Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Do you suppose that somebody will do a movie now where mid east terrorists are the bad guys?

Posted by K at August 16, 2006 06:46 PM

Anyone know where to find a copy of the ad?

> Do you suppose that somebody will do a movie now where mid east terrorists are the bad guys?

That reminds me of an article I read recently, "Where are the war movies?": http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1225667,00.html

Posted by Neil H. at August 16, 2006 07:45 PM

Don't worry, Rand, you will forget in due time. The real question is how to fight terrorism, not whether it is good or bad. When you notice that most of these Hollywood stars don't want the US and Israel to fight terrorism the same way that you do, you'll declare that they are "not anti-war, just on the other side". You have already made that point and I don't see why you won't go back to it.

To be sure, there are a few actors who really are on the same political wavelength as this blog: the Charles Bronsons, the Charleton Hestons. More charitably, the Gary Sinises. They can always be portrayed as an embattled right-thinking minority in a swamp of depravity.

(Thought to be honest, I think that most celebrities are just plain flakes and it doesn't matter what they say about politics.)

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 16, 2006 09:50 PM

"Do you suppose that somebody will do a movie now where mid east terrorists are the bad guys?"

Movies are supposed to be entertaining and/or enlightening, not sanctimonious belaboring of the obvious.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 17, 2006 01:09 AM

K - The DVD of United 93 will soon be out. Also, Season 4 of 24 had Islamo Fascist terrorists as bad guys.

Mike - It is not that there are certain people who want to fight terrorists "another way." They don't want to fight them at all. They are sort of like annoying back seat drivers who pester the real driver so much that they place everyone in the car at risk for an accident.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at August 17, 2006 04:26 AM

Brian says: Movies are supposed to be entertaining and/or enlightening, not sanctimonious belaboring of the obvious.

Unless you're Michael Moore. Then your movies are sanctimonious belaboring of your own malcontent lies.

Posted by Mac at August 17, 2006 06:49 AM

"We need to support democratic societies and stop terrorism at all costs."

That's my personal favorite. How about supporting the democratic society you live in?

Posted by Mac at August 17, 2006 07:13 AM

"Unless you're Michael Moore. Then your movies are sanctimonious belaboring of your own malcontent lies."

Nearly everyone who talks like this has never seen a Michael Moore film, and is just mindlessly parroting propaganda they heard on Republican hate radio. Does Rush make your lunch for you too, or just your thoughts and feelings?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 17, 2006 07:29 AM

Brian, you're a walking, talking left-wing cliche.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 17, 2006 07:34 AM

Hey Brian, have you ever thought that maybe Limbaugh is parroting us conservatives in the heartland rather than the other way around?

Oh wait, that would require you to THINK rather than your parroting Moore, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton.....

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 17, 2006 07:54 AM

Mike says: (Thought to be honest, I think that most celebrities are just plain flakes and it doesn't matter what they say about politics.)

In your case, I'm sure they consider the sentiment mutual. After all, you went from lambasting Rand as some generic hater of all of Hollywood to ending your comment that you think most celebrities are flakes.

I find the ad to be a good sign. It is good to see people denouncing the actions of Hezbollah, rather than seeing quotes by Jimmy Carter saying that Israel is to be blamed. As far as the bottom line: "We need to support democratic societies and stop terrorism at all costs.". I think we (those who support a democracy modeled after the US) ought to come up with a better explanation of what is meant by "democratic societies". Otherwise, we too often end up with societies like the Democractic People's Republic of Korea or something called a democratic election in Venezuela.

Posted by Leland at August 17, 2006 08:16 AM

Squidward says: Nearly everyone who talks like this has never seen a Michael Moore film, and is just mindlessly parroting propaganda they heard on Republican hate radio.

Can't count me in on that. Saw it, saw the hatred amd the outright lies. Saw a little film called "Loose Change" for all you 9/11 conspiracy theorists out there too. Nicely dramatized, but mostly lies and coincidence.

As for radio, I listen to sports radio all day. Football is GOD baby. I hear what's on the news through CNN and I can see the left lean all the way.

Posted by Mac at August 17, 2006 08:50 AM

"Hey Brian, have you ever thought that maybe Limbaugh is parroting us conservatives in the heartland rather than the other way around?"

I suppose it's possible that you're all independently and identically ignorant, and repeat the exact same catchphrases through mental parallelism rather than indoctrination, but it's far more likely you're just parroting the same source of propaganda.

Something like ten people actually generate this crap, and the other thirty million people who regurgitate it are basically psychological ectotherms. Actually, it's quite a robust system for disseminating lies and misinformation, bypassing rebuttals by sheer numbers of people simultaneously repeating the claims.

Two years I've been running into that "Moore's left-wing lies" non sequitur, the format of the statement is always the same vague denunciation, and the people saying it can never answer simple questions about the content of Moore's films to prove they've seen any of them. Watching such crude, degenerate liars spew the same standardized bile over and over, for years on end, one has to imagine they assign serial numbers to their lies to keep track. And yet some conservatives are actually, sincerely shocked at comparisons to Nazism.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 17, 2006 08:55 AM

"Saw it, saw the hatred amd the outright lies."

In what film?

"Saw a little film called "Loose Change" for all you 9/11 conspiracy theorists out there too."

There seems to be some confusion on the IMDB website, because I don't see Michael Moore's name anywhere in the credits. You wouldn't be trying to change the subject after I started asking questions, now would you?

"As for radio, I listen to sports radio all day."

Ah, an intellectual.

"Football is GOD baby."

And a spiritual man too. Lord have mercy, I'm breaking out in stigmata.

"I hear what's on the news through CNN and I can see the left lean all the way."

This is where a rational person writes you off as a fringe nut, but I'm feeling uncharacteristically generous today. Nothing you've said about Moore's films ever came from CNN, and certainly not from the films themselves, so either you mix in a little (read: hours of) WGOP with your sports, or you're telepathically channeling Ann Coulter. Stupidity doesn't arise in a vacuum, but it usually replaces it.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 17, 2006 09:20 AM

"Brian, you're a walking, talking left-wing cliche."

I guess that means I'm not the first liberal to discredit your buffoonish antics with minimal effort. Come to think of it, I've been pondering what the right classification for your political viewpoints would be. You claim to be libertarian, but then you turn into the reincarnation of Tojo when the subject crosses national boundaries.

Is "libertimperator" too cumbersome? "Fascitarian" sounds like some kind of food service worker, so I'm not really considering that one. Then there's "libertazi," which brings to mind either Liberace or (apropos) a Zima-like beverage, neither of which really conveys the intended meaning. "Superduperlibertarinazifascitarian"? "SupDupLibNazFasc"?
"SuDLiNF"?
"LiNF"?
F?
f?
¢?
`?
:þ

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 17, 2006 10:24 AM

I guess that means I'm not the first liberal to discredit your buffoonish antics with minimal effort.

Laughably stupid and incorrect guess. You're not only not the "first," but it's never happened.

Brian, you really need to take chill pill. You're starting to rave. Do you ever go back and read some of the hateful things you write?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 17, 2006 10:41 AM

Squidward says: Something like ten people actually generate this crap, and the other thirty million people who regurgitate it are basically psychological ectotherms. Actually, it's quite a robust system for disseminating lies and misinformation, bypassing rebuttals by sheer numbers of people simultaneously repeating the claims.

Sounds like the mainstream media to me.

Squidward says: There seems to be some confusion on the IMDB website, because I don't see Michael Moore's name anywhere in the credits.

I didn't say it was his movie. I said: Saw a little film called "Loose Change" for all you 9/11 conspiracy theorists out there too.

Misinterpretation of what was said is a classic left-wing tactic. Except in the left's case, its misinterpretation on purpose.

Squidward says: Ah, an intellectual.

Thank you for noticing.

Squidward says: Lord have mercy, I'm breaking out in stigmata.

They have a cream for that.

I lean right, I won't deny that. You lean left. You hear things that sound like regurgitated propaganda, I hear things that sound like regurgitated propaganda. Usually, I've found that the people that claim others are stupid are just covering up themselves.

Posted by Mac at August 17, 2006 10:41 AM

Usually, I've found that the people that claim others are stupid are just covering up themselves.

Isn't that the truth! For the most part, people are just regurgitating what they hear as "standard responses" - but the amount of thought that went on before the regurgitating is really unknowable. The left has this superiority complex thing going - no one on the left ever seems to question that either, even when their spokesmen really are flakes. (There may be some nice things one can say about Cindy Sheenan, but smart and sane she is not!)

In a leadership class I took we studied the common failings of leadership - one of the big ones we all fall prey to is not looking for disconfirming evidence. In other words, me being a smart leftist means all leftists are smart, even in the presence of Cindy. In general, I think we speak the most about our weakest points (because presumably our strong points are obvious).

And viewing the loudest members of the left I really have problems with anyone on that side claiming superiority of any kind!

(OK, and here is what you will say: but you have Bush, baby! Well, yes, but I'm not claiming superiority, I'm just claiming to be right!)

Posted by David Summers at August 17, 2006 11:01 AM

BS: "I suppose it's possible that you're all independently and identically ignorant"

The same can be said for you BS. But again, your rhetoric isn't backed by anything resembling facts.

BS: "Something like ten people actually generate this crap"

“This crap” you say, what crap BS? Another generality with nothing to back it up. Point to some “crap” here and prove it to be crap with facts. Once, that is all I ask just do it one time. You can’t.

BS: "Two years I've been running into that "Moore's left-wing lies" non sequitur"

If you are really saying that Moore doesn't lie, well you've been sucked in to the liberal morass completely.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 17, 2006 11:06 AM

"You're not only not the "first," but it's never happened."

Put that on your resume if you ever run for mayor of a Potemkin village.

"Do you ever go back and read some of the hateful things you write?"

Do you ever read the things I actually write before replying to them, or does it trigger some automated keyword bank?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 17, 2006 07:52 PM

"Do you ever go back and read some of the hateful things you write?"

Do you ever read the things I actually write before replying to them, or does it trigger some automated keyword bank?

Of course I do. That's why I asked the perfectly reasonable question. But I see that you're not going to answer it.

It must really suck to be so full of hate.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 17, 2006 08:07 PM

"Sounds like the mainstream media to me."

Only a fraction of dittoverse propaganda filters through to the "MSM," but your strategy of bulk production yields significant throughput.

"I didn't say it was his movie."

So you were just changing the subject to avoid my questions.

"Misinterpretation of what was said is a classic left-wing tactic."

Now you're changing the subject again, a classic right-wing tactic. First it's Michael Moore films, then when you can't answer for your remarks about them it's some other film, and now you're pretending to have taken obvious sarcasm about your evasions literally. I've seen this exact same line of tactics too often to count, and on this very subject no less, so just do yourself a favor and admit your comments are not based on any personal knowledge of Moore's films.

"Usually, I've found that the people that claim others are stupid are just covering up themselves."

We already know what you're covering up in this discussion, so what is it I'm supposedly hiding?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 17, 2006 08:23 PM

"“This crap” you say, what crap"

Crap like this: "Unless you're Michael Moore. Then your movies are sanctimonious belaboring of your own malcontent lies."

"Point to some “crap” here and prove it to be crap with facts."

Fact: Mac has refused to substantiate his allegation, ergo it is worthless (i.e., crap) until that changes.

"If you are really saying that Moore doesn't lie, well you've been sucked in to the liberal morass completely."

Unlike you and Mac, my judgment of Moore's films comes from having seen them, so I guess reality is what you refer to as "the liberal morass." There are instances of exaggeration by omission, which are a very small minority of the content, and precisely 1 case in any of his films where he's uncritically given air to a source that should not have been included in my opinion. The overwhelming majority of content is straightforward documentary footage and factually rigorous narration, which no sympathizer with the Bush regime or its fellow travelers will ever attempt to address. And nobody is going to forget the lengths you folks went to stop the film from ever being shown--not exactly the behavior of people with truth on their side.

Posted by b at August 17, 2006 08:43 PM

it's never happened.

>>>wipes a tear from my eye...

Posted by Daveon at August 18, 2006 01:19 AM

(weird thing happened there, sorry)

Oh Rand, you really believe that don't you. No Brian, you're really not. Of course, Rand is rarely wrong or shown to be wrong, and frequently when you can produce evidence, it will almost certainly be dismissed as out of context or made up.

He's an amazing character. You couldn't make him up.

Posted by Daveon at August 18, 2006 01:20 AM

Interesting how a post about how voices in Hollywood have finally condemned some known terrorists, has been hijacked into ttacks on Rand and a defense of Michael Moore.

Talk about not addressing the substance.

Posted by McGehee at August 18, 2006 05:05 AM

"has been hijacked into ttacks on Rand and a defense of Michael Moore."

If you read back, you'll note Mac raised the subject of Michael Moore out of nowhere, and Rand's first foray into the discussion was a snide one-liner against yours truly. But don't let insignificant things like facts get in your way.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 18, 2006 05:19 AM

Squidward says: ...do yourself a favor and admit your comments are not based on any personal knowledge of Moore's films.

That's a bit of an assumation on your part. Not surprising in the least. Moore's films are straight documentaries as you stated. However, Him and his crew will continue to question and film until they get the reaction they want, and put that in the film only as the support to their complaints. His Iraq war documentary showed all these soldiers saying terrible things about what they were doing, but included next to none of the soldiers who were fully understanding why they were there. A documentary yes, fair and complete, no.

Squidward says: So you were just changing the subject to avoid my questions.

Nope, I was merely mentioning I had seen another movie on 9/11 conspiracy theories. You were the one that decided I was still talking Moore films.

Squidward retorts: Do you ever read the things I actually write before replying to them, or does it trigger some automated keyword bank?

Now see, here's the same thing you're saying about Rand and myself...but its coming from you. This is a knee-jerk, lash out attack of sarcasm. Its just an attack, nothing else.

Posted by Mac at August 18, 2006 07:09 AM

"That's a bit of an assumation on your part."

It's not an assumption at all, it's a conclusion. Everyone I've ever encountered on the internet who called Moore's films "lies" couldn't discuss any aspect of them not covered in web film reviews, and usually wouldn't even elaborate beyond calling them lies. You called them lies, I challenged, and you dodged--the conclusion was obvious.

"Moore's films are straight documentaries as you stated."

In other words, not lies.

"However, Him and his crew will continue to question and film until they get the reaction they want, and put that in the film only as the support to their complaints."

That's called bias, and it's the defining characteristic of political activism. He never claimed his films were works of journalism, and never tried to sell them as such, so it's absurd to apply that level of standards. I may be irritated that Star Wars has sounds in space, but I don't denounce George Lucas as a lying, ignorant scumbag for putting them in his movies. Nor can anyone reasonably be incensed that works of political activism don't tell both sides of the story.

Moore's films consist of two broad themes: (1)The facts, showing why he is pissed off about something and why you should be too, and (2)the middle finger, sadistically rubbing it into the faces of right-wingers. The overwhelming majority of the content is the former, albeit presented in tongue-in-cheek fashion, while the latter punctuates only certain moments scattered throughout a given film.

"A documentary yes, fair and complete, no."

So you were wrong to call it "lies," weren't you?

"Now see, here's the same thing you're saying about Rand and myself...but its coming from you. This is a knee-jerk, lash out attack of sarcasm. Its just an attack, nothing else."

As was the comment it addressed. I may sometimes educate fools by meeting their contempt with substance, but I'm under no obligation and no illusions about the likelihood of changing anything.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 18, 2006 08:45 AM

Squidward says: It's not an assumption at all, it's a conclusion.

Negative. You are assuming I have not seen any Michael Moore movies. That's plain assumption.

I said: "Moore's films are straight documentaries as you stated."

Squidward says: In other words, not lies.

Again, your other words. Documentaries, as you correctly put are biased. Certain portions are omitted purposefully. A lie of omission is still a lie. Every omitted factoid is a lie to prop up his side of the story.

Squidward says: So you were wrong to call it "lies," weren't you?

Not at all.

Posted by Mac at August 18, 2006 11:25 AM

"Negative. You are assuming I have not seen any Michael Moore movies."

You're not grasping some key concepts here. If someone in combat fatigues wearing a ski mask and carrying a long black object runs into a bank, you are not "assuming" they are robbing the place if you respond by ducking--their intentions are easily deducible under the circumstances.

Likewise, when a person condemns a film antagonistic to their politics as "lies" without going into specifics, attempts to change the subject when their basis is challenged, and now justifies themselves only with the broadest generalities, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude they never actually saw it--ESPECIALLY when the film was widely publicized as being against their politics, and countless others like them denounced it without having seen it.

"Again, your other words. Documentaries, as you correctly put are biased. Certain portions are omitted purposefully. A lie of omission is still a lie. Every omitted factoid is a lie to prop up his side of the story."

Then every documentary ever made that didn't do everything in the filmmaker's power to present every side of every issue it examines could be called "lies," which is sheer nonsense. Unlike the way right-wingers do things, none of Moore's omissions changed the truth value of a claim, supported a false statement, or portrayed a true statement as false. He exaggerates the emotional impact of the truth by couching it in the most melodramatic way he can, and leaving out things that make it less dramatic, but the facts aren't changed in his movies.

Ergo, they are not lies--your calling them such is a lie, because you have not seen them and will not admit that even after leaving little doubt of it. Moore sells dramatized truth, but his detractors just make shit up--which is ironically one of the many aspects of the right his films expose. It's not hard to imagine the response when you make a movie about liars.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 19, 2006 04:46 AM

What an odd way of deduction. Is this the same manner in which you came to the conclusion that Rand owns the Red Dawn DVD?

Posted by Leland at August 19, 2006 06:12 AM

Squidward says: Likewise, when a person condemns a film antagonistic to their politics as "lies" without going into specifics, attempts to change the subject when their basis is challenged, and now justifies themselves only with the broadest generalities, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude they never actually saw it--ESPECIALLY when the film was widely publicized as being against their politics, and countless others like them denounced it without having seen it.

Yes, that is all very true, except it is still you "concluding" (read assuming) that I have not seen any of his films.

Squidward says: Then every documentary ever made that didn't do everything in the filmmaker's power to present every side of every issue it examines could be called "lies," which is sheer nonsense.

Not nonsense at all. Its just truth. Again, I never said no one else does documentaries without bias. I just pointed out that Moore does it. Thank you for proving me correct.

Squidward says: He exaggerates the emotional impact of the truth by couching it in the most melodramatic way he can, and leaving out things that make it less dramatic, but the facts aren't changed in his movies.

Exaggerates...according to a thesaurus...stretching the truth. Presenting "facts" that are skewed or stretched...If its not truth, its what exactly? Once again, thnk you for proving me right.

Squidward says: Moore sells dramatized truth, but his detractors just make shit up

As shown above, by you, Moore stretches the truth or lies by omission.

Squidward says: Ergo, they are not lies--your calling them such is a lie.

But, you said that Moore stretches the truth and agreed that he omits things, which is still a lie. So, I'm lying by pointing out that you said Moore lies, but he doesn't lie. Of course, you may be lying about Moore lying, so my lies may be made up lies....wow, this is deep.

Posted by Mac at August 19, 2006 06:42 PM

Post a comment