SHOULD WE BE BOTHERED because Osama seems to have gotten a helping hand with his propaganda from Michael Moore?
Documentary makers, like journalists, are a vital part of a free society’s feedback mechanism. Should journalists or filmmakers refrain from criticising the administration because the country’s enemies might pick up on it for propaganda purposes? Hell no.
The problem is that Michael Moore has provided Osama with propaganda composed of gross exaggeration, artful misdirection and cheap shots. A healthy society allows for that, as the price of our liberal principles. But just because we don’t want to ban it doesn’t mean that we should laud it. Michael Moore made a movie that’s fundamentally dishonest in order to score political points, and in doing so, he has helped the cause of his country’s enemies. We know that he isn’t ashamed; he has no shame. But his fellow citizens should be outraged.
posted at 10:19 PM by Megan McArdle Permalink
You keep on keepin’ on brotha! It’s not just your opinion. The fact is, 82% of military forces do not want John Kerry to be president, Thank you.[/quote]
I am just interested, where did you get this statistic? I have never been asked this question so I know my opinion wasn’t even calculated…which means it is probably biased depending on where this info came from.
You keep on keepin’ on brotha! It’s not just your opinion. The fact is, 82% of military forces do not want John Kerry to be president, Thank you.
I am just interested, where did you get this statistic? I have never been asked this question so I know my opinion wasn’t even calculated…which means it is probably biased depending on where this info came from.[/quote]
It was just published by the Army Times. I’m not sure that you’ll find it on the internet yet.
You keep on keepin’ on brotha! It’s not just your opinion. The fact is, 82% of military forces do not want John Kerry to be president, Thank you.
I am just interested, where did you get this statistic? I have never been asked this question so I know my opinion wasn’t even calculated…which means it is probably biased depending on where this info came from.[/quote]
I don’t know where he got this number, but it’s approximately the same - but a bit higher - as the Army Times survey, and the Annenberg survey of active duty and reserve armed forces members.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
jackzepplin wrote:
You keep on keepin’ on brotha! It’s not just your opinion. The fact is, 82% of military forces do not want John Kerry to be president, Thank you.
I am just interested, where did you get this statistic? I have never been asked this question so I know my opinion wasn’t even calculated…which means it is probably biased depending on where this info came from.
I don’t know where he got this number, but it’s approximately the same - but a bit higher - as the Army Times survey, and the Annenberg survey of active duty and reserve armed forces members.
From that site:
“Army Times Publishing sent e-mails to more than 31,000 subscribers and received 4,165 responses on a secure Web site. The publisher cautioned that the results are not a scientific poll. Its readers are older, higher in rank and more career-oriented than the military as a whole.”
The majority of the people I treat are around my age and younger (around 20-35 years of age). In fact, I can probably count the “older” soldiers that I have treated or even see on a daily basis without having to use my toes or other appendages. Believe what you want, but take that survey with a grain of salt.
It’s about as good as any of the polls (which really aren’t all that good, generally)… But, it’s backed up by the Annenberg survey, which showed a slightly smaller number, but one within the margin of error for both polls: