Those who think Fahrenheit 9/11 is the greatest film since Casablanca should check out 59 Deceits in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11′. At the very least it may show you that Michael Moore is not making a documentary here. Also check out the bittorrent on that site. Moore is altering and misrepresenting information in order to get his agenda across. As a whole, the “documentary” is a pile of rubbish. And I am not a right-winged conservative. Nor am I a left-winged liberal. I am suspect of anyone who is self-righteous enough to think their political party has all the answers and the other party is completely full of crap. As Colin Quinn pointed out on NPR today, our two-party system has one party more than Fascism. We need a fundamental change in the USA and electing Kerry or Bush is not going to bring about that change.
Tags: Movies
August 4th, 2004 at 2:48 am
I don’t think 9/11 is the greatest film since Casablanca and of course it serves Moore’s agenda but in the same time it pretty shows what I think (and no, I don’t need Moore to think and look after informations).
many things in it were well known (the ben laden familly, the political use of terror, and so on)
the movie is too american oriented. it’s for me the real problem.
I don’t care about right or left american or foreign political ,
I’m mostly a “left” in french politicals , and in France we have choice in many “left” (or leftish) parties. it’s NOT that simple.
(”liberal” is a completely different thing for french and totally appart from so+c+ialism or ecologism or other.)
Moore said he is not for bush, of course but not for kerry too, he doesn’t like “democrat party”, he said they were coward and mostly in the same boat than republicans.
maybe americans should vote for a third party
August 4th, 2004 at 3:21 am
I think an analogy that fits this situation is that the US needs to fix the flood in the basement before remodelling the living room. Even if the living room is terribly decrepit, and the furniture collapses when you sit on it, if the basement floods, there’s going to be more irreparable harm, or at least it’s going to make fixing things several orders of magnitude more expensive and time-consuming.
I think another four years with Bush would cause that sort of damage. We need someone, anyone besides his administration in power. And while I don’t personally care for the man, I think Kerry’s the most probable non-Bush person out there. After we’re rid of Bush (and more importantly folks like Rumsfeld and Ashcroft), then there can be more work remodelling the living room– amending some of the international animosity and improving the US’ global reputation, phasing out the two party system, scrapping the electoral college, stopping the legalized campaign-contribution bribery, etc.
August 4th, 2004 at 3:30 am
“We need a fundamental change in the USA”
This is certainly true.
“electing Kerry or Bush is not going to bring about that change.”
True, though one must not make the mistake of believing that the two candidates are “basically the same” (as they pretty much seemed in 2000). This is easily disproved: 1) Abortion rights: Kerry is staunchly pro-choice, Bush is staunchly “pro-life”. 2) Stem cell research: Kerry is strongly in favor of allowing stem cell research, Bush is strongly against it.
This alone presents a difference in the candidates. The other important thing to remember is that a number of Supreme Court justices may retire soon. Kerry and Bush would most certainly select very different appointees, and SC decisions, thanks in part to precedent, can have an impact on the country for decades, if not centuries.
August 4th, 2004 at 4:52 am
That website is obviously written by a crackpot, and is far more deserving than the film of the description “pile of rubbish”. It’s nearly unreadable.
Choice quote:
“This report focuses solely on factual issues, and not on aesthetic criticism of the film.
To understand the deceptions, it helps to understand Moore’s ideological position. So let us start with Moore’s belief that the September 11 attacks on the United States were insignificant.”
Talk about putting words in someone’s mouth. That’s a blatant attempt to discredit Moore with a *deceitful* ad hominem attack in order to soften up and gain support of the audience before the rather poorly executed attacks on the facts of the movie.
August 4th, 2004 at 6:38 am
And here is someone completely refutting the contents of that original story.
Debunking ‘59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11′
August 4th, 2004 at 6:57 am
That website you’re refering to is probably the weakest try I have ever seen of making Michael Moore stand out like a deciever. It’s full of rubbish, there’s no other way to say it, really. And, Michael has posted a very thorough source listing with explanations over at michaelmoore.com. He has made these mistakes before, and he’s not doing them this time.
August 4th, 2004 at 7:48 am
Just by reading through ‘59 deceits’ I myself found a long list of errors and deceits. The ‘Debunking’ article seems to have found more of them. I think it is a sad state of affairs when news, documentaries and webpages all start to lie and decieve the public because to such a large extent. Is the truth just not flashy enough for anyone to hear it? Is that why everyone tries to make up new lies instead of debunking the old ones?
August 4th, 2004 at 8:18 am
Your blog post seems to suggest that Fahrenheit is a “Democrat” movie, that it’s simply a byproduct of our constrained, two-parties-only system.
I don’t think so. It’s not fair to call Moore a Democrat. It’s more accurate to say he’s a progressive who’s currently allied with the Dems to remove Bush from office. This doesn’t at all mean that he is a proponent of two parties only.
Rather, if you watch his movies and look at his career, it’s pretty clear that he’d probably be a member of a labor party, supposing we had one in the US.
August 4th, 2004 at 12:04 pm
I never said everything on that page was completely accurate or a well-formed document. But a lot of it is true and it’s just a starting point for seeing how much crap there is in F9/11. For a few more takes check out:
Unfairenheit: the Lies of Michael Moore
What Michael Moore Misses About the Empire
More Distortions from Micahel Moore
Propaganda and Fahrenheit 9/11
August 4th, 2004 at 12:46 pm
jck: Bush has not outlawed stem cell research, only removed government funding for it. Given that so many people are uncertain of the ethicality of it, it seems reasonable to not use their tax moneys to support it, while still allowing those who are sure that it is moral to continue their work.
I think that this analysis, while not yielding the outcome desired by many, is at least well thought out. Hopefully you will concede that, *if you start with the premise* that embryos are human beings, or even that their humanity is debatable, being extremely cautious about pursuing this research is understandable.
August 4th, 2004 at 4:40 pm
Debunking ‘59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11′
August 5th, 2004 at 2:36 am
> Bush has not outlawed stem cell research
As far as I know they in fact did ban developing new lines of stem cells, so researchers can only work with existing ones. I don’t know how significant that is.
August 5th, 2004 at 11:40 am
Dave was heard to utter:
Choice quote: “This report focuses solely on factual issues, and not on aesthetic criticism of the film. To understand the deceptions, it helps to understand Moore’s ideological position. So let us start with Moore’s belief that the September 11 attacks on the United States were insignificant.”
Talk about putting words in someone’s mouth. That’s a blatant attempt to discredit Moore with a *deceitful* ad hominem attack in order to soften up and gain support of the audience before the rather poorly executed attacks on the facts of the movie.
It amazes me how far people will go to defend Moore. Here’s a quote from the page you apparently didn’t read:
“One of the panelists was Michael Moore…During the warm-up before the studio audience, Moore said something along the lines of “I don’t know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightning than die from an act of terror.”
Seems he’s deeply troubled by 9/11, doesn’t it?
Yeah, here’s another quote from Moore’s own website shortly after 9/11/01
“If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who did not vote for them! Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes destination in California - these were places that voted against bush! Why kill them?”
How absolutely terrible that the terrorists killed THE WRONG PEOPLE! Had they at least had the decency to kill Bush supporters, that wouldn’t have been so bad, hmm?
If you really feel the need to defend Moore, please do, it just makes it that much easier to know who I can completely dismiss.
August 15th, 2004 at 7:15 pm
The following is from an email I sent to Michael Moore recently:
David Kopel authored a document titled along the lines of “59 Deceits
of Fahrenheit 9/11″. I have taken the liberty of researching and
responding to that list and have compiled the results in a PDF
entitled “Deceits Rebutted”. I am including a copy with this email.
Additionally, you can find it online at
http://www.brianragle.us/deceitsrebutted.pdf . Feel free to post the
link on your site or host the document directly. Thanks for your
continued work and if I can be of further assistance, please do not
hesitate to let me know.
Brian Ragle
bragle@gmail.com
http://www.brianragle.us
August 15th, 2004 at 11:52 pm
Good luck supporting the propagandist, Brian.
August 26th, 2004 at 2:36 pm
It would help if you knew what a deceit was Brian. You are trying to prove factuality instead of discrediting a deceit. A deceit is “the intended meaning of stating a certain phrase a certain way.” You did not prove Kobel wrong in the least, and in the end wasted your time.