The Academy Awards always bring a little conversation, in particular, MICHAEL MOORE

[ulrichsd]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by cal godot:

It is highly unlikely that the majority of the house would cheer an award to a film like BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, then boo the filmmaker for giving the speech *everyone knew he would give.* I wonder how many of these people were booing Moore not for what he was saying, but for when he was saying it, i.e. it was not the proper time. Most of them were probably just pissed because he was harshing their buzz.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd imagine a person like Moore is bound to have a few enemies, even at a mostly liberal event such as the academy awards. So it is not surprising that people booed Moore for what he was saying, probably because those people expected him to say it. I mean, no one booed any of the other oscar winners who brought up a call for peace during their speaches.

Scott

[MovieStuff]

Moore was asked if his notoriety for making his interviewees look foolish made it harder to get people to sit down with him on camera. He said that, on the contrary, people that felt they were smarter than him were lining up to "teach Michael Moore a lesson". Sauce for the goose. [img]wink.gif[/img]

Roger

[Rob Skates]

Cal from Hollywood,
I reject your notion that "there is no right time and place for speaking one's mind". Of course there is. The question is who decides what is the right time and where is the right place. Only the person using their right of free speech can decide the right time and place. It is a matter of decorum. A testimate to one's taste. In my opinion Mr. Moore's comments were in bad taste.

He used his 45 seconds not to make a plea for peace, but rather to make a person attack against the president. He chose not to advance the message of gun control. He chose not to speak out against endemic american violence. His thoughts and comments on these topics that were the center of his film could have been productive. His attacks on the president's legitimacy were counter productive to the cause of peace. His right, yes. His taste, bad. His motives, selfish.

As you said Cal, The Academy Awards are an event "where film artist are given the highest award or recognition the industry can bestow." These awards are given on the merit of one's work. Not their political beliefs. (in theory)Some artists flashed peace sign and or wore peace pins. A far more appropriate exercise of our right of free speech. I still ask where were the calls for peace when clinton engaged in warfare? I wonder how loud the boos would have been had someone used their 45 seconds to speak out in support of President Bush.

Free speech, appropriate or inappropriate, in good taste or bad, is our right regardless of time and place. How when and where we practice this right is a measure of our character. This right is not enjoyed by the citizens of Iraq. This right has not been enjoyed by those in nations that practice the marxist/leninist political beliefs of Michael Moore.

Cal, you fear that "someday someone will sit in jail for saying something at the wrong time". Right now in Iraq, China, North Korea and many other countries people are sitting in jail for saying something at the wrong time. Where are the protests for them? Where are the protests against those governments? I guess they do not even deserve 45 seconds.

[lightfeat]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
lightfeat, you are really taking a cowardly way out, by trying to be evasive about being British or not.
You realize that it's hypocritical for you to be attacking us Americans for this war, simply because we're Americans, when your own country is also in this war, making you every bit as responsible as us American citizens are.

Whether or not you are British, does not depend on what sports team you root for, if you like the Scots or Irish, or whatever B.S. you just said in your post.

You are British if you are a British citizen, period.
It's not a matter of semantics.

So, answer truthfully;
What country are you a citizen of?

If you are a British citizen, then stop being a bigot towards us Americans, acting as if every one of our 300 million citizens are behind every single thing our country does, OK?
We are not the Borg.
We have different opinions and views, and as a few of use here have said, (myself and Roger, for instance), we're clearly not 100% behind this war, and I certainnly am scared shitless of some of the things this country is doing now, like the Patriot Act, for instance.


Matt Pacini</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

What the F*@K are you talking about?

When did I condemn your whole nation as being pro war? And when did I isolate my country from yours regarding responsability for the war? Never! I alluded to a stereotype of a right-wing American which, if you would care to take your head out of your ass and ask a non-US national, is fairly well established. I don't know what your beef is, Matt. You seem to have a problem comprehending my writing. Perhaps we are speaking different languages.

The issue of whether I consider myself British or English is COMPLETELY unrelated any issue mentioned in this thread - I only commented because I was specifically asked, and you will note, that I do acknowledge that I am British, so get off my fucking case. This has no inference that I am in some way not associated with the war - I am, and I am very uncomfortable about this. What's all this cowardice bullshit? You are an idiot.

Lucas

[calgodot]

TOPICAL CONNECTION OF THIS THREAD TO SUPER 8 FILMMAKING: If the US government manages to pass everything in PATRIOT ACT: THE SEQUEL, there will be greater restrictions on free expression. With less free expression, there will be less reason for Kodak to make Super8 film. (Also, dialogue like this with my fellow filmmaker encourages me not to put stones in my pocket and wade into the ocean.)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The question is who decides what is the right time and where is the right place. Only the person using their right of free speech can decide the right time and place. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you that only the person exercising his/her right to speak freely has the authority to determine whether it is an appropriate time and place to speak freely. Michael Moore wanted to grab headlines, so in fact he chose an immensely appropriate time and place to attack the illegitimate occupant of the White House.

(Incidentally, where is your ire at the people who chose to boo, something that is regarded as rude by most people, is almost always inappropriate, and is certainly not intended to support someone's right to free speech. In fact, it's something the brownshirts were fond of doing at liberal rallies in 1920s-30s Germany.)

Attacking Bush is entirely apropos, and amounts to a message of peace: if Bush were not in control of the military, they would not likely be invading Iraq. I assert this because most military officers were reluctant to go, and only jumped on board when their Commander in Chief told them to jump on board. (Which makes them good officers, although one wonders: why were German officers held accountable for following orders resulting in illegal invasions but American officers are expected to do so without question?)

While I have no doubt another President, such as Gore or Clinton, would have attacked Afghanistan in response to 9/11, I similarly have no doubt that a Republican congress would not allow a Democratic President to defy the UN and illegally invade another country. Nor would a Democratic Congress, since all the Democrat congressfolk care about is votes, and war is politically riskier with voters than peace and diplomacy, as the radical plunge in the opinion polls is showing BushCo this week. A Republican Congress (and that is what we would have, based on the outcome of the last 2 elections) certainly would never let Clinton or Gore pull off the fabrication that Iraq is connected to Al Quaeda, with or without the secret evidence White House may or may not be holding.

As for the peace protests under Clinton, Rob, they happened. Quite often. Every incident you mention had a rally in response to it. I attended a few in Seattle, and have friends who attended them in San Francisco, Boston, NYC, and other major cities. It's true that almost none of these were televised - there's that damn liberal media again! But they did occur. Similarly, 'protests' regarding the political prisoners of other countries occur all the time. Just check out Amnesty International's calendar. (I think you mean to focus on rallies, as simply writing a letter is a protest, and you know all about the Amnesty International letter campaigns, right?)

That said, I agree with you about the troubling inconsistencies of political philosophies found in most Americans. I think this is one reason you find a lot of people calling themselves "libertarians," as it seems to be a political party which allows extreme incosistency in beliefs. I knew many liberals in Seattle who protested for the freedom of Mumia but thought it was okay to ban porn on the internet. (Bonus points for anyone who can connect those two things philosophically.)

Politics in America is all emotion and reaction. Seldom does reason and thought enter into the picture. Most Americans are about as philosophically deep as AMERICAN IDOL. Which explains the popularity of the show, I guess....

[Greg Crawford]

Cal, What do you know that you can share with us about the Patriots Act, the sequal?

quote:
Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Having talked with guys that were deeply involved in Desert Storm (or Iraq War I), I can say that their biggest fear at that time was the media giving away vital information about ground movements and attack plans. It is no secret that Saddam watches CNN all the time. IF he has weapons of mass destruction, etc, then the most stupid thing that the coalition could do is parade the evidence and photos around to the media vultures, showing locations, number of weapons and the such. Doing so would not only give away the element of surprise for eliminating them but would needlessly endanger countless military lives. The Allied forces faced a similar problem with the Japanese in WWII after learning their plans regarding fleet movements. There were Allied forces in the path of the advancing Japanese but, if the forces were warned or moved, that would tip off the Japanese that their plans were known. A tough call I wouldn't want to make if in command then or now.

Roger

&lt;font color="#a62a2a" size="1"&gt;[ March 26, 2003 10:07 PM: Message edited by: MovieStuff ]&lt;/font&gt;

Can't find fault with your post Roger, now that we are at war .... During the Gulf War, I could not believe some of the information that was hitting the airways for all to hear.

My only point in posting that unknown author piece was I do not believe the Administration made the case to invade Iraq.If

We had a case to make, we would have made it. In fact, life might even be easier know with more Americans signing on to the Pro War band wagon. Who knows, maybe the French and Germans would have signed on!.Before the war started,

I can not see how it would have placed us at a tactical disadvantaged. In most case back in the cold war days, both sides knew what the other side knew.... its only the general public that's kept in the dark...like we're really a threat!

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 27, 2003 06:02 PM: Message edited by: bossjock-dp ]</font>

[calgodot]

What I refer to as "PATRIOT ACT: THE SEQUEL" is actually titled "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003." It is an internal justice department document which was leaked to the Center for Public Integrity (www.publicintegrity.org). A full copy of the document is available from their web site.

The document consists of proposed extensions to the USA PATRIOT ACT, including such niceties as giving the government the authority to strip citizenship from any American without disclosing that reason, then arresting that former citizen without disclosing their crime, and hold them indefinitely without trial.

The Justice Department has repeatedly lied to Congress about the existence of such plans. To my knowledge, they have yet to full acknowledge this document. Recently a spokesperson did admit the department was looking at ways "that Congress can help us do our job better." Translation: the Constitution is getting in our way.

Speaking of the Constitution: did you guys know a stolen orignal copy of the Bill of Rights was recently recovered? Everyone was surprised to find John Ashcroft's handwriting on it. He'd stricken most of the amendments, leaving Americans with a right to worship freely and own guns. I'm thinking about starting my own religion that worships guns. God the Gunslinger, his son Jebus (the rootinest tootinest shootinest varmint this side of the Pecos), and of course the Holy Speedloader. Amen, huzzah, peace be unto you, blam blam blam.

[rcroster]

I've been reading this thread with much interest these past several days, but resisted the temptation to post, until now, as mention of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, or Patriot II, has reared its ugly head. First, let me state that I am a military reservist and I am deeply divided between the rightness and the wrongness of this war. There are equally compelling cases to be made for either side, and I am not alone in this as many of my peers in the reserves harbor similarly mixed feelings. Many of my friends who are still active duty are in the middle east right now, some, I'm certain, are smack dab in the center of the hostilities. I pray for their safety everyday. And last, as I will drop the war issue in a moment, call me indecisive if you wish (hell, that's what I am) but if I am called up to active duty I will do whatever is asked of me. I knew damn well what I was getting into when I first enlisted.

Okay, onto Patriot II. Others have expressed fright, horror, revulsion, whatever, at this latest piece of proposed legislation from Ashcroft & Company (and by extension, Bush & Company). If you are as fearful of the ramifications of Patriot II as I am, then by all means PLEASE TAKE ACTION NOW. At a minimum, read it, know what it really portends, then write your elected leaders urging them to reject it should it ever come to vote. And if you really want to make it easy on yourself, do what I did, join the ACLU. That's right, me.. a former right of center military type is now a card carrying member of the ACLU who uses thier well organized systems to protest any and all proposed legislation that aims to further erode our already deteriorating civil liberties. There is strength in numbers and this is one reasonably potent way the small guy like you and me can contribute. Now I do not agree with all ACLU positions, but when it comes to Patriot II and other like measures, I believe they are spot on. Finally (and then I promise to get off my soapbox), we all purport to be filmmakers; amateur, professional, fledging, seasoned, it doesn't matter, it's a communications medium and if you feel strongly enough about something (like Patriot II) then use your talents to get your points across in one of the most powerful ways possible. At a minimum it beats the hell out of bipping and moaning on an internet chat board. I would have much rather that Michael Moore had done this regarding his vehement anti-Bush, anti-war sentiments (and produced a serious documentary) as opposed to what he did do at the Oscars, which I considered an inappropriate clownish display of behavior on a deadly serious matter.

[Matt Pacini]

lightfeat, you are really taking a cowardly way out, by trying to be evasive about being British or not.
You realize that it's hypocritical for you to be attacking us Americans for this war, simply because we're Americans, when your own country is also in this war, making you every bit as responsible as us American citizens are.

Whether or not you are British, does not depend on what sports team you root for, if you like the Scots or Irish, or whatever B.S. you just said in your post.

You are British if you are a British citizen, period.
It's not a matter of semantics.

So, answer truthfully;
What country are you a citizen of?

If you are a British citizen, then stop being a bigot towards us Americans, acting as if every one of our 300 million citizens are behind every single thing our country does, OK?
We are not the Borg.
We have different opinions and views, and as a few of use here have said, (myself and Roger, for instance), we're clearly not 100% behind this war, and I certainnly am scared shitless of some of the things this country is doing now, like the Patriot Act, for instance.


Matt Pacini

[calgodot]

Since I see that it is "gang up on the Brit and beat him bloody senseless" time, I'll take my stand next to my English brother. His anger at this nation is not only well-founded, but it is in my view much more clearly on the mark that any defense of America posted on this board.

In all of the quotes from Lucas that Roger pulled, I find little to disagree with. Further, I challenge both Matt and Roger - who seem to be the only ones here interested in echoing and defending the current nationalistic fervor - to find factual error in Lucas' statements. Your continual griping about his anger is yet another thinly disguised way of suppressing dissent. Rather than argue with his claims, you attack him and his manner - this is called an "ad hominem" attack, byt he way, and is a classic way of avoiding an argument. Argue with his points, and allow that if he does see things this way, then he has every reason to be angry.

I suggest to all of you that the visceral reaction Europeans have to the current illegal US-led aggression is part and parcel exactly the same as boorish Americans pouring French wine into the river, or renaming pomme-frites to "liberty fries," simply because the French government prefers to get its oil by trading food and medicine rather than bullets and death.

Any American who is not passionately concerned that our military has invaded another country, that our government has already eroded our civil liberties and plans to erode them more, that immigrants of Middle Eastern origin who have committed no crime are being held in prison without access to a lawyer, is in my mind someone suffering from the deepest and most dangerous of denials. This sort of denial is what allowed the Nazis into power, and it is what allowed them to gradually develop Germany into the militaristic empire that led to WWII. Europeans know this becaue the last time it happened, it was they who ignored the totalitarians: it was England that slept while Hitler grew, and in spite of Blair's eagerness to play Chamberlain rather than Churchill, most British citizens do not want to be asleep while America rises to rule the world with an nuclear fist.

The invasion of Iraq by US-led forces is illegal. It is the equivalent of what Saddam did to Kuwait, what the Soviets did to Afghanistan, what Hitler did to Poland. A government that promotes and leads such an action is not a moral government. A citizenry which supports or allows such a government is not a moral people.

Roger and Matt, you have both declared your dislike of this war. Yet you leap to defend America against criticism for this illegal act. Lucas is right to hold ALL of America accountable for this war. Opinion polls showing declining support for the war do not mean Americans are "good people." On the contrary: if 70% of the country is against this war, then 95% of those people are sitting on their asses doing nothing about it. If we are a democracy, which we loudly tout ourselves to be, then we are as responsible for the deaths of Iraqi civilians as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Franks.

Right now we live in a country where people get arrested for wearing pro-peace t-shirts in shopping malls, where a man gets questioned by the Secret Service for typing "Bush is out of control" in a chat room. We have a citizenry that is mostly convinced that Iraq was beind the 9/11 attacks, in spite of no evidence being presented to support the claim. We have one political party that controls the all three branches of government and displays little reluctance in exercising that total control. Our government is in defiance of UN resolutions and international agreements entered into with other nations on the good faith that we would support them.

The US is now the country that cancels international agreements, backs out of treaties, claims the unilateral right of military action and backs up these claims with false evidence. It is a country rooted in hypcrisy, not the least among which is our demand that Iraq follow the Geneva convention w/r/t American POWS, though we refuse to do so with Afghani POWs.

It's true that there are great things the US has done, is doing, and likely will do in the future. It's also true that we have fewer freedoms than we used to have, and we look like a military dictatorship more each day: armed soldiers patrol our airports, armored units are parked in various places around the airports and other sensitive locations, and the President is demanding more power and authority from Congress. Our government uses a color-coded alert system to drown us in the fear that Goebbels himself knew keeps the populace silenced and acquiescent to war. The language of the government, all about our God-given destiny, smacks of the sort of propaganda used by all totalitarians as they tighten their grip on power.

These are all facts, gentlemen. I don't like it either more than you. Our country, "conceived and dedicated on the principle that all men are created equal," no longer operates under such democractic principles.

You may choose, like many Americans, to continually shield yourself from the reality of what your nation has become by wallowing in an imagined history of what we were. This is cold comfort to those in Europe who, having lived under various totalitarian heels for centuries, finally find themselves mostly free of the Titos and the Stalins, only to look across the ocean and see that the dictator now wears a cowboy hat and (barely) speaks English.

The first words uttered in THE GODFATHER are "I love America." The undertaker wants Don Corleone to kill the men who raped and cut his daughter. But Don Corleone says this is too much.

America right now wants blood. Blood for 9/11. If you watch and read what the soliders in Iraq say, a disturbing number of them equate what they are doing with "payback" for 9/11. They are painting "Let's Roll" on the bombs again.

I loved America, and I hope to love her again someday. This country, the one of illegal wars and blood vengeance, of secret arrests and deportations, is not America.