F 9/11
Just got back from Fahrenheit 9/11. Pretty good movie. Probably on the same level as Bowling for Columbine. The first half of the film seemed to be really inflammatory and without any clear logic or arguments. It got better when it focused more on the tragedy and the "why??" And the ending was brilliant. I won't say any more. But I will quote kepler!
kepler42: it really lowers my faith in society when I see people supporting Bush
kepler42: there is so much wrong with him... simultaneously, he seems stupid, incompetent, and evil
Update: I wish I had more people to talk with about these sorts of things. Seen F 9/11 yet, Mike? :P
I'm also in the process of reading Alan Cooper's The Inmates Are Running the Asylum. Cooper's thesis is that computers haven't gotten much easier to use in the last twenty years. They still "behave like computers", with their idiosyncracies, impoliteness, and frustration. When computers meet other well-designed devices, the previously well-designed devices begin to act like computers. As examples, he uses some Porsche (whose computer shut the engine off in a high-speed turn if the fuel sensor returned a certain value) and the US Navy's Aegis Cruiser (that sat dead in the water for days while Windows NT was broken). Why did this happen? Due to the way the industry elvoved, the engineers ended up in charge of the overall design of the project. Engineers design functionality, not interaction, by their very nature. Thus, an additional ingredient must be added to the mix: interaction designer. Notice I said interaction designer instead of interface designer. Computers are becoming more and more of our lives; we don't just "interface" through a thin glass window with them. We interact with them all of the time. Programmers and engineers inherently aren't suited to be interaction designers for two reasons: 1) they are trained to deal with abstract, complex systems and pay attention to details (that's why they're good programmers) and 2) they have a real stake in the implementation, so they tend towards solutions that are easier to implement. Easier to implement, but not better for the user. In fact, often much worse. Anyway, that's about where I am in the book. Sometimes Cooper says some things that I totally don't agree with, but the less you agree with something, the more you're inclined to think about it. ;) So the book is good in that way.
I start physical therapy for my elbows tomorrow morning. I'm also on a new anti-inflammatory. Bleh, typing sucks.
Dude, if you really wanna get a kick out of something, read my journal.
Trust me, it's never been so entertaining.
You should tell Kepler that it lowers my faith in society when I see someone agreeing with something Michael Moore said because he's rich enough to make a movie, and because he's loud and obnoxious enough to say whatever he wants, irregardless of the truth. Congratulations, you just paid $6 to watch a 2-hour political propaganda film made by a movie shock-jock who will say anything and take any cheap shot just so long as it makes his opponents look mean, stupid or 'evil'.
Sorry, Chad. No insults are meant towards you. :)
I'm sure he thought that before he saw the movie. ;)
Also, I paid $4! Not $6!
And even if he's taking potshots, he brings up some questions that could at least use an honest answer.
Wuh? Are you referring to a specific post?
(I'm Kepler)
I have seen both Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 9/11... In both, about 1/2-2/3 through the movie, I was wishing it was over, because I was bored and tired of it. (Tired of Moore's nasal voice, too).
I also don't like how he keeps the same hangdog "what the heck is going on?" tone throughout the whole movie. He knows exactly what is going on.
But, everyone who bashes him, doesn't address the points he brings up. Or, if they do, they nitpick the little ones and ignore the big ones.
I heard one guy talk about Moore's "42% vacation time" figure: that Bush was on vacation 42% of his first 300 days or whatever, and he says "that figure includes weekends, so you subtract 2/7 days = 28% to arrive at a total of 14% vacation time." OK, that's not so bad, although I would argue that point as well (A: Clinton was a workaholic in the office 12 hours a day every day. B: Being "the leader of the free world" maybe requires a little bit a weekend time. C: Even with this adjustment Bush is taking 1 day per week off)
But fine, depending on your point of view, maybe the 42% vacation isn't such a big deal.
What about the Bush family receiving money hand over fist for generations from Saudis in general and Bin Ladens in particular, and all the Bin Ladens being "evacuated" after the incident without being questioned. You think that all the money they have given Bush over the years had anything to do with that? Even if they didn't call him up and say "let us fly out of here", Bush in this case was "helping out his friends." They probably didn't have anything to do with 9/11... But they should have still been questioned. And just letting them go like that, "helping out his friends" like that, is selling our country out so that he can continue to see more oil billions rolling in.
What about the White House censoring Bush's service record before releasing it?
If you want to point out that Moore is a fat obnoxious prick, go ahead. I'll agree.
But if he's saying "whatever he wants, irregardless of truth", why aren't his real "lies" being addressed?
Why do people keep pointing out that "he's a jerk", and "he's going to make a ton of money of this movie", instead? If I could run around saying "Saddam Hussein was an evil man", and make a million dollars, I would do it. Just because I would make a million dollars saying it doesn't make the statement false.
It's ridiculous that people are calling Moore to task over the money he's going to make. With an opening weekend of $21M, let's be extremely optimistic and suggest that maybe the movie will make $200M total (box office and dvds etc)...
The Bushes have sold our country out, and made BILLIONS. When I say Bush seems "evil", it's not because he wants to torture children or anything. It's because he has sold us out. As President of the United States he has used his position for personal profit for himself and his friends.
Clinton got a blowjob from an intern, and the Republicans ripped him up one side and down the other. (I'll concede and agree: He shouldn't have lied about it).
Bush has done so much more and lied about so much more, it's sick that people try to brush it under the rug when they nailed Clinton to the wall over his philandering.
Isn't it true that the Bush administration hasn't received any more money from Saudis than previous administrations? I know that we've always had lots of ties with the Saudis (mainly because of oil), so it doesn't suprise me that Bush's administration would be getting money from them.
I agree that Moore raises good points, though. It's just a pain in the ass to have to triple-check every single 'fact' he throws at you, because of his tendency to fudge or fake things to make everything else fit together better.
True, they make campaign contributions to pretty much every politician. However, Michael Moore was pointing out that George W. was feeding off the Saudi cash flow since before he OR his father were President. This goes beyond campaign contribution and the donations to other families... George W. Bush has owed the Saudis since before he had any idea of running for President.
No, Chad, I haven't seen it yet, but I will. I watched the Terminal instead because I knew F911 would be packed on opening day (when I went to a movie last), especially in a town like Madison.
For what its worth, I'm looking forward to it, mostly for the footage that Moore took from the National Archives, the White House Archives, and footage from Iraq more than his own soapboxing. To see the things that are typically passed over by the media is what I'm interested in.
If you want a pretty fair idea of either side of this particular fence, go to Google news. They've had an article up about this movie every day for the past week or so, and with 800+ related articles each day, you can get a good feel of how everyone from the LA times to Fox News feels about the issue. Google News also seems at least partially random in picking which one is up front on any given update, so you seem them both on the main page.
The general consensus is that Michael Moore creates pure propaganda by discussing single points and sides of arguments without admitting to the other. The general consensus is that that isn't fair, but that it isn't meant to be, its his movie after all. Its also agreed that pretty much everything he says is true, at least the facts are, and Moore has a battalion of lawyers and historians that have verified and re-verified his facts.
I won't say anything more than that because I still haven't seen the film.
Also, since I'm still talking, I recommend http://www.iht.com as an international news source thats kind of like the bbc in that its more impartial than homegrown news. Unless Javascript pages annoy you, I like it.
Huh, thanks for the link. I've been digging the google news as of late. It's now in my daily list: livejournal, flipcode, google news, slashdot. :)
How was Terminal? I want to see that. There are actually quite a few good movies out now.
Samantha and I liked the Terminal, its a very humorous movie actually. Its good, but not amazing in anyway. It rather reminded me of Groundhog's Day, since I just watched that a week ago or so. :) Which is an excellent movie, heh.
Irregardless, she's a twat.
[HTML_REMOVED]Irregardless[HTML_REMOVED] isn't even a word!
Yes it is. It means "without lack of regard."
Irregardless is a word. It means the same as regardless. Look it up.
ir·re·gard·less Audio pronunciation of "irregardless" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-gärdls) adv. Nonstandard
[Probably blend of irrespective, and regardless.]
I was quite obviously quoting a dialogue, sir.