Fahrenheit 9/11 & Harper

[Bionic Antboy]

Would you like your humble pie served a la mode?

Pardon me, I did misattribute caesar's words to you. My apologies.

I now await your further comments on the points I raised regarding globalisation and UN sanctions on Iraq.

Apology accepted.

Now that the air is cleared, let's get down to business.

When it comes to Iraq, the sanctions were clearly detrimental to the people, which doing little to harm the regime. I suggested that the UN DID try to move forward and find some other solution. A loosening of sanctions, where it was most directly causing suffering among the people, along with other diplomatic solutions would have, IMHO, been better than the hardline that the US and UK held against the rest of the UN in this respect.

Any further analysis of the situation is all hindsight, because it didn't happen, and the hardline was part of the reason Iraq became so stubborn with weapons inspectors in the late 90's.

As for globalization, I'm not an anti-globalization zealot. At the same time, I don't feel there's enough checks and balances in the current approach. Sure the standard of living may be rising in China, an MAYBE that will lead in the long term to a more moderate gov't, but there are plenty of sweatshops elsewhere in the region (and other parts of the world), where the effects of globalization are less than beneficial.

Although the "anti-globalization movement" has been portrayed as crazed anarchists (and some are), there are a lot of legitimate concerns regarding the environment, workers rights, corporate accountability and a myriad of other issues.

In short, the basic idea of globalization of trade and commerce is good, but there HAS to be a REAL level of accountability.

Let's take sweatshops as just one example...

Right now, there isn't enough accountability, otherwise countries REALLY concerned with the propagation of personal freedom, prosperity and self-determination throughout the world would actually DO something about them. Stop Nikes or Gap clothes from coming here until there IS reform (which may be too extreme), or impose some sort of penality that amounts to more than a slap on the wrist.

All the while, making sure that it's not just seen as another "cost of doing business", but that it would help further the health and prosperity of those making the running shoes.

These ARE complex economical issues, to be sure, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there is more to "globalization" than just free movement of commodities across the planet.

[August1991]

At the same time, I don't feel there's enough checks and balances in the current approach.

At present, the checks and balances mean that if you don't like Nike shows, you don't buy them; if some guy in China doesn't want to work in a Nike factory, he doesn't work there; if you think Nike management is ripping you off, you don't buy Nike shares. (As to child employment, IME, parents in Asia are as much or more protective of their children than parents in North America.)

These checks and balances are about as good as they can be and I'd be wary of any forced method to make them better.

There is a faint case to be made for environmental protection but to make it, you'd have to be willing for Canadian tax dollars to be spent protecting China's environment.

[Hugo]

When it comes to Iraq, the sanctions were clearly detrimental to the people, which doing little to harm the regime. I suggested that the UN DID try to move forward and find some other solution.

You see, here lies the problem. Saddam was not one iota interested in the welfare of his people (as if the mass graves hadn't clued us all in on that), and we all know that any dollars that went into Iraq would go to missiles and tanks.

He even found a way to abuse the oil-for-food programme. He simply pocketed the medicines and food that the UN exchanged for oil, sold them to friendly regimes in Syria and Jordan in exchange for weapons or hard currency he could use to buy weapons from his buddies in France, Germany and Russia. Those three, of course, really got rich off the whole deal - they sold the vast majority of the food and medicines and took a cut, and then again they sold weapons under the table and took another cut.

Saddam did not care that his people were starving and sorely lacking for medical facilities. A lifting of UN sanctions would have facilitated Iraqi rearmament and absolutely nothing else.

To my mind, the root cause of every problem regarding Iraq was Saddam Hussein. It's a shame that the UN did not give backing to a realistic plan for ridding Iraq of him, but then, it's unrealistic to expect that they ever would when France, Germany and Russia were on the UN Security Council.

Corporate interests and globalisation are actually a force for world peace, even when that peace is probably not in the best interests of the world, as we have seen here.

These ARE complex economical issues, to be sure, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there is more to "globalization" than just free movement of commodities across the planet.

It's self-correcting, and one of the key things that makes it self-correcting is people such as you. As long as you are around to get angry at environmental abuse, low wages, etc, there will be the risk of consumer backlash and corporations can better be kept in line. For example, one of the great results of environmentalism is that being eco-friendly has become big business. Hybrid cars are all the rage and manufacturers are jostling to get in on that market. Nike has made a fully biodegradeable shoe. Ford has revamped their Rouge plant to make it far more environmentally sound. Taxicabs are running on LPG instead of gasoline. Biodiesel is big news in Europe. Everywhere you look, products have "made from 100% recycled material" and "recycleable packaging" splashed all over them. Municipal garbage collectors are picking up glass, plastic, aluminum and yard waste separately, for recycling. Progress - and it was all made possible by the free market.

there are plenty of sweatshops elsewhere in the region (and other parts of the world), where the effects of globalization are less than beneficial... Stop Nikes or Gap clothes from coming here until there IS reform (which may be too extreme), or impose some sort of penality that amounts to more than a slap on the wrist.

A good idea on paper. However, it's been tried before, and it didn't work.

Back in the days of the British Empire, there was considerable pressure at home for British companies operating in Western Africa to raise pay and living conditions for their workers. They caved in and did so.

The results were fairly predictable. The higher overheads meant that considerable numbers of African employees had to be fired. The attractions of greater pay and benefits also brought masses of Africans flooding in from the countryside in search of better jobs, which they could not get because there was now a labour glut.

In the end, all this did was to create a massive surge in unemployed urban poor and a food shortage due to labour shortages in the countryside.

The Industrial Revolution took well over 200 years to get us to where we are now. The people in the Third World are at the beginning of a long road, and they are also beset with a lot more problems than the British and American industrialists were (civil war, famines, corrupt government etc). We have seen in China and the USSR what happens when you try to artificially accelerate this process - famine and economic chaos.

In my opinion, the greatest problems with globalisation arise not from free trade but from infringement upon it. Outsourcing is a good example. You can always save 3,000 jobs - if you are prepared to lose 30,000. For example, George W Bush recently introduced protective legislation for American steel workers (yes, George W Bush did something very wrong, and you heard it from me - I'm no zealot).

Good job. Now the steelworkers jobs are safe. However, because it is now more difficult for Americans to import cheap, foreign-made steel, the prices of everything that involves steel in it's manufacture will go up - cars, buildings, bridges, power tools, machine tools, you name it. Because of this, people will buy less, and all those industries will suffer, and those employed in those trades now have their jobs at risk.

[Bionic Antboy]

At present, the checks and balances mean that if you don't like Nike shows, you don't buy them; if some guy in China doesn't want to work in a Nike factory, he doesn't work there; if you think Nike management is ripping you off, you don't buy Nike shares. (As to child employment, IME, parents in Asia are as much or more protective of their children than parents in North America.)

These checks and balances are about as good as they can be and I'd be wary of any forced method to make them better.

There is a faint case to be made for environmental protection but to make it, you'd have to be willing for Canadian tax dollars to be spent protecting China's environment.

I'd have to disagree about checks and balances, as the long term ramifications of voting with one's personal purchases isn't really strong enough.

Whether it's a brand name like Nike, or a "value" line of clothing, they are everywhere. Consumers in large urban areas may be able to find "responsibly manufactured" clothing or goods, but it's hard to find everywhere. Heck, it's not even that easy to find in Toronto.

On top of that, all-pervasive advertising promoting the "hippest new gear" or the best bang for your buck (or the more general "Keeping up with the Joneses" and a lack of consumer awareness (or interest) makes the "vote with your money" argument weak.

Similarly, ignoring the economic conditions of the people working in the sweatshops, saying that they don't have to work there, is to say that they could easily find a job somewhere else. Sweatshops maintain their low employee pay through competition between nations that want one in their country.

It's much more complex than that.

To say things are "about as good as they can be" smacks of a defeatist attitude.

Why would you be wary of legally binding methods to make the checks and balances more effective? Do you really think that corporations have people's best interests at heart?

[Alliance Fanatic]

Yes, Micheal Moore is all wise, and all powerful. Lets hope that once everybody watches his movie they will be inspired to kill off any opposing the liberal agenda.

Jeez, it sounds like the purpose of this movie is to brainwash people.

[August1991]

Similarly, ignoring the economic conditions of the people working in the sweatshops, saying that they don't have to work there, is to say that they could easily find a job somewhere else. Sweatshops maintain their low employee pay through competition between nations that want one in their country.

It is this point that is critical. The people working in "sweatshops" do have a choice. Nobody puts a gun to their head and forces them to work in these places. They are not slaves.

For the most part, they are grateful for the jobs they have and the pay it gives them compared to the alternative.

[cgarrett]

yeah, i'm sorry but this whole idea that third world people are our slaves is a little disgusting...

especially since the whole reason they are treated like dirt is because its ensured that they do not unionize to attempt to improve their share of the profits for the work that they do.

there is way too much talk about competition and profits on the site without any real knowledge about it. the reality is that nike wants to make shoes as cheaply as possible to increase their profits... not to make shoes cheaper for the consumer. in fact, they have spent lots of money promoting their product in order to convince consumers that their products are worth a more than other similar products!

where does this treatment of the third world end? do these people really have a choice? to work under horrible conditions or starve? i guess the real neocons are thinking... starve.

if i control a third world nation and decide that i will enslave people to work for me then would you buy my product? isn't working for someone and seeing a minute fraction of the value of my work actually slavery?

[maplesyrup]

Why Moore's 'Fahrenheit' gets us so hot

THOSE OF us who supported the invasion of Iraq should admit the obvious when it comes to the success of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. That is, that Moore's diabolically clever attack on U.S. President George Bush works because no weapons of mass destruction have been found there.

Had U.S.-led forces found just one huge underground cache of chemical and/or biological weapons in Iraq, it's doubtful that Fahrenheit 9/11 would even have been made.

The fact they didn't is the main reason Moore's flawed film has successfully tapped into the growing sense among Americans that they were lied to about the primary casus belli (justification for war) against Saddam Hussein.

 

The failure to find WMD forms the unspoken subtext to the most powerful parts of Moore's film -- U.S. soldiers questioning why they are in Iraq and Moore's heart-rending account of one heretofore patriotic mother as she cries out for answers about why her soldier son died there.

Her story, symbolic of all suffering caused by war, reminds us of why, in any conflict, the casus belli must be legitimate.

If it is not, then the sense of betrayal felt by those called upon to fight in the war, and to sacrifice their sons and daughters to it, can tear a nation apart.

Moore is a rarity, a left-wing populist with a sense of humour and an ability to engage young people in geopolitics.

Is the war on Iraq the beginning of the end for the right in Canada and elsewhere? People who are full of lies and use them to advance their agenda. How sick can you get, eh? :angry:

[maplesyrup]

Blair: WMDs may never be found

Thank goodness for Jean Chretien.

The more news that comes out about the war in Iraq the more difficult it is going to be for Harper to retain credibility with the Canadian public, it seems.

(570)

[I miss Reagan]

I'm just glad that Canada and Canadians have no say in the world, or power.

[Cartman]

Moore is often sarcastic to the point of stupidity, I question many of his facts and wish he would not be so rhetorical. But with all of the propaganda we are exposed to everyday in favour of this war, is it not healthy to finally have a strong dissenting opinion?

The death toll is getting higher and higher and I suspect that many Americans are starting to question their government's actions.

Also, can we stop talking about his weight? What does that have to do with anything? People lose credibility when they do so.

ps I am not fat

[maplesyrup]

I'm just glad that Canada and Canadians have no say in the world, or power.

Guess what?

Most Canadians miss Clinton, but I doubt very much that they miss Reagan.

[maplesyrup]

July 11, 2004

But Moore seemd to be frustrated about how easily Dubya's Vast Right Wing Spin Kill Machine was able to change the channel from the Saudis to Saddam. And his explanation for how they did so, so effortlessly, wasn't really convincing, to me.

So let me help him out. Michael, I know, from actual personal experience, why Americans (and the world) so willingly went along with the Bush-Blair ruse. It's this: North Americans and Europeans have the ability to synthesize the evil doings of only one ruthless Arab dictator at any time. They can't do two or three at once. It's too confusing.

For those of you who have seen the movie, what do you think?

[caesar]

"So let me help him out. Michael, I know, from actual personal experience, why Americans (and the world) so willingly went along with the Bush-Blair ruse'

The World did NOT go willingly along with the Bush-Blair ruse. That is why they did not go back to the UN with their resolution to invade Iraq.

When every "proof" the "coalition" gave to the UN claiming Saddam had WMD turned out to be either fraudulent, forgeries, plagairized and old. or just plain irrelevant; most jumped off that bandwagon. At least any one or country with free thought. Americans and Canadians to a great degree have been propagandized to the limit. In fact. it was all the "bad" intelligence coming form Bush and Blair that made me very sceptical about other actions they have taken. I used to blindly go along with USA, Britain, Israel etc were good and just countries. Now, I find I was sadly mistaken. My research gave me information that opened my eyes and made me very uneasy with believing anything I hear on the radio or tv. I now need to get the same information from several different sources from around the world.

[maplesyrup]

The Mother of All Anti-War Forces

There is a remarkable scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 when Lila Lipscomb talks with an anti-war activist outside the White House about the death of her 26-year-old son in Iraq. A pro-war passerby doesn't like what she overhears and announces: "This is all staged!"

Ms. Lipscomb turns to the woman, her voice shaking with rage, and says: "My son is not a stage. He was killed in Karbala, Apr. 2. It is not a stage. My son is dead." Then she walks away and wails, "I need my son."

Watching Ms. Lipscomb doubled over in pain on the White House lawn, I was reminded of other mothers who have taken the loss of their children to the seat of power and changed the fate of wars. During Argentina's dirty war, a group of women whose children had been "disappeared" by the military regime gathered every Thursday in front of the presidential palace in Buenos Aires. At a time when all public protest was banned, they would walk silently in circles, wearing white headscarves and carrying photographs of their missing children.

The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo revolutionized human-rights activism by transforming maternal grief from a cause for pity into an unstoppable political force. The generals couldn't attack the mothers openly, so they launched fierce covert operations against their organization. But the mothers kept walking, playing a significant role in the dictatorship's eventual collapse.

Unlike the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, who march together every week to this day, in Fahrenheit 9/11, Lila Lipscomb stands alone, hurling her fury at the White House. But she is not alone. Other American and British parents whose children have died in Iraq are also coming forward to condemn their governments; their moral outrage could help end the military conflict still raging in Iraq.

White House banned coffin photos

Last week, California resident Nadia McCaffrey defied the Bush administration by inviting news cameras to photograph the arrival of her son's casket from Iraq. The White House has banned photography of flag-draped coffins arriving at air force bases, but because Patrick McCaffrey's remains were flown into the Sacramento International Airport, his mother was able to invite the photographers inside. "I don't care what [President George W. Bush] wants," Ms. McCaffery declared, telling her local newspaper, "Enough war."

Just as Patrick McCaffrey's body was being laid to rest in California, another solider was killed in Iraq: 19-year-old Gordon Gentle of Glasgow.

Upon hearing the news, his mother, Rose Gentle, immediately blamed the government of Tony Blair, saying, "My son was just a bit of meat to them, just a number.… This is not our war, my son has died in their war over oil."

And just as Rose Gentle was saying those words, Michael Berg happened to be visiting London to speak at an anti-war rally. Since the beheading of his 26-year-old son, who had been working in Iraq as a contractor, Michael Berg has insisted that, "Nicholas Berg died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld."

Asked by an Australian journalist whether such bold statements "are making the war seem fruitless," Mr. Berg replied, "The only fruit of war is death and grief and sorrow. There is no other fruit."

This "Dude, Where's My Country?"author Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9/11 must be having a big imact on Canadians as well as Americans. Will it carry over until the next national elections in Canada? I think it just might.

[caesar]

I don't think it came out with anything too unknown already; at least I knew. I know our press is quite right winged and omits a lot of information that it doesn't like.

As Canwest controls most of our media; propaganda is easily spread by simply choosing which stories to run; and which to ignore.

I certainly would be very worried if our government started allowing foreigners to purchase any of our media sources. Truth is hard enough to come by.

These newspapers are not allowed to run independently when it comes to some editorials. My understanding is they can and do; require the papers to publish editorials that they supply. Furthermore, they are not allowed to publish letters to the editor that do not support this view.

I don't believe this is all editorials but their required reading ones.

[maplesyrup]

Conservatives are trying to have Michael Moore charged until the Elections Canada Act.

I thought Conservatives believed in freedom of expression.

Only for themselves I suppose.

Anyway an Ontario mayor is going to make Michael Moore an honarary citizen if that is what it takes.

What a bunch of clowns!

Now more Canadians than ever will go to see Fahrenheit 9/11.

(634)

[takeanumber]

They're only in favour of freedom of expression for themselves.

Don't you dare call it hypocracy. Ohhhh no-sir-eee.

They prefer to call it a 'principled stand'.

[Hawk]

You obviously dont know the full situation, Moore admitted to releasing his movie at the time he did for the explicit point of affecting the elections. He isn't a Canadian citizen, he is an American. I am rather surprised that you are supporting him, I thought you were against American meddling =p

Whatever the case his actions went directly against our laws, in the Canada Elections Act is clearly states:

"[no] person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate" unless the person is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident.

Source: http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...c9-19a364ab4bf0

An American came into our country with the sole purpose of affecting our election and the minds of Canadians. If you Fiberals can't see the problem with this I am concerned about your own solidarity, because it IS blatant hypocracy... If you support Moore I better not hear another peep about big bad America sticking its nose in other people's affairs, or you prove yet again your nasty double standard (otherwise known as the infamous 'flip-flop') =p

[maplesyrup]

I think Moore deserves capital punishment.

Don't be ridiculous. I saw lawyer Julius Gray, an expert on election law, on the news tonight, suggesting it was a frivilous, and without merit.

What about your precious free speech?

Americans are constantly interferring in Canadian affairs - look at their ambassador.

Good on, is it Sault Ste Marie, that is going to make Moore an honorary Canadian citizen.

Lighten up!

I do think though that Canadians should go down to the US to lobby for, and support, progressive candidates.

BTW, what is your little secret code =p?

[maplesyrup]

BTW....it was Sarnia that will make Moore a honorary Canadian citizen.

Michael Moore broke election law, alleges young Tory

Jean-Pierre Kingsley will have fun with this one.

[Dragon]

Technically, she's got a point. But really, is this something that we really need to waste the court's time with?

[Dragon]

You obviously dont know the full situation, Moore admitted to releasing his movie at the time he did for the explicit point of affecting the elections.

He released the film to affect the results whose election, ours or theirs? If it was to affect ours, do you have a link to that article?

An American came into our country with the sole purpose of affecting our election and the minds of Canadians. If you Fiberals can't see the problem with this I am concerned about your own solidarity, because it IS blatant hypocracy... If you support Moore I better not hear another peep about big bad America sticking its nose in other people's affairs, or you prove yet again your nasty double standard (otherwise known as the infamous 'flip-flop') =p

It is important to look at WHO said the comment IMO. When a film maker makes a comment on who to vote for, its not very important because they rarely (if ever) have any direct dealings when our government. If a politician like Bush, Celluci or Kerry had said it though, that’s a whole different ballgame, because those are people our elected officials have to deal with. If the people they supported did not win, then that could lead to problems in those dealing between the winner and the person who made the comment.

[Bro]

President Bush,his people,and the armies from the coalition are in Iraq only because of the oil,right?

Mr.Moore works for the entertainment business,which regularly excepts awards and front page exposure in the press to pursue their next project,right?

Is one any more credible to tell the truth?I doubt that Mr. Moore was actually privy to any info that would be responsible for the security of North America,that includes Canada by the way.

[maplesyrup]

After seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 the Canadian reaction is:

Canadians were so very fortunate to have had such a wise Prime Minister in Jean Chretien, when it came time to make a decision about Iraq.

And it is incredible how so very wrong Stephen Harper's position was, wanting to send Canadian troops to Iraq.

Stephen Harper should get down on his knees and beg Canadians' forgiveness for such a major blunder.