Jump to content

OPINION:


Recommended Posts

OPINION: Moore's documentary could destroy Bush

Speaking of Iraq, Moore was considering the release of one sequence in the film after he presented the film at the festival Monday. That sequence is of some American soldiers laughing, goofing off and taking pictures as they place hoods over Iraqi detainees -- with one of them touching a prisoner's genitals through a blanket!

Sound familiar? Thought it might!

The film probably won't be available for viewers' consumption until July or August. Until then, I'm sure there will be plenty of talk about it.

When it comes out, I feel this is one everyone should make an effort to rent or, heck, even buy.

Gee, it looks like it is going to be one long hot summer for the US Administration. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I like about the US is that there are people like Moore who make such movies. And he can show them during an election. He can even advertise the movie.

If Moore were Canadian, using this past Supreme Court decision, he could only spend $150,000 to publicize (make?) his movie. And so no one would ever see it.

Thank God the Canadian Supreme Court is an irrelevant group of people in a minor country. Their decisions have no bearing on the future of humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Moore were Canadian, using this past Supreme Court decision, he could only spend $150,000 to publicize (make?) his movie. And so no one would ever see it.

I'm going to assume you are using hyperbole to make your point, because that statement is categorically false. The SCOC decision applies to election advertising only.

Thank god people like you, who can't even be bothered to get their facts straight before running their mouths, are minor voices that have no bearing on the future of humanity. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SCOC decision applies to election advertising only.

How do you define "election advertising"?

What if the NCC pays to make a movie (or write a book) that links Paul Martin to Saddam Hussein and then the NCC advertises this movie (or book) during the election?

The Supreme Court of Canada is taking us into very starnge territory. This road leads to a dead end.

Free speech makes for vibrancy. Michael Moore is a good example. The US Supreme Court didn't hesitate in allowing lobby groups to speak freely. Our Court has just been taken over by the Liberal Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ow do you define "election advertising"?

"Election advertising" is defined in section 319 of the Canada Elections Act. "Election advertising" may be interpreted as a message that is:

-transmitted by any means during an election

-transmitted to any person or persons with whom the originator of the message does not have some common cause or connection, and

-is intended to influence how an elector might vote, by promoting or opposing a registered party or the election of a candidate, including one that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated.

Free speech makes for vibrancy. Michael Moore is a good example. The US Supreme Court didn't hesitate in allowing lobby groups to speak freely. Our Court has just been taken over by the Liberal Party

Funny you'd use Moore's new film as a standard of free speech Canada should aspire to. Are you aware that Disney, parent company of Miramax films, is refusing to distribute the film, for fear that it would endanger the companies standing with the Bush family (especially Florida's Jeb Bush). Corporate censorship at its most egregious, yet you're more concerned with corporate front groups like the NCC not being allowed to deluge the airwaves here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-is intended to influence how an elector might vote, by promoting or opposing a registered party or the election of a candidate, including one that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated.
That's not Moore's intent?
Are you aware that Disney, parent company of Miramax films, is refusing to distribute the film
Absolutely. I suspect this is a Weinstein/Disney/Eisner publicity deal. But who knows.

But imagine Bush named 6 of the 9 judges and then the 6 handed down a decision that in effect said people like Michael Moore can't show their movie during an election.

Moore would go absolutely ballistic. Yet that's what just happened in Canada.

Is there any wonder that people are less interested in politics? Is there any wonder that we increasingly look to the US for new ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Michael Moore's work - I've read Stupid White Men (didn't finish) and saw Bowling for Columbine - it's oversimplified at best and misleading at worst.

Some of Moore's work is thought provoking - the issue of domestic/street violence in the United States for example; but much of it especially in the area of race relations(his view of blacks seems to be paternalistic and arguably racist), foreign policy and social issues is down right nieve.

Many people seem to regard watching one of Moore's films and reading some of his books as the equivalent of having done serious research on an issue leading to a serious understanding of an issue.

Here's an editorial on Moore's latest antics from the Wall Street Journal:

http://65.54.244.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=...fid%3d110005098

Moore love's conspiracy theories as we all know and he seems to be spinning them again.

For a true understanding of world affairs/history a good place to start is with the academics, the foreign diplomats and the foreign correspondants - in short, the people who actually have the time( to study and research issues), experience and knowledge of the issues to provide valid assesment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of Moore's work is thought provoking - the issue of domestic/street violence in the United States for example; but much of it especially in the area of race relations(his view of blacks seems to be paternalistic and arguably racist), foreign policy and social issues is down right nieve.

Michael Moore is entertaining. Did you see "Roger and Me"? ( The scene with the woman selling baby rabbits under a sign that said "Pets or Meat"?)

The silly, boring movie "The Corporation" was interesting when Moore was on the screen.

In the US, there is no question whatsoever about someone saying what the hell they want before, during or after an election. It's very clear. The result is that Moore can make an anti-Bush movie and get it into cinemas. He can advertise all the hell he wants.

The US is a true democracy. It's fun, vibrant and new ideas come from every direction.

In Canada, we have a bad law and a bad decision. The State is taking over the political process. It will become as boring as meeting of Ottawa bureaucrats.

Want to see something truly horrific, take a look at this:

Election Advertising Form

The unsaid truth about Soviet countries is that they were boring as hell. Socialism has a tendency to kill humour because it smothers individual inititaive in the name of some so-called collective interest.

We can probably get away with this kind of nonsense in Canada because ultimately we depend on the US to generate new ideas for us. God forbid if the US were ever to have such crazy gag laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is a true democracy.

A democracy where the president is acclaimed by the Supreme Court after he failed to win the popular vote? Funny how right-wing complaints about the "activist judiciary" never extend to the partisan judges who foisted an illegitimate presidency on America in an unprecedented and non-precedent setting (in other words: a one time only deal) decision.

Canada has no where near the democracy gap as the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A democracy where the president is acclaimed by the Supreme Court after he failed to win the popular vote?

That's a very good point BD. By chance, there were 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats. And that's why Bush is Pres.

But listen, the 2000 election really was a toss-up. A mature democracy says "let's decide quickly and move on". In such cases, any decision is better than endless discussion.

In basket case countries, there are endless coups, fights and arguments. (BD, you blame their poverty on Western imperialism. In fact, it's such things as the immaturity of their political leaders.)

Gore, to his credit, accepted the Supreme Court's decision.

As to the popular vote story, the existing method - right -or wrong - uses the electoral college.

Underneath it all, mature people accept the rules as they are and tries to change them peacefully if they disagree. I think Mahatma Gandhi would agree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But listen, the 2000 election really was a toss-up. A mature democracy says "let's decide quickly and move on". In such cases, any decision is better than endless discussion.

Come on. :rolleyes: A mature democracy should make the correct decision, the decision that best reflects the will of the people and not sacrifice democratic principles in the interests of haste or political expediency.

Underneath it all, mature people accept the rules as they are and tries to change them peacefully if they disagree.

We're talking about more than a few dodgy ballots. We're talking wholesale fraud.

Check out Grag palasts work on the Florida election results. It's eye-opening stuff.

Link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in the worst case scenario, Bush stole five hundred votes to win the election. Out of a three hundred million population, five hundred votes is hardly a large group. Even five hundred thousand is not an overwhelming number. Let's say that 501 who all would have voted for Gore got sick that day and stayed home, would you be happy about Bush then?

How about if 501 people voted for Gore were counted the way you wanted, would you say that Gore is the chosen one? What I am saying is that there was and is no clear winner, it is in the worst case a evenly divided election for all intents and purposes. The two drawbacks are first, it gives loseres a forum to cry foul and second gives them another to say that Bush is illegitimate.

If Gore had come out the winner (by what, one or a few hundred votes) the will of the people for candidate of their choice would have been virtually unchanged yet the administration would be changed dramaticly leaving virtually half of America disgruntled as they are now.

It all comes down to legalese and who has and had the best lawyers etc, not the will of the people as in this case it is so difficult to read. However, hopefully this next election will either cement GW Bush in his position or his opponant. In either case, it will provide less of a target for detracters of America's actions. Like really, if Bush had won a clear election with a thousand votes, would you think he is a good president? Not a chance, you would whip him for something else. This is simply a good dig and nothing else.

If on the other hand, one of the hundreds of Lawyers the Democrats had working 24/7 on this in the beggining had any real evidence don't you think they would have brought it forward? I do, I would have. Therefore it leads me to believe there is not any or if it does exist is so circumtancial that it is BS as one would have to conclude this argument is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the American democratic system has its advantages, I have always liked British parliament.

First, Gore is now an absolute nobody. This seems a waste of talent. (It must be absolutely devastating on a personal level.)

Second, it would be healthy if Bush faced a heckling opposition instead of a respectful press corps.

Third, parliament makes a real distinction between a majority and a minority.

The US democratic system has existed for over 200 years, evolving in that time. (Senators are now elected. The vote is almost universal.) The British parliamentary system is older and has evolved probably more.

My point? Bush would have won with a minority government.

(Incidentally, we in Canada are not immune to cliffganger elections. In 1972, Libs/PCs split 109/108 - and one Liberal riding was finally won by 4 votes after several recounts.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, Gore is now an absolute nobody. This seems a waste of talent. (It must be absolutely devastating on a personal level.)

Gore brought it upon himself. He struggled against an inferior minded George W. Bush and he didn't even win his own state of Tennessee. He also goofed by distancing himself from the ol' so popular Bill Clinton.

This proves to me that he didn't deserve to be anybody...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny you'd use Moore's new film as a standard of free speech Canada should aspire to. Are you aware that Disney, parent company of Miramax films, is refusing to distribute the film, for fear that it would endanger the companies standing with the Bush family (especially Florida's Jeb Bush). Corporate censorship at its most egregious, yet you're more concerned with corporate front groups like the NCC not being allowed to deluge the airwaves here.

........I thought that the Magic Kingdom just didn't want to appear partisan, in a country that is split about 50/50, in a election year.........I've no great skills or talents in marketing, but wouldn't alienating about 50% of you potentail customers be a bad idea?

If it's how you say it is, perhaps Moore should make a new story up about how Disney is nothing more then an instrument of US foregin policy :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...