Supersize me

[Denial]

What I mean by "George Bush is still your president" is not to question the peoples choice in democracy, but he is in charge of the most powerful country on earth. Even the average American who is not happy with something can easily sue or whatever so USA's media would have alot of trouble trying to get away with making up complete bullshit about the guy to make him sound worse, even if he is a joke.  They don't really need to lie to find out the truth of something stupid he did anyway.

It sounds like George probably wont be president after the next election, but who knows after all there are those citizens who think what he is done was right...

American citizens cannot sue media corporations as you seem to think. First of all, Michael Moore isn't a media conglomerate, though he may be as big as one, he's a private citizen with an agenda. As far as I know (not having read the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance/Free-Speech Reform law), the government can't take away your ability to say what you want. The only restrictions are those on slander, and it is extremely hard to prosecute slander, especially against people in public office. Moreover, Moore is doubly hard to prosecute since he claims to be funny (though I have yet to see this so called humor of his) and it is basically impossible to pin down anything he says as a lie because Moore can and will respond that he was attempting to be satirical. You can say "President Bush eats babies" and not hear a peep if you claim your statement was meant to be humorous.

 

[asmer]

I personaly haven't seen "Fahrenheit 9/11", only "Bowling for Columbine", but I don't think Mickael Moore is that bad. And as far as I know his documentaries (the movie sized one) are not supposed to be funny... He had a show from which I saw a few episodes, and he was on a theater scene, that show was I guess to be labelled a comedic one. But his long documentaries are more "political", imho.

But even if it's comedic work, I don't think he can't be prosecuted for the nature of his works, but because he has the right to not agree with other people, and to say it on-screen. He doesn't need to pretend it was satirical or anything... I mean, how can someone even prove he meant it as a joke, or as a real accusation?!  :-\ But anyway, I don't think Sparnage's post was supposed to talk about Mickael Moore, but I'm not sure of that.

 

[ELEKTROFUNK]

Regarding Farenheit 911 I think it was a pretty good documentary and a good recap of the last four years or so of the Bush presidency.
Sure Michael Moore is extremist when it comes to his ideals and everybody who has read a book of his or seen one of his documentarys know that. Still I think many changes and atrocitys have been done on the name of "stoping terrorists from attacking us" and nobody can block the sky with the palm of his hand (translation from a spanish proberb). Maybe farenheit is extremist in some points but sadly in its core it hides mostly truths. A presidents business relationship with the family of the most wanted man on earth,wars being waged on lies, fishy elections and the patriot act...

 

[Sparnage]

American citizens cannot sue media corporations as you seem to think. First of all, Michael Moore isn't a media conglomerate, though he may be as big as one, he's a private citizen with an agenda. As far as I know (not having read the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance/Free-Speech Reform law), the government can't take away your ability to say what you want. The only restrictions are those on slander, and it is extremely hard to prosecute slander, especially against people in public office. Moreover, Moore is doubly hard to prosecute since he claims to be funny (though I have yet to see this so called humor of his) and it is basically impossible to pin down anything he says as a lie because Moore can and will respond that he was attempting to be satirical. You can say "President Bush eats babies" and not hear a peep if you claim your statement was meant to be humorous.

I mean it the other way around, media and commercial corporations has control over what is displayed in their country moreso than some might think. I don't think it's as bad as it used to be but if a movie or book or whatever has something in it that isn't what is considered politically correct then it can easily be either edit out the offensive bits or not released in the country at all. I think it's mostly meida forms from other countrys, I have seen different books on such issues saying "not for sale in USA" or something similar. The only movie I can think of that was edited to avoid controversy was that old "wages of fear" movie from like 1955 or something, i'm not sure which part was changed though, probably something political.

 

[Jon Schaffer 2]

In 100 years we will all be dead.

In 2015 around 300 billion people will be dead. According to John Titor.

 

[Sparnage]

In 2015 around 300 billion people will be dead. According to John Titor.

Futureman? There is only 6 billion people on it now, 300 billion dying in a war would have to be like killing the human race several times over.

 

[DarkBlademaster]

According to John Titor

Not that dumbass shit again...

 

[Denial]

A presidents business relationship with the family of the most wanted man on earth,wars being waged on lies, fishy elections and  the patriot act...

I advise you to check out the article I linked to by Mr. Kopel, he addresses issues regarding the business relationships and election of W. Bush.

As for "wars being waged on lies" -- As far as I know a lie is something said or undertaking knowing it is not true. American, Russian, British, French, etc. intelligence all agreed that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Where I come from not being omniscient does not constitute a lie.

As for the PATRIOT act -- You know, everyone likes to harp on this bill, but 100% guarantee that you and virtually everyone else who cites it as a loss of personal liberty have not read it (and, in fairness, nor have I). The two relevant expansions of powers -- To wiretap suspected terrorists without requiring a Judge's approval (a power which law enforcement already possesses with regard to drug dealers), and to monitor suspected terrorists' reading lists at public libraries -- have, according to John Ashcroft, never even been used.

 

[Denial]

I mean it the other way around, media and commercial corporations has control over what is displayed in their country moreso than some might think. I don't think it's as bad as it used to be but if a movie or book or whatever has something in it that isn't what is considered politically correct then it can easily be either edit out the offensive bits or not released in the country at all. I think it's mostly meida forms from other countrys, I have seen different books on such issues saying "not for sale in USA" or something similar. The only movie I can think of that was edited to avoid controversy was that old "wages of fear" movie from like 1955 or something, i'm not sure which part was changed though, probably something political.

I agree with you to an extent, that many corporations are unwilling to distribute, fund, report, or otherwise disseminate politically incorrect knowledge. Though I would include the caveat that political correctness is primarily a tool wielded by the Democrats and usually associated other disproportionately powerful interest groups which claim to speak for their respective groups (Blacks, 'Women', Gays, etc.). It is therefore unlikely that Political Correctness would be a concern when the film targets a perceived enemy of Political Correctness.
Overall, though, the media in America is becoming more and more fragmented and caters more directly towards viewers than at any other time. If there's a market it will be catered to, and there is definitely a market in this country for Bush-is-Stupid invective and Bush-is-Evil conspiracies.

 

[Sparnage]

I agree with you to an extent, that many corporations are unwilling to distribute, fund, report, or otherwise disseminate politically incorrect knowledge.

And how would you personally define politically incorrect?

 

[Denial]

And how would you personally define politically incorrect?

Depends on what you're looking for.
Do you want some sort of overriding principle that determines what's politically incorrect or not? Because that doesn't really exist. The closest I can come with that is "Anything that the mainstream media deems to be harmful or threatening to the mainstream media's agenda," since Political Correctness depends heavily on and is formed by the mainstream media's selectivity and interests.

If you want examples, it's pretty easy to come up with examples of political incorrectness. The old book "The Bell Curve," for example, was dead in the water because the media brought out every gun in their arsenal against it, from character assassination on the authors to poor book reviews to high handed NAACP representatives denouncing the book. Of course, I'd bet good money that most of the people inflamed by the book hadn't read a single word of it. Contradicting the sacred cow that race is only skin deep, even though it's quite obvious that is not true (though the extent of genetics compared to socialization is unknown) is a sure way to be politically incorrect. I could list more if I were willing to type them...

If you're asking literally, how I would define political correctness, then my answer is-- Though control. Doublethink, Newspeak, Ingsoc.

 

[Sparnage]

I know what the term means, just curious to your personal definition so thats fair enough.

 

[ELEKTROFUNK]

As for "wars being waged on lies" -- As far as I know a lie is something said or undertaking knowing it is not true. American, Russian, British, French, etc. intelligence all agreed that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Where I come from not being omniscient does not constitute a lie.

I wonder why Only the Brits and the US went to war when there was such an inminent threat of Saddam having WMD. I am not anti/army one of my uncles and two of my friends (all of them were on the army reserve here) are serving there right now and at a moment in my life I felt like enlisting on the US Air Force. But IMO this whole conflict has been based on lies .

 

[Denial]

I wonder why Only the Brits and the US went to war when there was such an inminent threat of Saddam having WMD. I am not anti/army  one of my uncles and two of my friends (all of them were on the army reserve here) are serving there right now and at a moment  in my life I felt like enlisting on the US Air Force. But IMO this whole conflict has been based on lies .

One thing that always annoys me, and I'm not intending to single you out here, but you're expressing a common argument that I've heard before -- Why is it that we can imagine nefarious reasons for the United States and Great Britain going to war but at the same time we take the activities of other countries as examples of their lily-white moral righteousness?
We know for a fact that the Russians and the French have been involved in selling military equipment to Iraq. There's also other considerations other than "what's right" or "what's best." Russians have their own problems they can't solve in Chechnya, and we know that France has a large Muslim population that is unwesternized and supportive of terrorist activities in general. We also know that France desires to turn the European Union into a superpower, led by the French, of course, that is a "counterbalance" to the United States. If it's an express strategic goal for them to oppose America, why should we be surprised if they don't help us?

Want to point out Halliburton's involvement with Dick Cheney and subsequent involvement in rebuilding Iraq? It looks fishy to me too. But we know that TotalFinaElf, a French oil company and the 5th largest oil company in the world had exclusive deals with Iraq under Hussein to about 75% of Iraq's oil once embargoes were lifted. Removing Hussein's government makes those agreements void. It's also worth noting that even though Hussein was nominally embargoed, the UN's "Oil for Food" program was rife with corruption and has been called the biggest and most profitable fraud in world history. A quote from an article I just grabbed off of Google about it:

"A mosaic of international corruption is also emerging in the patchwork of politicians and businesses across the world that benefited from the oil-for-food program and helped keep Saddam in power. The Iraqi Oil Ministry recently released a partial list of names of individuals and companies from across the world that received oil from Saddam Hussein’s regime, allegedly at below-market prices. Unsurprisingly, French and Russian names dominate the list, with former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua and the “director of the Russian President’s office” listed as beneficiaries. The list also implicates U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Benon V. Sevan, executive director of the oil-for-food program, who has stringently denied any wrongdoing."
(http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm438.cfm)

 

[Griffith]

Where did you come from? And I thought I was the only one that knew or thought about these things. ;D

 

[Faust]

Want to point out Halliburton's involvement with Dick Cheney and subsequent involvement in rebuilding Iraq? It looks fishy to me too.

 

Not really.  The company that actually does all of the contracting over in Iraq is Kellog Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton.  Halliburton aquired this engineering firm back in 1998 because they were already well established in the Middle East.  KBR had been awarded no bid contracts under the Clinton administration as well.  This isn't unusual at all; it's just the way large governments spend money.

 

[asmer]

I personaly think that pointing out others' mistakes in order to justify your own ones is quite a dangerous, if not silly, way of thinking.

We know for a fact that the Russians and the French have been involved in selling military equipment to Iraq.

"We" also know that Bin Laden was trained by CIA agents in order to counter the Soviets in Afghanistan... And that Saddam Hussein invaded Koweït not only with french or russian weapons, but mainly with weapons sold to him by the USA, at a time were his regime was protected by US governments for more than 20 years...

Russians have their own problems they can't solve in Chechnya, and we know that France has a large Muslim population that is unwesternized and supportive of terrorist activities in general. We also know that France desires to turn the European Union into a superpower, led by the French, of course, that is a "counterbalance" to the United States. If it's an express strategic goal for them to oppose America, why should we be surprised if they don't help us?

So you're saying that because France and Russia have internal problems, they have no right to interfere with what happens in the world. Would you say that at the time of WWII, since the USA where "at that time" a country where black people (not to mention Native Americans) were clearly treated as second-class citizens, they shouldn't have interfered with Germans that were trying to exterminate the Jews?!... I don't think so...
So what's your point with strategic goal, or whatever. I know nothing about geo-politics, but what I am sure of, is that if that war had been started with a bit more "concertation", a bit more of thinking, France and Russia had followed the USA. But Bush's government lyed, and they went to war in a silly way, at least not an appropriate one. Like pointing out links between Al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein, when a lot of Middle-East specialists said it was impossible...
And by the way, I'm french, and it happens that I know a lot of Muslims that are as "westernized" a I am... So maybe you should be careful with that kind of prejudices...

(http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm438.cfm)

So, you're saying corruption is a bad thing? That's right. But I don't think it's a french thing in particular... Some seem to be able to do everything to make money. That's a shame. But didn't the USA support actively China's entry in the WTO. On what basis, if not to make more money. 'Cause you may not be aware, but China isn't exactly a democratic country... Or didn't George Bush reject the Kyoto Protocol only for economical reason?!...
Even if french or russian diplomats were trying to make bad money with Saddam Hussein's regime, does it excuse an embargo that lasted 10 years, killed probably more than 500.000 iraqi children, and during which Saddam Hussein and his supporters probably never suffered hunger even one minute? I don't think so...
Once again, I'm not a specialist, but if in 1991, when the Coalition (USA, France, ...) asked the Shiite and Kurd populations to fight aginst Saddam Hussein from the inside, and then instead of helping them, let Saddam Hussein's troops massacre them, only for after that imposing an embargo only them and their children suffered of, THAT may be an explanation of the difficulty of iraqis to trust the USA today... Think about it... ;)

 

[nomad]

I at a time were his regime was protected by US governments for more than 20 years...

HAD a agreement...not protected

 

[Griffith]

It's all too easy to personify our nations, assign blame, and sit in judgement of one another; but humanities flaws are a commodity we all share regardless of race, creed, or country. It is our nature that we act accordingly to what serves our own best interests, we want to win, and we want to be right; thus, our perception is skewed in kind. I admit I cannot possibly sit impartial in my interpretation of World events being born and raised in the United States. How could I possibly comprehend, let alone judge, the perspective of those who live thousands of miles apart from my own reality? But, of course, how could they judge mine? Multiply this complexity six billion times over and see if there is one qualified to measure the right and wrong of the World.

 

[asmer]

HAD a agreement...not protected

I guess you're right, US Army never bombed Iran, never sent Gas Bombs on Halabja, never killed thousands of Shiites, in order to keep Saddam Hussein in power. But by giving him weapon or money to help him doing so, in a way, couldn't we say he was protected by several US governments? :)

It's all too easy to personify our nations, assign blame, and sit in judgement of one another; but humanities flaws are a commodity we all share regardless of race, creed, or country. It is our nature that we act accordingly to what serves our own best interests, we want to win, and we want to be right; thus, our perception is skewed in kind. I admit I cannot possibly sit impartial in my interpretation of World events being born and raised in the United States. How could I possibly comprehend, let alone judge, the perspective of those who live thousands of miles apart from my own reality? But, of course, how could they judge mine? Multiply this complexity six billion times over and see if there is one qualified to measure the right and wrong of the World.

That's probably true, but on the other hand I find it quite a sad vision of things. In the way that because of cultural differences, one shouldn't judge or criticize other peoples behavior. I may be french, I (believe me or not) have never been against this war, but against the way the US government chose to do it. So many people here in France are hiding anti-american feelings behind their "love", their "affection" for the iraqi people. That just makes me wanna puke... What if Saddam Hussein was still in power, would the iraqi people live happily, in joy and luxury... I don't think so. And where were they during these 30 years the iraqi people was massacred?!... With my own friends I argued countless times on this point.
But that's not my point. Whatever you think of the war, whatever you think of George W. Bush, and even if you are not a US citizen, there are things you have the right, if not the duty to criticize. When you see men humiliated in front of their families, handcuffed like murderers and to whom US soldiers put a bag on their heads, that is WRONG. Whether you were born and raised in New York, Los Angeles, Little Italy or Chinatown, that is WRONG. How many of them are really guilty? And even if they are, in the USA, people convicted of murder are not put in the sun with a bag on their head for hours, so why doing that to Iraqis?!... And for the ones that were innocent, are they supposed to forgive like if nothing happened? I've seen documentaries on the Guantanamo Camp, too... A lot of guys there are probably former Taliban, but the US Army in Afghanistan gave rewards to those denouncing the former Taliban, and logically, there were innocents taken there, some of whom were stolen 2 years of their lives. Even as an European, I have the right to say it is WRONG, and I don't think I am talking as a french, or anything. Any human beings can see that as WRONG, I guess! Not to mention the Abu Ghraïb jail...
There are cultural differences, there are some (a lot of) points were people from different country would have a hard time trying to understand each other, I must agree. But IMHO it's not always a matter of judgement, RIGHT or WRONG on certain issues, are the same for everybody... And on the Iraq War matter, there are a lot of things to be said, no matter where you are from. ;)

 

[Oltobaz]

Dude, war isn't supposed to be pretty. I understand the feelings, but I don't know of any clean war ever recorded in history...

 

[Vampire_Hunter_Bob]

You must be forgetting the war between Martha Stewart and Mr. Clean.

 

[Oltobaz]

I never knew Martha Stewart even existed...

 

[Vampire_Hunter_Bob]

I never knew Martha Stewart even existed...

Well we learn something new everyday.

 

[asmer]

Dude, war isn't supposed to be pretty. I understand the feelings, but I don't know of any clean war ever recorded in history...

So what? There is a difference between a war situation and the way you handle an harmless prisoner... I don't know if you were replying to my post in particular, but I never mentioned war acts, as far as I know... :-\ Dude.