SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (5112)9/28/2004 6:38:40 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Good editorial cartoon takes a jab at Michael Moore......

Fahrenhype 9/11
coxandforkum.com

This cartoon is one of three new Michael Moore cartoons that we created for a companion book to the new DVD, FahrenHYPE 9/11. We will post the other two cartoons over the next week in the run up to the release of the DVD and book on Oct. 5th (timed to coincide with the release of Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD). The book will also include three other Cox & Forkum cartoons: Blowing Smoke, Bowling for Fallujah, and Moore Whine!. (By the way, that's not one of our cartoons on the book's cover.)

We haven't viewed the book or the DVD yet, but the DVD looks very interesting. A trailer can be viewed on the FahrenHYPE 9/11 Web site.

Posted by Forkum

coxandforkum.com



To: Sully- who wrote (5112)10/17/2004 1:56:30 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Instapundit

TONIGHT I WATCHED FAHRENHYPE 9/11, the Michael Moore expose.

It's quite striking, particularly in the way they followed up with people who were featured in Fahrenheit 911, and show those people, one after another, saying that Moore misrepresented them and that they don't agree with the movie.

This should be on network TV.

Glenn Reynolds

instapundit.com



To: Sully- who wrote (5112)11/2/2004 7:04:29 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Michael Moore is proud to have Osama bin Laden mimic "Fahrenheit 9/11"

Beldar blog

I cannot adequately express how much it disgusts me to read this, in Michael Moore's own boastful words on his own website, as part of his so-called pre-election letter to the President of the United States:

<<<
There he was, OBL, all tan and rested and on videotape (hey, did you get the feeling that he had a bootleg of my movie? Are there DVD players in those caves in Afghanistan?)
>>>

Instead of expressing shame or remorse that his bogus talking points have found their way into a pathological maniac's videotaped taunt of and threats to America — instead of emphatically disassociating himself from Osama bin Laden's use of his material — Michael Moore boasts and jokes of it.

I would defend to my death Michael Moore's First Amendment rights to make himself into the most offensive and ridiculous piece of excrement in the United States. But there is no living American for whom I have more loathing. That Sen. Kerry has not used Michael Moore for his own "Sister Soulja moment" makes me long for the political cunning or comparative marginal integrity, however you'd like to characterize it, of Bill Clinton.

Posted by Beldar

beldar.org



To: Sully- who wrote (5112)12/19/2004 6:21:18 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Bush's Dad: Michael Moore an "Atrocious Slimeball"

LGF

TIME Magazine has named George W. Bush as their Person of the Year, and the issue also features this great quote from Bush’s father
:

<<<
Michael Moore’s got to be the worst for me. I mean, he’s such a slimeball and so atrocious. But I love the fact now that the Democrats are not embracing him as theirs anymore. He might not get invited to sit in Jimmy Carter’s box [at the Democratic Convention] again. I wanted to get up my nerve to ask Jimmy Carter at the Clinton thing [the opening of Bill Clinton’s library], “How did it feel being there with that marvelous friend of yours, Michael Moore?” and I didn’t dare do it.



To: Sully- who wrote (5112)12/20/2004 6:03:50 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Michael Moore's a lying scumbag, but we already knew that.

Here's more proof......

VERY SIMPLE ANSWER DODGED

Before the US election, Michael Moore was anxious that his documentary Overweight 9/11 be broadcast everywhere so that it might turn voters against Bush:


<<<
The only problem with my desire to get this movie in front of as many Americans as possible is that, should it air on TV, I will NOT be eligible to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Academy Award consideration for Best Documentary. Academy rules forbid the airing of a documentary on television within nine months of its theatrical release (fiction films do not have the same restriction).

Therefore, I have decided not to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for consideration for the Best Documentary Oscar. If there is even the remotest of chances that I can get this film seen by a few million more Americans before election day, then that is more important to me than winning another documentary Oscar. I have already won a Best Documentary statue. Having a second one would be nice, but not as nice as getting this country back in the hands of the majority.
>>>

It was all about the election.. But now, with the US safely returned to absolute Bush control, Moore has -- big surprise -- changed his mind. Asked by Rolling Stone if his movie failed, Moore replied:

>>>

No. I mean, Bush is still in office, but the film is about the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Those were the original reasons I made the film. It wasn't about the election. The feeling I had after Roger and Me was different because those of us from Flint [Michigan] who made the movie felt like we had the power to change things. In this case, you know, I wasn't the candidate. I couldn't make John Kerry give a very simple answer to what he would do with this war.
>>>

All Kerry's fault. Gotcha. On the plus side, the country is back in the hands of the majority.

Posted by: tim

timblair.net



To: Sully- who wrote (5112)12/27/2004 5:37:06 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
A Karmic Coincidence

LGF

Drug Firms Issue Memos on Michael Moore.

<<<
LOS ANGELES - Some pharmaceutical companies are telling their employees to look out for the scruffy guy in the baseball cap.

The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday that at least six drug companies have released internal communications telling employees to be wary of filmmaker Michael Moore. ...

Moore, normally seen sporting a beard and a ball cap, has now set his sights on the health care industry, including insurance companies, HMOs, the Food and Drug Administration and drug companies.

“We ran a story in our online newspaper saying Moore is embarking on a documentary and if you see a scruffy guy in a baseball cap, you’ll know who it is,” said Stephen Lederer, a spokesman for Pfizer Global Research and Development.

In a cosmically amazing coincidence, this AP article is accompanied by a photograph of a beached whale.
homepage.mac.com
homepage.mac.com

(Thanks to all who emailed about this.)

by Charles

littlegreenfootballs.com



To: Sully- who wrote (5112)1/14/2005 12:51:37 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Feeling Lucky

By Bill - INDC Journal

Dirty Harry issues Michael Moore a warning:

'Dirty Harry' star Clint Eastwood told an awards ceremony in New York that he would "kill" 'Fahrenheit 9/11' filmmaker Michael Moore if he ever showed up at his front door with a camera, according to a report on Ananova.com.

With Moore sitting in the audience, the Eastwood said, "Michael Moore and I actually have a lot in common - we both appreciate living in a country where there's free expression.

"But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera - I'll kill you. I mean it."

I'd probably just kick him in the bobules, but to each their own, I guess. Moore took it in stride:

A report in the New York Daily News, said Moore, who received a special "Freedom of Expression" award for his anti-Bush documentary, appeared to laugh off Eastwood's comments.

Realistically, he probably gets that all the time.



To: Sully- who wrote (5112)1/20/2005 9:49:13 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
BOWLING FOR HYPOCRISY:

Instapundit

NEW YORK - Filmmaker Michael Moore's bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night. . . .

Burke is licensed to carry a firearm in Florida and California, but not in New York. Burke was taken to Queens central booking and could potentially be charged with a felony for the incident.

Moore's 2003 Oscar-winning film "Bowling for Columbine" criticizes what Moore calls America's "culture of fear" and its obsession with guns
.

Shades of Rosie O'Donnell.



To: Sully- who wrote (5112)1/21/2005 10:58:16 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
A Conservative Answer to Michael Moore

Profile: Evan Coyne Maloney

BY JACOB GERSHMAN - Staff Reporter of the Sun

January 21, 2005

URL: nysun.com

Evan Coyne Maloney, 32, who dresses and looks like a college student, may very well be America's most promising conservative documentary filmmaker. Yet the Upper East Side resident hasn't completed a single film.

The hype unaccompanied by output says a lot about the room for growth in the conservative documentary community. But a number of those on the right expect Mr. Maloney's unfinished debut film, "Brainwashing 101," to emerge as a breakout theatrical hit - or at least to make it to theaters, a feat few films of its political ilk have managed to achieve.

A sardonic attack on political correctness in higher education, Mr. Maloney's film was hailed as the "most anticipated" documentary in 2005 by the American Film Renaissance, an upstart film institute based in Dallas. People attending October's Liberty Festival in Los Angeles apparently gave a preview version of it a standing ovation - though not of the duration of Michael Moore's 20 minutes at Cannes. A critic writing for the insider Hollywood Web site Ain't It Cool News called the first cut of the film one of the most "horrifying and hysterical documentaries I have ever seen."

As the title suggests, the 46-minute film, which Mr. Maloney is racing to expand into a full-length documentary by fall, is his attempt to confirm the worst assumptions that conservatives have about what goes on at universities. His film is about the spread of noxious speech codes, abuses of power by vindictive administrators, and the arbitrary restrictions on academic freedom imposed on conservative students - cases of which, the film argues, are increasingly cropping up in universities. The film begins with images of Columbia University, a university embroiled in a controversy concerning students who say professors violated their academic freedom.

On the road with Mr. Maloney across the country, the viewer watches an economics professor from Mr. Maloney's alma mater, Bucknell University in Pennsylvania, explain to the filmmaker that most white students at the school are "unconsciously racist" and that much of the "cutting-edge" work in his field is "being done in feminist economics."

Mr. Maloney then turns his camera to the case of Steve Hinkle. A student at California Polytechnic State University, he was disciplined by school officials after posting a flyer promoting an upcoming speech by a black conservative who equated welfare and slavery. The school dropped charges against Mr. Hinkle only after a civil-liberties organization sued, saying the university was violating freedom of speech.

To top it off, Mr. Maloney interviews Sukhmani Singh Khalsa of the University of Tennessee, a Sikh convert who received a death threat by e-mail from another student angry over his conservative opinion pieces in the student newspaper. The university refused to punish the author of the e-mail, who called Mr. Khalsa a "towel head" and reportedly urged students to shoot the student in the "face."

"The problem on campus becomes who defines harassment," Mr. Maloney said in a recent interview with The New York Sun. "Who on campus is going to stand up to a multicultural office or a diversity office?"

One of the more amusing scenes in the film comes when Mr. Maloney stops by the office of Cal Poly's president, Warren Baker - in a "Roger and Me" moment - for an impromptu interview, only to be herded away by a grouchy assistant. Not a single university administrator has agreed to appear in the New Yorker's film.

The story of how Mr. Maloney, who had little previous filmmaking experience, has become the right's best answer to Mr. Moore starts a little more than a year ago in front of the home of the older documentarian.

After staking out the director for four days with a fancy new Panasonic digital video recorder, Mr. Maloney confronted Mr. Moore on a sidewalk on the Upper West Side, with the intention of provoking a flustered reaction from him. Mr. Maloney wanted to needle him with pointed questions about liberal bias in Hollywood and then post the footage on his Web log, Brain-terminal.com.

Mr. Moore, as it turned out, was game for the interview. He calmly told Mr. Maloney that documentary filmmaking "should be open to all people of all political persuasions."

"It should not just be people who are liberal, or left-of-center, or whatever," the Oscar-winner said. "Make your movies, and then the people will respond or not respond to them."

Soon after the video of Mr. Moore went up on his Web site, Mr. Maloney received an e-mail message from Stuart Browning, 44, a goateed man from Miami Beach who has deeply conservative political views - and who boasts of having more money than the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, John Edwards.

At the time, Mr. Maloney had already gained some notice from the press with his 6- or 7-minute documentary shorts on left-wing protesters.

He videotaped antiwar demonstrators in New York in 2003 providing silly answers to questions about how America ought to deal with Iraq. He recorded a rowdy pro-Palestinian protest at Rutgers University, where one speaker screamed, "Long live the intifada," and another protester whispered to Mr. Maloney on camera: "Are you nervous?"

The shorts, posted on Mr. Maloney's Web site, were enough to impress Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.com, who called Mr. Maloney's Web video journalism "the wave of the future."

In the fall of 2003, Mr. Browning and Mr. Maloney founded a production company, On the Fence Films, whose first film would be "Brainwashing 101." The expanded version has the working title "Ministry of Truth." Mr. Browning set the budget of "Brainwashing" at $250,000, a little more than 4% of Miramax's reported investment in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Mr. Browning and Mr. Maloney said they have no idea whether the expanded film will ever find its way into your local Cineplex.

The most support they've gotten so far is from the organizers of the two conservative film festivals held last year.

"Evan has a lot of charisma," the president of the American Film Renaissance, James Hubbard, said. "He balances that out with a sharp intellect, and he's funny. When you want to tell a story, those are three great things to have.

The final version of the film will also answer the question about whether the technology used in making documentary films has become so inexpensive and accessible that anybody who can tell an interesting story has a chance of making it big.

Mr. Maloney works out of Starbucks or his tidy one-bedroom apartment. He has 100 hours of footage stored in what is called a Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks - a data-protection device that costs more than some cars. He edits raw footage with Apple Final Cut Pro software, using an Apple Power Mac Dual G5.

When he's interviewing on campuses, he wears a black T-shirt, loose-fitting Gap jeans, Rockport shoes, and, sometimes, a Yankees baseball cap that makes him look like an Irish version of the pitcher Mike Mussina. When he interviews would-be hostile subjects, Mr. Maloney puts on a blank face and speaks with a deadpan, dry delivery.

"The most effective way is to ask very simple, basic questions, so they don't think I dislike them," he said, "because I don't dislike them as people. I may not agree with their viewpoints."

It's an interview tactic he used effectively on a Bucknell professor, Geoffrey Schneider, the faculty member who spoke about his students' unconscious racism.

In an interview with the Sun, Mr. Schneider said he was "basically manipulated into appearing" in Mr. Maloney's film. "I was told originally I was going to be interviewed for a film about professors' academic freedom and attempts to censor professors," he said.

Mr. Schneider, a specialist in what is called institutionalist economics, said the film was edited in a "ridiculous" way that made it seem as though Bucknell students learn only about Marx and feminist political economy. "I also teach Austrian economics," he remarked, saying he was sympathetic to all the ideas taught in the economics courses.

"It's silly to say our curriculum is politically correct and biased in favor of liberal ideas, and then to use as an example what is taught in one day, in one course," Mr. Schneider said.

He stands by his comments on student racism: "Everybody comes from a specific background, and Bucknell students tend to be white upper-income. If they are white upper-income, they come with certain baggage" - such as negative stereotypes about black Americans.

"One of the things we try to do, which so angers conservative students, is to unpack these biases that we all have, to try to analyze them for what they are," he told the Sun.

For Mr. Maloney, the professor's comments are the type of thinking that provoked him into making the film in the first place. "He doesn't see political correctness as a problem," Mr. Maloney said.

His views on higher education were strongly influenced by Dinesh D'Souza's "Illiberal Education," the 1991 polemic against political correctness, and by the famous case involving a University of Pennsylvania student, Eden Jacobowitz, who was charged with racial harassment after shouting, "Shut up, you water buffalos," at a group of black students.

"To me, it kind of illustrated what political correctness is all about," Mr. Maloney said. "It was a form of hypocrisy. It was shoehorning every incident into the box of race, class, and gender."

He describes himself as a "libertarian conservative" and considers Ronald Reagan his political hero. He cannot explain why he steered toward the right while growing up in a liberal city, other than to recall the time he delivered a speech in front of his class at JHS 167 Wagner about the danger of nuclear weapons. "I realized I didn't believe a word I was saying," Mr. Maloney said.

A B student at Bucknell, Mr. Maloney edited a conservative newspaper, the Sentinel, which he recalls was occasionally stolen from circulation centers and trashed. After graduating in 1994, he hopped around between his two passions, politics and technology, designing software for various failed tech companies and assisting the failed campaigns of various New York City Republican politicians.

One of the developing trends among conservative documentary filmmakers is their background in the technology industry. Mr. Browning, who paid for "Brainwashing 101," became rich as one of the four co-founders of Embarcadero Technologies.

Two years after launching Brain-terminal.com, Mr. Maloney was inspired to make a movie by watching news reports of the antiwar protests that preceded America's invasion of Iraq.

"They kept showing signs of Bush with a swastika on his head. You can't think that mainstream America thinks Bush and Hitler can be equated," he said. "I remember thinking, if there is a protest in New York, I'm going to film it."



To: Sully- who wrote (5112)1/25/2005 7:56:13 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
FAHRENHEIT 9/11 SNUB DISCUSSION

TKS
[ jim geraghty reporting ]
[01/25 05:16 PM]

Quite a few readers are offering their thoughts on my post noticing that lefty bloggers were pretty quiet about Fahrenheit: 9/11 not getting any Oscar nominations.

TKS reader Greg says let the silence continue. “Left and Right, everyone but you is giving Moore the anonymity he earned,” he writes.

Chip writes,

“I am a liberal and I can tell you that none of my liberal friends are up in arms about the so-called Moore snub. The fact of the matter is that F911 [stunk]. It was terrible — over the top, conspiratorial, shallow, you name it. Sure, sure, it had its moments of humor, Bush being Bush, but almost everyone I know acknowledged that the movie was sheer propaganda, an especially well made polemic that was designed to make rouse the faithful and make a bunch of money.


Now, one thing you must admit is that liberals, in the main, have far better taste than their conservative counterparts (look no further than the recent inauguration and the execrable "Let the Eagle Soar"), thus this movie was obviously not nominated. The contrast that you've set up is actually interesting. Liberals do not clamor for a bad movie like F911 to win the nation's highest cinematic award, yet conservatives are grumbling that a one trick pony of a movie like "The Passion" was excluded. Interesting.”

Tom, a Hollywood screenwriter and TKS fan, suggests,

“I think the reason no one is talking about Michael Moore - and I also think this is why he received no nominations — is that it finally sunk in to many on the left that the film did a lot more damage than good. Had Kerry won, Moore would have been very celebrated, and he for sure would have received a Best Pic nod, perhaps have even won Best Picture. He is now old news, however, and as people can often turn on those they love very quickly, I think Moore is now taking some heat (i.e. being ignored, which for Mr. Moore is anathema) because they realize he helped cost Kerry the election.”

One of my favorite liberal readers says, “The fact is, liberals feel not much more than a big yawn about F/911. It isn't even close to being good enough to get nominated for best movie. That has been more of a straw dog the conservative threw out there, suggesting liberals wanted it to win. I think it's a case of conservative framing gone wrong, nothing more.”

Well, liberals may or may not have been rooting for F:9/11 at the Oscars, but I think it’s fair to say Michael Moore wanted that Best Picture nomination pretty badly



To: Sully- who wrote (5112)2/15/2005 2:34:27 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
Getting rid of the "Michael Moore" approach.

9/11: Debunking The Myths

Popular Mechanics

PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.

From the moment the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?

Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.

Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.


--THE EDITORS

popularmechanics.com