, the Liberals lost 33
] seats to end an 11-year monopoly on power.

Nooooo! Canada, where am I gonna move now?!

Salon.com News | Canada's liberal party loses majority

] For the first time in more than a decade, the Army is
] forcing thousands of former soldiers back into uniform, a
] reflection of the strain on the service of long campaigns
] in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Pseudo-draft," anyone?

Salon.com News | Army recalling thousands who left service

]"If nothing changes we will have one million casualties. If things improve we can get it down to about 300,000 deaths," Andrew Natsios, head of the US Agency for International Aid told Reuters."

]"The conflict has produced what the United Nations is calling "the worst humanitarian crisis in the world".

Thats insane.
And you thought the US only cared about countries with oil and islamic extremists! Oh shit... wait...

There are also some good links on this page to editorials and timelines, as well as info about the demonstrations that were banned in time for Powell's visit.

BBC: Powell in Sudan for crisis talks

Acidus wrote:
] ] I realize that we have enemies and they need to be
] ] confronted. But I do not want this to be all that America
] ] is about in the world anymore, and that is what has
] ] happened under this administration. I don't want the rest
] ] of my career to be about an America that exports fear,
] ] not hope, and ends up importing everyone else's fears as
] ] a result. I don't want it to be about explaining to young
] ] Chinese why my government can't give them student visas
] ] anymore. I don't want it to be about visiting U.S.
] ] Embassies around the world and finding them so isolated
] ] behind barbed wire, they might as well not be there at
] ] all. Defeating "them" has begun to define "us" in too
] ] many ways.
]
] I'm enjoyed Thomas Friedman's analysis of Iraq for a while
] now, and he makes a good point about where this "War on
] Terror" is taking us.

I find it interesting that Friedman has changed his tune so much lately. His original response to September 11th was that it confirmed all his theories from his ridiculous pro-globalization manifesto The Lexus Branch and the Olive Tree and that questioning the attacks as a possible response to US Foreign policy in the middle east was "dangerous and fatuous." (quote from a lecture at my college.) His new articles have been a lot more palatable to me, but I wonder if he's starting to question the rest of his free-trade fantasy world.

RE: Friedman on US Foreign Policy

"The Supreme Court delivered a mixed verdict Monday on the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies, ruling that the U.S. government has the power to hold American citizens and foreign nationals without charges or trial, but that detainees can challenge their treatment in U.S. courts. "

But if they don't have charges, what are they supposed to be challenging? And what is their day in court if not a trial?

"Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) said the court has "made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." "

Sounds like thats exactly what it is. But still, O'Connor's getting much more centrist these days.

AP: Terror Detainees Win Right to U.S. Courts

In a low-key secret ceremony, the U.S. handed over power in Iraq two days early. Were they trying to foil terrorist attempts for the "historic day?" Or were they just ready to get the hell out of there already? Either way, its clear that Allawi's statement, "this is.... a day all Iraqis have been looking forward to" is not quite accurate.

US hands over sovereignty in Iraq

Decius wrote:
] Rattle wrote:
] ] The election was bullshit. The Bush family has many
] financial
] ] ties to the Saudis. The Bush family makes money from war.
] ] The troops are the real victims, support the troops. Eat the
]
] ] rich.
]
] The first thing about this movie is that it didn't piss me off
] as much as I thought it would. Thats mostly because Moore's
] cheap shots didn't overpower his footage.
]
] Footage of soldiers in Iraq. Their attitudes. What life is
] like over there. Amputees. Innocent bystanders with their
] faces burned up. Mothers on both sides screaming at the camera
] over their lost children. People crying in fear. All of the
] horror of what is going on juxtaposed with the insolence of
] business development types who are salivating at the
] opportunities presented by an open Iraq. Juxtaposed with our
] stupid media coverage.
]
] You should see it because it is the raw war footage thats been
] missing from the television. If there is any point that Moore
] makes that I absolutely agree with, its that the giddy, sports
] fan coverage that the U.S. media gave of the invasion of Iraq
] was absolutely disgusting, absolutely disgusting, when held
] against the horrific reality of what was going on. It was
] death as a spectator event. Like the roman coliseum. When you
] see the reality of it held next to our news coverage, our
] attitudes, you will not think us such an advanced culture.
]
] The movie is worth seeing for that reason.
]
] Does Moore lie? Yes, he certainly does. He says most of the
] people in Congress haven't read the Patriot act. He says Iraq
] never murdered Americans. He says that most of Al'Q and the
] Taliban have escaped. He raises numerous conspiracy theories
] about Florida, including the implication that Fox News had
] something to do with it, without providing any proof. He makes
] the unqualified statement that people who died on 9/11 died
] "as the result of our actions." The insane leftist attitude
] that Al'Q are like children who can't be held responsible for
] the things they do.
]
] The movie, on the whole, presented, in a propagandistic way,
] the view that wealthy people are bad people and that poor
] people are good people. The audience blindly applauded on many
] occasions through the film upon being told, by Moore, what to
] think. Like sheep. It was even more disgusting to me that they
] had emotionally recovered from some of the footage enough to
] be excited about a statement and applaud it. The movie
] certainly did not leave me in any mood for applause.
]
] Is Moore wrong about everything? Most certainly not. Could you
] have sat in that room for 15 minutes, staring at the wall in
] fear, af... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]

RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 in 4 Sentences

Rattle wrote:
] The election was bullshit. The Bush family has many financial
] ties to the Saudis. The Bush family makes money from war.
] The troops are the real victims, support the troops. Eat the
] rich.

The first thing about this movie is that it didn't piss me off as much as I thought it would. Thats mostly because Moore's cheap shots didn't overpower his footage.

Footage of soldiers in Iraq. Their attitudes. What life is like over there. Amputees. Innocent bystanders with their faces burned up. Mothers on both sides screaming at the camera over their lost children. People crying in fear. All of the horror of what is going on juxtaposed with the insolence of business development types who are salivating at the opportunities presented by an open Iraq. Juxtaposed with our stupid media coverage.

You should see it because it is the raw war footage thats been missing from the television. If there is any point that Moore makes that I absolutely agree with, its that the giddy, sports fan coverage that the U.S. media gave of the invasion of Iraq was absolutely disgusting, absolutely disgusting, when held against the horrific reality of what was going on. It was death as a spectator event. Like the roman coliseum. When you see the reality of it held next to our news coverage, our attitudes, you will not think us such an advanced culture.

The movie is worth seeing for that reason.

Does Moore lie? Yes, he certainly does. He says most of the people in Congress haven't read the Patriot act. He says Iraq never murdered Americans. He says that most of Al'Q and the Taliban have escaped. He raises numerous conspiracy theories about Florida, including the implication that Fox News had something to do with it, without providing any proof. He makes the unqualified statement that people who died on 9/11 died "as the result of our actions." The insane leftist attitude that Al'Q are like children who can't be held responsible for the things they do.

The movie, on the whole, presented, in a propagandistic way, the view that wealthy people are bad people and that poor people are good people. The audience blindly applauded on many occasions through the film upon being told, by Moore, what to think. Like sheep. It was even more disgusting to me that they had emotionally recovered from some of the footage enough to be excited about a statement and applaud it. The movie certainly did not leave me in any mood for applause.

Is Moore wrong about everything? Most certainly not. Could you have sat in that room for 15 minutes, staring at the wall in fear, after being told that the United States was under attack? Is the business relationship between leaders of the US, England, and Saudi Arabia a good thing, in that it ensures a strong working relationship, or a bad thing, in that it is more important to those involved then the interests they've been elected to defend? Moore makes a compelling case that this relationship may be a significant conflict of interest.

I do think its important people see this film.

RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 in 4 Sentences