I was going to put this up on my blog, but it is having some kind of coding problem, so I am putting it here, okay? It's in three parts, so I'll make three posts. It's kind of long.
Fear and Loathing in Washington D.C. - Part One
In which gnimbley the gnome dissects, digests, and deconstructs "Fahrenheit 9/11" and discovers that, while it is a lousy documentary, it is pretty good political propaganda.
"The Soviets had Sergei Eisenstein; the Nazis had Leni Riefenstahl. We have Michael Moore."
Before
I wasn't going to see this film. I had heard enough about the film and Michael Moore (I had never seen one of his films before) to have already judged it as a left wing, biased attack on George W. Bush. Okay, so what? The left wing has a tendency to get caught up in objectives and trample all over things like truth, logic, and the sanity of their arguments. I didn't need to see one more socialist diatribe. After all, wasn't the reality bad enough?
Then I read some passionate words some non-critics had posted on a computer forum I frequent and I thought, maybe I should check this thing out. At least so I could argue intelligently about it.
I approached the film with trepidation. Michael Moore is known for using logical fallacies and making spurious inferences. I expected a film flawed beyond redemption with rhetorical excess and invalid arguments supported by unverifiable, ambiguous "facts."
His defenders often make the statement: "at least he makes you think." But this is merely a political argument, not a defense of his tactics. If the right wing made such arguments, the left would not say, "well, at least it made me think;" they would pounce on its flaws to argue his entire premise is wrong.
This is, of course, what the right is currently doing. They call the film a pack of lies.
Someone told me the film is meant to be polarizing, but my response is, what good is that? Those is favor of Moore's premise vehemently agree with him; those opposed vehemently do not. That's polarization. So what? They would be doing the same if the film didn't exist at all. They just wouldn't be doing it about the film.
It seems to me that the objective of a political argument, is not to persuade the left or the right, but to sway those who are undecided. They are the people who might benefit by seeing this film, those who wonder if the US is doing the right thing in Iraq. They are the people who could be persuaded to vote Bush in or out of office.
And if the political debate centers over a flawed film that is - at least in part - demonstrably false, then wouldn't the discrediting of the film do more harm than good to the cause Moore is expounding? Couldn't this film be a political boomerang?
It was that in mind that I walked into a suburban cinemaplex located on Ronald Reagan Boulevard in central Indiana - Bush country if there is any - at 1:30 PM on Wednesday, June 30, 2004, to see "Fahrenheit 9/11."
I stood in line with a lot of older patrons, well, older than my 53 years, who were going to see Spiderman or King Arthur or something. I figured that I 'd be the only one in the theatre. Wouldn't you if you were going to see an anti-Republican film on Ronald Reagan Boulevard?
The ticket boy told me that my film was in the second theatre on the left. I walked down the corridor to the second theatre on the left. The sign above the door was blank. No film name at all.
The sign above the theatre across the corridor - the second theatre on the right - said "Fahrenheit 9/11." Hmm. Was the sign wrong or was the ticket boy wrong or was he just making a political statement?
I decided to trust the sign and entered the theatre on the right. After all, "Fahrenheit 9/11" was only in one theatre in the cinemaplex. Spiderman was on seven screens and King Arthur on three.
The theatre was one of those small cinemaplex shells that only hold 100 people or so. I was surprised to find there were already over thirty people there, about half older than me.
Well, there are older leftists. A lot of them were made in the sixties, something I graduated from. But thirty people at the matinee in Reagan country on Wednesday afternoon to see a piece of polarizing political propaganda? Maybe I was in the wrong theatre.
I sat down near the front, pulled out my notebook and waited for the film to start. We were in the middle of something called "The Twenty," an extended advertising opportunity showing lengthy trailers for movies and TV shows, as well as countless TV commercials. I watched something about a new Christmas movie starring Tim Allen, a NBC show about medical horrors, and some other junk.
I was a bit amused by the first TV commercial. It was a recruiting pitch for the US Army.
Maybe I was in the wrong theatre.
I figured I would stay until the movie started. If it was the wrong one I would just leave and go across the hall. Or maybe fate decreed that I should see Spiderman 2 or something else instead. I decided just to sit still and see what happened.
Numerous commercials went by. Starburst. Coca Cola. Right Guard. Low Carb Coca Cola. (Low carb coke? Isn't this ad a little out of hand? I saw an ad the other day for low carb One A Day vitamins. And my 24 grams a serving bran cereal has started putting "low net carbs" on its box, too. Ain't symbolic magic fun?)
Then we got to the previews. Phantom of the Opera. Danny Deckchair. (Might be funny.) Kinsey. (Might be atrocious.) Bourne Supremacy. (Might blow a bunch of stuff up.) Open Water. (Might just scare the hell out of me.)
Then the lights went down.
Fear and Loathing in Washington D.C. - Part Two
During
It opened on a surreal note. Michael Moore had a dream. A dream that Al Gore lost the election. It seemed unreal to him. Instead of Saint Gore we got a bumbling, pickup driving, vacation taking good ol' Texas boy for President.
Well, I was in the right theatre.
He ran through a rehash of sour politics; a rant about the 2004 election. Congresspersons, all black, took to the Senate floor to challenge the election result. Al Gore had to act the bad guy and put them all down for procedural irregularities. (That was just weird.)
Protesters at the Inaugural (which, despite Moore's disingenuous argument to the contrary, was not the first time a President rode during the Inaugural when there were protesters.)
George W. Bush sleeping on fine French linens. (Probably every President has done the same; why was it necessary to tell us this?)
And so on and so forth. The opening was fun, but it was just partisan bitching.
Then came the opening credits, a menagerie of shots of the current occupants of the Bush White House. All at their most unflattering. The last shot, where Bush is frozen waiting for TV cameras to roll and suddenly looks out the corner of his eye, drew the first hearty laugh from the audience.
If nothing else, I thought, this might be fun.
I think Moore did a brilliant job with his next sequence: the World Trade Center. There was no picture. Just sound.
The pictures have become etched into our souls. We don't need to see them on the screen to see them in our hearts. (There is one sequence, the second plane disappearing into a plane shaped hole in the tower, that played over and over again in my head. Those nights I couldn't sleep.)
He followed that with pictures of horrified people on the street, looking up, into a gentle falling snow storm of ash. We never see the Towers. But we know they are there. He doesn't hit us over the head with it; he knows he doesn't need to.
He follows this with the video of George W. Bush at a grade school in Florida during a photo op, sitting with little kids. Someone whispers in his ear.
Moore says the man said, "America is under attack." I imagine the man probably said "A plane has just struck the World Trade Center." Maybe it was the second plane. I don't know.
Regardless, Bush just sits there.
For seven minutes. He just sits there.
To me, this was a devastating sequence. Bush has since protested that he wanted to project calmness. But to whom? A bunch of eight year olds?
The guy who spoke in his ear only said a few words. So it isn't like Bush knew a lot. Why wasn't he asking for more information. Why didn't he excuse himself and spend a minute on the phone.
Moore doesn't show us any pictures of Bush talking to anyone. Did Moore leave those out? Or was Bush, as Moore charges, simply out of his depth?
Moore suggests a lot of things Bush could have been thinking, most of them having to do with Moore's conspiracy theories. I imagined that Bush was hoping Dick Cheney was in charge. Maybe that was unfair of me.
Seven minutes.
Well, maybe not so unfair.
Moore then launches into a long winded account about the connection between the Bush family and a whole nest of Saudis, including members of the bin Lauden family. You can follow all that if you want. I just let it all wash over me. This is an area where the media and right have criticized the film, because everything is conjecture, no real proof.
Of course it is conjecture, Moore would complain that all the facts are kept so hush-hush that nobody knows what is really going on. It pretty standard conspiracy stuff.
You can believe it if you want. Or not. Doesn't really matter to my way of thinking. Everybody is so connected at the top, we can draw lines between just about everybody. Six degrees of separation. Although, in these cases, it's more like one degree.
That was the slow part of the film. Conspiracies are hard to prove and it gets tedious drawing all the spider webs that link the conspirators together. Eventually you give up trying to follow all the unproved allegations and temporarily accept the premise just so you can move on. There were a lot of "facts" thrown out, some which I was highly skeptical of, and a lot of connections that could easily be innocently explained, but Moore is on a mission, so I gave him some slack.
Then he talked about the war in Afganistan. He put Richard Clarke on camera to say Bush went in too slow with too few men and let the Taliban and bin Laden get away. Then he pulled out pictures of a Taliban official getting a tour of the US government and said, "guess why?" Again, nothing you can prove. It is all part of the same conspiracy.
But that led Moore to talk about fear in America, and how it is being used as a tool. A tool to keep people in line. A tool to keep people from questioning government policy. A tool to take away essential civil liberties and replace them with a blanket of "security."
We saw aging hippies out in California get investigated by undercover police officers assigned to terrorism. A mother had to demonstrate for airport security that her baby's bottle was filled with breast milk by drinking half of it. The FBI descended on a man because he made some political statements to the weight lifters at his gym.
All excesses justified/excused by the war on terrorism.
Moore points out that "fear does work." Fear keeps the ruling class in power. Fear keeps the people from challenging their leaders. Fear makes people shut their mouths because they are afraid who is listening. Fear keeps you in line.
The Soviets used it for decades.
Moore also argues at one point, believe it or not, that we should be spending more on the war of terrorism. He points to a stretch of coastline in Oregon where only one part time cop keeps the terrorists from invading the homeland.
I can't see bin Laden squeezing out into a rubber raft from some submarine in the middle of the night to terrorist the forests of the Pacific Northwest. Maybe that's just me.
But the real point Moore is making is that the war on terror is not about terror. hey aren't really serious about fighting terror. It's just the excuse.
It's really all about oil.
Thus we get to the war on Iraq.
This is the brilliant part of the film. Moore goes for the gut. He belly punches you. You think you can resist political propaganda, but when it's good, you can't.
He starts off with a happy and carefree Iraq, full of smiling faces enjoying life. He lies it on a little too thick here. He tells us the sovereign nation of Iraq "never attacked the US, never threatened to attack the US, and never murdered an American citizen." I imagine he meant Iraq didn't crash planes into the World Trade Center. Hard for me to imagine Saddam didn't catch and kill at least one CIA operative over the years. But this is political propaganda. Exaggeration and bombast are to be expected.
Then he takes us to the war. But this is not the sanitized, uplifting, Nightly News version. This is a little girl with her face blown off.
And soldiers talking about the "rush" of combat, going into battle with their mp3 payers blaring out "Roof on Fire." Blowing up building. And people.
He contrasts it with Rumsfeld (I think) talking about "the care that goes into [the war effort], the humanity that goes into it."
An Iraqi woman standing next to a bombed building crying, "Where are you God?"
Britney Spears saying she trusts this President.
Back and forth, from absurdity to ugly reality; the juxtaposition of fantasy and mangled lives.
We go through the excuses for the war: weapons of mass destruction, links to terrorists, Saddam "hates freedom." Moore knocks down each straw dummy in turn. No fact, at least nothing we can vet. But we are arguing on emotion now. On the "truth," not the facts.
Then the "war" is over, but the need for troops keeps rising. So Moore takes us to Flint, Michigan (his home town) to look for them. We listen to young black men talk about the possibility of being in a war. We walk through a shopping mall (not the one on the rich side of town, of course) with two marine recruiters as they spin their Yankee peddler magic on aimless boys.
We meet a woman whose son is in the army. She tells us half of Flint is under employed or not working. The military is a real option here.
But the young men don't want to go if there is a risk of dying. Moore asks, would you? (And there is a nice little sequence later when he asks Congressmen if they would be willing to sign up their own children to go to Iraq.)
Moore bashes Bush for immorality, for plutocracy, for greed, and for heartlessness.
But the best moments in the film aren't Moore's. They belong to the woman from Flint whose son is in Iraq. Her son is killed when his Blackhawk goes down.
Moore steps away from the camera and lets the woman's raw grief drench the audience. She recalls her emotions when the army first called, how she fell to the floor and crawled to a desk, clung to it, screaming, "Why is it my son?"
She reads his last letter which came after she learned he was dead. I could hear sobbing in the theatre.
"I want him to be alive. But I can't make him alive. Your flesh just aches."
Brilliant. Devastating. Brutal.
Moore takes us to a conference where corporations are learning how to make billions off the "reconstruction" of Iraq. Then to the streets of Washington, D. C. where the lady from Flint walks by the White House. And Moore tries to recruit Congressmen's children.
Moore wraps it up by pointing out the poorest people of our country are the ones who have answered the call to die for our country. "And all they ask is that we never send them in harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary." I imagine you know Moore's answer to that.
And finally Moore reads a little of George Orwell. From 1984.
George Orwell once wrote, that it's if not a matter "if the war is not real, or if it is. Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous." ... "A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance, this new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or east Asia but to keep the very structure of society in tact."
The audience of 30 some persons, sitting in a theatre on Ronald Reagan Boulevard in central Indiana on a Wednesday afternoon, applauded, and then went home.
Fear and Loathing in Washington D.C. - Part Three
after
I started this whole essay by saying that "Fahrenheit 9/11" was a lousy documentary. And it is.
Documentaries are fact based. There needs to be carefully construction of the arguments. Your facts need to stand up against carefully scrutiny. The audience needs to have faith in the integrity and honesty of the film makers.
Quite frankly, Moore fails the faith test. Too much of what we presents as fact is merely insinuation.
Oh, a lot of times he is careful to present things as his own opinion and just lets the audience make the leap to "fact." But he makes a lot of connections and implications that are not fully supported by the evidence he presents.
Skeptics will have a hard time believing a lot of what he presents. (There are plenty of debunkers on the internet, so if you are interested in where Moore "fudges" I refer you to them.)
But that doesn't make any difference. Because this isn't a documentary.
It's political propaganda.
Now those are not dirty words. Political propaganda has a long and proud tradition in the arts, including literature and film. You see it all the time on the TV, they're called campaign ads.
Some of the most celebrated film makers in history made political propaganda. One of the most honored, and historically important, American films, Birth of a Nation, is thinly disguised propaganda for the Ku Klux Klan. Sergei Eisenstein's Marxist film, Battleship Potemkim, is studied by film students to learn about montage editing. Cinema that seeks to persuade, rather than inform or entertain, can be powerful stuff.
But comedic documentaries sell a lot more tickets than political propaganda. No one expects to pay to see political propaganda. You expect it to be shoved down your throat.
So why would you go to the theatre and pay good money to see something as contemptible as political propaganda?
Because it is brilliant? And funny?
The point of political propaganda is the truthfulness of the arguments it makes, and how those arguments resonate with your experience; not whether or not all its facts are in line. You watch propaganda to gain ideas you can use, not facts to support those ideas.
If you want facts, you are going to have to find them in your own life, not someone else's. Ultimately, you have to apply the ideas to your own life, to your own experience.
Not everyone is going to agree with Michael Moore about everything. But there are some ideas in this film you need to consider.
Why are we in Iraq if every fact given for going there was been demonstrated to be inaccurate?
Why are the ones who least benefit from this society the ones who have to die to maintain your lifestyle?
Is it really necessary to secure your freedoms by giving the government the power to enter your home without a search warrant? A power given to the government in a bill passed only a few days after September 11th, which most of Congress have never read?
And is the war against terror something that can be won, or a war that will go on forever?
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a funny film. (I didn't describe most of the funny bits because they will be much better if you know nothing about them when you see the film.) Moore weaves his sarcastic wit around a menagerie of unwitting players who bumble and bluster. He makes everyone into a fool, even himself when he drives around in a Mr. Frosty truck reading The Patriot Act over its sound system accompanied by that tinkling ice-cream-man tune. He blisters the pompous and pricks the haughty. (Although I could have done without Ashcroft singing.)
But the value of Fahrenheit 9/11 is not in its humor or its wit. It is in its brutal honesty about the lives of humans devastated by war; it is in the exposure of the commercialism at the heart of American foreign policy; and it is in the challenge to ordinary people to look openly at their freedoms in the face of constant fear.
When it comes to political propaganda, no one today does it better. The Soviets had Sergei Eisenstein; the Nazis had Leni Riefenstahl.
We have Michael Moore
I concur.
I've said it earlier. While it cannot be easily proven that bush has been involved in shady dealings. There are enough people out there saying "x" and "y" to make one wonder what really is going on. Occam may never have been the target of a conspiracy, but to conspire is human nature.
What went on, we may never know, but the fact remains the man is dirtier than a ton of shit in a sewerage plant.
to me kerry and bush are the same demon.
out demon out!
why do we keep doing this to ourselves... simply because we don't know how to stop doing it.
Or because we aren't willing to pay the price involved in stopping.
it's free... it's free... I understand but don't grok ...
Not that kind of price.
It would cost paying attention and learning how to change things, and
being willing face the truth and all sorts of unpleasant, but liberating, things.
paying attention?!?!? paying attention?!?!?
that's what got us here I'm talking about freeing from your mind this constuct of ownership... extinction is not stewardship...
lets steward the the world and not I say not grind it anymore... who care where the resources ARE... lets quit paying attention to that... lets pick the berries that grow naturally...
( why do i think I sound like a luddite right now?!?!?)
yyyyyaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhh
forgive them father for they know not what they do.
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomNot that kind of price.
It would cost paying attention and learning how to change things, and
being willing face the truth and all sorts of unpleasant, but liberating, things.
Bah!
Humbug!
The good, loyal, patriotic people of the USofA don't have to put up with that kind of touchy-feely, mamby-pamby crap! They should continue to eat cardboard hamburgers and wear jeans made for US$0.12 an hour in india and buy cars that get six gallons to the mile without ever having to realize that they are at least partially responsible for the misery and resentment that causes other countries and radical politico-religious groups to dispise them world wide - BECAUSE THAT'S THE AMERICAN WAY, DAMMIT!
Truth?
We don't need no stinking truth...
8)
CF
Quote from: chaosgraves:agentoferispaying attention?!?!? paying attention?!?!?
that's what got us here I'm talking about freeing from your mind this constuct of ownership... extinction is not stewardship...
lets steward the the world and not I say not grind it anymore... who care where the resources ARE... lets quit paying attention to that... lets pick the berries that grow naturally...
( why do i think I sound like a luddite right now?!?!?)
yyyyyaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhh
forgive them father for they know not what they do.
I would agree with what you just said about the concept of ownership.
I just don't see how you got there from my suggestion that we pay
attention to what's really going on in the world.
And I actually think the concept of stewardship closely borders the concept of ownership.
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomQuote from: chaosgraves:agentoferispaying attention?!?!? paying attention?!?!?
that's what got us here I'm talking about freeing from your mind this constuct of ownership... extinction is not stewardship...
lets steward the the world and not I say not grind it anymore... who care where the resources ARE... lets quit paying attention to that... lets pick the berries that grow naturally...
( why do i think I sound like a luddite right now?!?!?)
yyyyyaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhh
forgive them father for they know not what they do.
I would agree with what you just said about the concept of ownership.
I just don't see how you got there from my suggestion that we pay attention to what's really going on in the world.
What, the stuff going on in our heads is supposed to make
SENSE now?
8)
CF
No, it's never going to make sense.
But we can at least try. That's all.
I'm trying.
I'm trying my coffee with five sugars instead of six today.
How much more can you expect from me?
8)
CF
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomQuote from: chaosgraves:agentoferispaying attention?!?!? paying attention?!?!?
that's what got us here I'm talking about freeing from your mind this constuct of ownership... extinction is not stewardship...
lets steward the the world and not I say not grind it anymore... who care where the resources ARE... lets quit paying attention to that... lets pick the berries that grow naturally...
( why do i think I sound like a luddite right now?!?!?)
yyyyyaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhh
forgive them father for they know not what they do.
I would agree with what you just said about the concept of ownership.
I just don't see how you got there from my suggestion that we pay
attention to what's really going on in the world.
And I actually think the concept of stewardship closely borders the concept of ownership.
it is not ours to have it belongs to the furture... this is stewardship... but like many that call themslves christian you seem to think that to take care of something means you own it... I know you have a child ... do you own her?!?!?
Why are you arguing with me when I'm agreeing with you?!?!?
I just said I agreed with you on the question of ownership.
I don't really own anything or anybody and don't kid myself that I do.
As for stewardship.....it's a great concept, as long as it isn't abused.
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomWhy are you arguing with me when I'm agreeing with you?!?!?
I just said I agreed with you on the question of ownership.
I don't really own anything or anybody and don't kid myself that I do.
As for stewardship.....it's a great concept, as long as it isn't abused.
stewdardship is not abused... if it's "abused" it's not stewardship.
this is the concept that you are claiming you agree with me on... so why do you say why argue when we agree and then continue to not agree with me?!?!?
love you bella this is not an attack ...
* dusty burgers to Bella*
Quote from: Colonel FailureQuote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomNot that kind of price.
It would cost paying attention and learning how to change things, and
being willing face the truth and all sorts of unpleasant, but liberating, things.
Bah!
Humbug!
The good, loyal, patriotic people of the USofA don't have to put up with that kind of touchy-feely, mamby-pamby crap! They should continue to eat cardboard hamburgers and wear jeans made for US$0.12 an hour in india and buy cars that get six gallons to the mile without ever having to realize that they are at least partially responsible for the misery and resentment that causes other countries and radical politico-religious groups to dispise them world wide - BECAUSE THAT'S THE AMERICAN WAY, DAMMIT!
Truth?
We don't need no stinking truth...
8)
CF
Yeah, this is what I was trying to say.
We're lousy at trying to run the world and we should just cut it out.
And take care of the world (including ourselves and the other animals) instead of trying to run things.
But then, I'm in a particularly pissy and Un-Amurrican mood today.
burns the unamerican flag
Quote from: chaosgraves:agentoferisQuote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomWhy are you arguing with me when I'm agreeing with you?!?!?
I just said I agreed with you on the question of ownership.
I don't really own anything or anybody and don't kid myself that I do.
As for stewardship.....it's a great concept, as long as it isn't abused.
stewdardship is not abused... if it's "abused" it's not stewardship.
this is the concept that you are claiming you agree with me on... so why do you say why argue when we agree and then continue to not agree with me?!?!?
love you bella this is not an attack ...
* dusty burgers to Bella*
You're playing word games with me and I'm not in the mood.
I don't believe we have the right to control other people or that there is truly any such thing as "ownership".
When we buy something we pay for the priveledge of using it for a while.
Doesn't give us the right to destroy it or take it for granted or deny future generations the use of it.
People use the word "Stewardship" as an excuse to do all sorts of shitty things.
And you're right - it isn't really stewardship when that happens.
* no thank you, I'm not hungry.*
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomQuote from: chaosgraves:agentoferisQuote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomWhy are you arguing with me when I'm agreeing with you?!?!?
I just said I agreed with you on the question of ownership.
I don't really own anything or anybody and don't kid myself that I do.
As for stewardship.....it's a great concept, as long as it isn't abused.
stewdardship is not abused... if it's "abused" it's not stewardship.
this is the concept that you are claiming you agree with me on... so why do you say why argue when we agree and then continue to not agree with me?!?!?
love you bella this is not an attack ...
* dusty burgers to Bella*
You're playing word games with me and I'm not in the mood.
I don't believe we have the right to control other people or that there is truly any such thing as "ownership".
When we buy something we pay for the priveledge of using it for a while.
Doesn't give us the right to destroy it or take it for granted or deny future generations the use of it.
People use the word "Stewardship" as an excuse to do all sorts of shitty things.
And you're right - it isn't really stewardship when that happens.
* no thank you, I'm not hungry.*
yes i'm sorry I'm playing word games... this one was called "communication"... and I understand now that you don't want to play...
but we should stop useing words in the same way that those who use them as excuses do ... * hot coffee to bella*
That's not true. I do want to communicate with you.
I just can't make sense of how we got from my first post to here.
The leap you made escapes me, and my feeling was that you
were just yanking my chain.
If that's not true, I apologise.
*No coffee, please*
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomThat's not true. I do want to communicate with you.
I just can't make sense of how we got from first post to here.
The leap you made escapes me, and my feeling was that you
were just yanking my chain.
If that's not true, I apologise.
No coffee, please/
sorry paying attention leads down both roads for wealth and illth... it's not paying attention that will save us just as the answer is not not paying attention...I was a little upset ... not at you... juyst was ranting.... and maybe that got you upset a little at me... and... wait a minute hear we are both people that are wondering why we keep doing this to ourselves and well we did it to ourselves...
Quote from: chaosgraves:agentoferisQuote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomThat's not true. I do want to communicate with you.
I just can't make sense of how we got from first post to here.
The leap you made escapes me, and my feeling was that you
were just yanking my chain.
If that's not true, I apologise.
No coffee, please/
sorry paying attention leads down both roads for wealth and illth... it's not paying attention that will save us just as the answer is not not paying attention...I was a little upset ... not at you... juyst was ranting.... and maybe that got you upset a little at me... and... wait a minute hear we are both people that are wondering why we keep doing this to ourselves and well we did it to ourselves...
What are you two arguing about, anyway?
wait for it...I wasn't paying attention.
8)
CF
Quote from: chaosgraves:agentoferisQuote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomThat's not true. I do want to communicate with you.
I just can't make sense of how we got from first post to here.
The leap you made escapes me, and my feeling was that you
were just yanking my chain.
If that's not true, I apologise.
No coffee, please/
sorry paying attention leads down both roads for wealth and illth... it's not paying attention that will save us just as the answer is not not paying attention...I was a little upset ... not at you... juyst was ranting.... and maybe that got you upset a little at me... and... wait a minute hear we are both people that are wondering why we keep doing this to ourselves and well we did it to ourselves...
Okay, thank you.
I just couldn't make sense of the conversation.
Now that you filled in the gaps, I feel much less frustrated.
I was already quite upset when I got on the boards today - but not at you.
So yup, we sure did do it to ourselves.
Quote from: The ColonelPeople usually have no further to look for the source of their troubles than the mirror. But they frequently begin their search far afield.
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomQuote from: chaosgraves:agentoferisQuote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomThat's not true. I do want to communicate with you.
I just can't make sense of how we got from first post to here.
The leap you made escapes me, and my feeling was that you
were just yanking my chain.
If that's not true, I apologise.
No coffee, please/
sorry paying attention leads down both roads for wealth and illth... it's not paying attention that will save us just as the answer is not not paying attention...I was a little upset ... not at you... juyst was ranting.... and maybe that got you upset a little at me... and... wait a minute hear we are both people that are wondering why we keep doing this to ourselves and well we did it to ourselves...
Okay, thank you.
I just couldn't make sense of the conversation.
Now that you filled in the gaps, I feel much less frustrated.
I was already quite upset when I got on the boards today - but not at you.
So yup, we sure did do it to ourselves.
Still in "Montana"?!?!?
Yes, I go home on Monday.
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomYes, I go home on Monday.
"Monday"?!?!?
Yes, day after tomorrow.
you sure about that?
I thought it was setting orange.
Quote from: chaosgraves:agentoferisyou sure about that?
Nope, because I'm never absolutely certain when it comes to travel.......but that's the plan as of now.
the night sky's are great here in wenatchee... it is fire season up here... and of coure the polution makes for a wonderful sunset.
Quote from: chaosgraves:agentoferisthe night sky's are great here in wenatchee... it is fire season up here... and of coure the polution makes for a wonderful sunset.
Yeah it's pretty this time of year, but my family and I were almost trapped in the big fire in that burned through Entiat Valley in the early 90's. We barely made it out ahead of the firestorm. Then we went to the family reunion in Chelan and spent days hosing the roof of our aunt's house because so many sparks were landing on it.
I haven't much liked fire season in Wenatchee since that time.
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomQuote from: chaosgraves:agentoferisthe night sky's are great here in wenatchee... it is fire season up here... and of coure the polution makes for a wonderful sunset.
Yeah it's pretty this time of year, but my family and I were almost trapped in the big fire in that burned through Entiat Valley in the early 90's. We barely made it out ahead of the firestorm. Then we went to the family reunion in Chelan and spent days hosing the roof of our aunt's house because so many sparks were landing on it.
I haven't much liked fire season in Wenatchee since that time.
but we have the glow over the hills look... ( and I agree I prefer to stay in wenatchee rather then go to like leavenworth or up past entiat this time of year)
down side is the air purity alerts that are going on... my daughter and I are not going out doors much right now.
Sounds pretty. I remember how nice the sky looks at sunset this time of year. Hate the air quality when it's fire season, though.
one of my friends is a smoke jumper... so I get worried this time of year.
I don't blame you. That was the most terrifying experience of my life.
you smoke jump?!?!?
Nope, I was referring to being in that fire in the Entiat Valley.
We were in the middle of the fire lines because the fire snuck up on the farm while we were asleep. The wind from the fire was ripping trees from the ground as it came and I couldn't believe that people willingly jump into that kind of situation. They're very brave to do so.
She is a super hero ... I call her Paula K. Lamano, the hottest thing on two wheels she is a smoke jumper and snowboarder... she wants to do a jump where she jumps out of a plane parachutes down snowboards down the mountain and the surf in the lake at the bottom... ( river istill don't quit get it.)
Quote from: chaosgraves:agentoferisQuote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomThat's not true. I do want to communicate with you.
I just can't make sense of how we got from first post to here.
The leap you made escapes me, and my feeling was that you
were just yanking my chain.
If that's not true, I apologise.
No coffee, please/
sorry paying attention leads down both roads for wealth and illth... it's not paying attention that will save us just as the answer is not not paying attention...I was a little upset ... not at you... juyst was ranting.... and maybe that got you upset a little at me... and... wait a minute hear we are both people that are wondering why we keep doing this to ourselves and well we did it to ourselves...
I suggest that you drop it, and when body and mind drop off, you can go back home and make your thyme...
Quote from: St. Trollax, ODDQuote from: chaosgraves:agentoferisQuote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomThat's not true. I do want to communicate with you.
I just can't make sense of how we got from first post to here.
The leap you made escapes me, and my feeling was that you
were just yanking my chain.
If that's not true, I apologise.
No coffee, please/
sorry paying attention leads down both roads for wealth and illth... it's not paying attention that will save us just as the answer is not not paying attention...I was a little upset ... not at you... juyst was ranting.... and maybe that got you upset a little at me... and... wait a minute hear we are both people that are wondering why we keep doing this to ourselves and well we did it to ourselves...
I suggest that you drop it, and when body and mind drop off, you can go back home and make your thyme...
Thyme flies when you're haveing puns.
:roll: :roll: :roll:
Quote from: Malaul:roll: :roll: :roll:
I love intellectual debate!
yes dear *pats you on shoulder* we know
Quote from: Malaulyes dear *pats you on shoulder* we know
*puts head on malauls shoulder.....sobbing greatly*
Can someone help me stop?!?!?!?
Please?!?!?
* continues sobbing*
*soothes*
anyone got some Coffee?
Or Pie?
that always helps...
Quote from: chaosgraves:agentoferisQuote from: Malaulyes dear *pats you on shoulder* we know
*puts head on maauls shoulder.....sobbing greatly*
Can someone help me stop?!?!?!?
Please?!?!?
* continues sobbing*
I have a sure-fire plan.
Oh, wait... seems to be a problem... And it's brought to you by the Semi-Concious Liberation Army... couldn't find the picture I wanted, but this works...
(http://cevk.com/images/buffering.jpg)
Quote from: Malaul*soothes*
anyone got some Coffee?
Or Pie?
that always helps...
Here you go!
(http://img21.exs.cx/img21/6751/piesGraves.jpg)
Quote from: gnimbleyQuote from: Malaul*soothes*
anyone got some Coffee?
Or Pie?
that always helps...
Here you go!
(http://img21.exs.cx/img21/6751/piesGraves.jpg)
Thanks malaul and gnimbly...
why is the SLA in my head?!?!?
cause you like it there?
in the sla or in my head?!?!?
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Making GOP Nervous
By MIKE GLOVER
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Republicans initially dismissed "Fahrenheit 9/11'' as a cinematic screed that would play mostly to inveterate Bush bashers. Four weeks and $94 million later, the film is still pulling in moviegoers at 2,000 theaters around the country, making Republicans nervous as it settles into the American mainstream.
"I'm not sure if it moves voters,'' GOP consultant Scott Reed said, "but if it moves 3 or 4 percent it's been a success.''
Two senior Republicans closely tied to the White House said the movie from director Michael Moore is seen as a political headache because it has reached beyond the Democratic base. Independents and GOP-leaning voters are likely to be found sitting beside those set to revel in its depiction of a clueless president with questionable ties to the oil industry.
"If you are a naive, uncommitted voter and wander into a theater, you aren't going to come away with a good impression of the president,'' Republican operative Joe Gaylord said. "It's a problem only if a lot of people see it.''
Based on a record-breaking gross of $94 million through last weekend, theaters already have sold an estimated 12 million tickets to "Fahrenheit 9/11.'' A Gallup survey conducted July 8-11 said 8 percent of American adults had seen the film at that time, but that 18 percent still planned to see it at a theater and another 30 percent plan to see it on video.
More than a third of Republicans and nearly two-thirds of independents told Gallup they had seen or expected to see the film at theaters or on video.
"Fahrenheit 9/11'' opened in June mainly in locally owned arts theaters that specialize in obscure films and tiny audiences. Drawn in part by the buzz surrounding the film, people packed the theaters and formed long lines for tickets. Within a week, it was appearing in chain-owned theaters along with "Spider-Man 2,'' "The Notebook'' and other big summer attractions.
When he sat down to watch the film at the Varsity Theater in Des Moines last weekend, Rob Sheesley didn't harbor anti-Bush feelings. Two hours later, he left with conflicted emotions.
"You want to respect the president,'' Sheesley said. "It raised a lot of questions.''
Bush's leadership in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks had impressed retired teacher Lavone Mann, another Des Moines moviegoer. After watching the film, Mann wanted to know more about its claims.
"I guess that I think it makes me want to pursue how much of it is accurate and not just get carried away with one film,'' she said. "I don't hear Bush and (Vice President Dick) Cheney saying that this is incorrect.''
Retired college professor Dennis O'Brien, a Bush voter in 2000 and a movie buff who has seen other Moore films, said "Fahrenheit 9/11'' hasn't changed his view of Bush but may well serve a larger purpose by sparking debate.
"Moore forces you to think about the role of oil in the politics of American life,'' O'Brien said. "This goes back a long way.''
In GOP-strong Columbia, S.C., watching the movie last week at the Columbiana Grande tipped 26-year-old David Wood's support more to the left.
"I don't consider myself a Republican or a Democrat. I just vote for whoever is right for the job,'' the University of South Carolina student said. "I think most people don't bother to really research, and all they need is something popular to sway them.''
Others at the screening in Columbia were put off by what they saw as the film's biased approach to examining Bush and the reasons he took the country to war. For Scott Campbell, 19, the movie reinforced his apathy toward politics.
"We didn't even stay to see the whole thing,'' Campbell said. "It was one-sided.''
Former Iowa Republican Chairman Michael Mahaffey said the movie's impact could be dulled over time. "It's July,'' he said. "Conventional wisdom will change completely every four or five weeks.''
Still, "Fahrenheit 9/11'' is likely to gain an even wider audience when it's released on home video in the weeks before Election Day. The Gallup survey found that nearly half of the Republicans and independents who expect to see the film said they were likely to view it on video.
"In all honesty, in a very close election, who knows what will sway the public?'' Mahaffey said.