Farenhype 9/11

[jcd11235 0]

I just watched Farenhype 9/11, which is the counter argument to Michael Moore's film.

Wow. I thought some of Moore's claims were sensational and exaggerated. His didn't even come close to those presented in this film. Moore seems amazingly objective, by comparison. Wow.

I'm not saying it was all lies, by any means. It did point out some creative editing on Moore's part, such as using one of Shrub's jokes at a "high dollar per plate" dinner as a serious statement, which, when showed in context, was clearly a deception on Moore's part.

It did not, however, make any attempt to discredit Moore's claim, which came with supporting video, that the White House, at the beginning of Shrub's administration, via Colon Powell and Condalezza Rice, considered Iraq to be without posession of WMD, ad did not consider Iraq to be a threat to U.S.

They did try to blame the September 11 attacks on the Clinton/ Gore administration, though, despite warnings that Shrub had previous. Also tried to paint Moore as as one who associates himself with terrorist organizations.

There were even some outright lies, including another references to seeing the first plane hit the WTC on the screen, before the second plane hit. This footage was simply not available at that time.

In short, the film made exactly the same mistake Moore's film did, by exaggerating the truth to the point of lying. Both films could have been made more honestly and objectively, without losing their editorial biases, to create more valid arguments.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[dorbie 0]

Kudos for watching it, but I think in the case of these films beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Kudos for watching it, but I think in the case of these films beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Believe it or not, I do like to examine both sides of any issue.

I agree about your beauty . . . beholder statement, but quite honestly, I thought both of these films were, as a whole, BS. Both also had the potential (during filming/ production) to be valuable, informative, even if editorialized) films.

I believe our thirst for sensationalism in the news causes us two problems. The first one is that problems appear to be where there is really no problem. The second is that we are often able to overlook minor problems until the point that they become major problems.

A third problem arises when we understand that as a nation, or evn as a holistic international community, we are unable to distinguish between the two aforementioned problems.

Anyone have any suggestions as to how to remedy the situation? Or maybe you completely disagree?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[slug 1]

Quote

Quote

Kudos for watching it, but I think in the case of these films beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Believe it or not, I do like to examine both sides of any issue.

I agree about your beauty . . . beholder statement, but quite honestly, I thought both of these films were, as a whole, BS. Both also had the potential (during filming/ production) to be valuable, informative, even if editorialized) films.

I believe our thirst for sensationalism in the news causes us two problems. The first one is that problems appear to be where there is really no problem. The second is that we are often able to overlook minor problems until the point that they become major problems.

A third problem arises when we understand that as a nation, or evn as a holistic international community, we are unable to distinguish between the two aforementioned problems.

Anyone have any suggestions as to how to remedy the situation? Or maybe you completely disagree?

Affirmative

Show both films back to back to let people know that there's two sides to every story and then there;s the truth.