[quote]Hey michaelmoore in france. Anyone else want to help start a fund entitled “Keep the hippies and euro-loving weenies in france.” Join me in this crusade!!!
[/quote]
If only you realized how pathetic you look when you type things like that. We need France, as well as the rest of Europe. If you are so stupid that you don’t realize that then there is nothing more I can say to you. Europe is our most powerful ally, and now the majority of them consider Bush to be as monstrous as Saddam (in a recent poll). Overconfidence has toppled many an empire throughout history, if you bother to read.
My statement was not correct (maybe). Here is the abstract from the NY Times story:
Key point in my concession is that it was Moore’s agent who stated it was for tax breaks. In another story Eisner said this:
[quote]Disney chief executive Michael Eisner said Wednesday the company ?did not want a film in the middle of the political process where we?re such a nonpartisan company and our guests, that participate in all of our attractions, do not look for us to take sides.?
[/quote]
Here is a quote from Moore:
[quote]?They had told my agent last year ? Eisner himself told my agent, Ari Emanuel ? that there was no way they were going to release this film, and he told him why. Because he did not want to anger Jeb Bush in Florida,? Moore said Wednesday night. ?He wasn?t going to let a little documentary upset the Bush family.?
[/quote]
Bottom line, it may not have anything to do with tax breaks. I can admit my mistake. That doesn’t mean that Eisner’s decision was not politically motivate. It seems pretty obvious to me.
“consider Bush to be as monstrous as Saddam (in a recent poll)”
Allies? Friends?
Sincere thanks to our friends the English, Danish, Portugal, Italy, the Poles, the Bulgarians, and most of the old Eastern Bloc. Thanks to the outgoing Spanish Government.
I re-read my post. I didn’t mean to imply that all of Europe were weenies.
Are the french really our allies?
By the way, Roy, care to respond to Pansy’s post? I didn’t think so.
I dunno if I should jump in on this, but I have to say that my bets are on Bush winning re-election.
Moore’s film will do little to influence the election. I saw his last documentary, bowling for columbine, and his conclusion were silly. He’s a really simple man, with a nack of finding material to support his simple theories.
For example, Moore concluded that America’s high gun violence was due to how “scared” Americans are (as if deeper social issues didn’t play a factor, of many). It made me laugh because his documentary, with all of its unedited gory clips, does a much finer job at placing fear in americans than the local news–of whom he credits fear-mongering. Basically, his very own movie is guilty of what he was trying to proove was harming Americans.
Anyway, I think that Moore’s farenheit movie is going to appeal to those who are already anti-bush.
Most people I know don’t bite this far-left hype. There was pleanty of it for the past presidents who’ve gotten re-elected. From my local area, I know of no one voting for Kerry.
PS. I agree that Bush is the stupidest president we’ve ever had. Who said a leader had to be smart?
Phattie, you have a point. Moore even has the ability to chafe even his fellow liberals.
This movie is supposedly quite different from his past movies though. He is in it a lot less, and he says that he lets the footage tell the tale by itself. Critics say that it is very understated, but powerful.
Point is, it may have the effect it was intended to have, even on people who don’t typically like Moore. It must have some pretty incriminating stuff… New York’s Daily News reported that Republican officials might even try to use the Federal Election Commission to shut the film down. If it is all obvious lies, what are they afraid of? That would be the best thing to happen to Michael Moore since Charlton Heston granted him an interview.
If his assertions (which he also made in his book) were false, wouldn’t there have been a liable suit? Like him or not, his film will cause a firestorm.
[quote]May 6, 2004 ? Editorial, New York Times
Disney’s Craven Behavior
Give the Walt Disney Company a gold medal for cowardice for blocking its Miramax division from distributing a film that criticizes President Bush and his family. A company that ought to be championing free expression has instead chosen to censor a documentary that clearly falls within the bounds of acceptable political commentary.
The documentary was prepared by Michael Moore, a controversial filmmaker who likes to skewer the rich and powerful. As described by Jim Rutenberg yesterday in The Times, the film, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” links the Bush family with prominent Saudis, including the family of Osama bin Laden. It describes financial ties that go back three decades and explores the role of the government in evacuating relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The film was financed by Miramax and was expected to be released this summer.
Mr. Moore’s agent said that Michael Eisner, Disney’s chief executive, had expressed concern that the film might jeopardize tax breaks granted to Disney for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Jeb Bush is governor. If that is the reason for Disney’s move, it would underscore the dangers of allowing huge conglomerates to gobble up diverse media companies.
On the other hand, a senior Disney executive says the real reason is that Disney caters to families of all political stripes and that many of them might be alienated by the film. Those families, of course, would not have to watch the documentary.
It is hard to say which rationale for blocking distribution is more depressing. But it is clear that Disney loves its bottom line more than the freedom of political discourse.
[/quote]
It’s basically just a chronology of media reports. Not too difficult, but no one else had done it until this undergrad. Quite a bit more accurate than Mr. Moore.
“But it is clear that Disney loves its bottom line more than the freedom of political discourse.”
Disney is a business and their job is to…surprise make money (while hopefully entertaining people). I doubt fostering political discourse is part of the disney mission statement. I’m not advocating cutthroat business practices, but why should they do anything not in their self interest? If something is potentially going to offend some viewers who are you to tell Disney they have to offend the viewers in the name of “freedom of pollitical discourse”? And why the F do liberals think they have the right to tell everyone how to behave??
The link above was to an executive summary, and I can’t seem to find the link to the paper. Here’s a link to an article that describes some of the methodology though: