PeterDavid.net

Peter:
Personally, I always thought the whole situation over the title was a publicity stunt to begin with, especially now that you've said there is a new edition of F451 due out soon.
However, if I am proven wrong, I will apologize for my misconception.

Maybe Bradbury just doesn't like being associated with a mentally unstable filmmaker who pieces together his films with more interest in his own rhetoric than the truth.

Thanks to Moore there's four sides to every story, yours theirs, the truth and whatever psychotic conspiracy theory Micheal Moore has about the situation.

God I hate that supercilious jackass.

The news reports on this give me flashacks to the B5 episode where the crew was interviewed and their comments distorted.

The quotes make it clear Bradbury's annoyed to some degree, but it might be a small one or a large one.

Figuring writers occasionally have websites, I looked up www.raybradbury.com. There's a lot of scuttling over this issue on the message board but nothing from Bradbury himself on it. I'd infer this issue with Moore's movie is not something Bradbury is pushing as hard, say, as Ellison pushed the internet piracy isssue.

While I can see both sides as well, I have to side with Ray Bradbury on this one. Does Moore have a right to title his film the way he wants? Sure. But again, just because you CAN do something doesn't always mean you SHOULD. I think he should have showed a little more respect to Bradbury.
Of course, it should be clear by now, especially after his Playboy interview this month and his "This Week" interview yesterday, that Moore doesn't respect too many people.

I like your suggestion as a compromise, Peter -- keep the title (especially since Bradbury has really had a very long time to object at this point), but send the on-screen thanks.

As for Moore's "lack of respect" for people ... while I doubt anyone considers Moore an especially polite and kind human being, I don't think someone who idolizes Ann Coulter has a lot of moral high ground to claim on that particular judgment. I'll leave it at that.

TWL
who plans to see F9/11 as soon as time permits

I tried to sit through Bowling For Columbine and failed when he started in with "Fun Facts About Canada." It was, put simply, badly made--a wandering, pointless rant against whatever Moore disliked that day. It failed to hold my interest and certainly failed to make itself a memorable experience.

While I don't particularly like Moore as a person, I have a more damning statement: I don't like him as a filmmaker. So you'll forgive me if I'm less than enthusiastic about Fahrehneit 9/11. Even if I agree with everything he says, as I did with a good deal of Bowling, I think it'll be a bad movie.

That said, I'm with Peter and Tim--who coulda seen that coming?--that Moore should leave the title but thank Bradbury in the credits.

Will,

You may well be right about Moore as a filmmaker -- I'll admit I've yet to see BfC. This film, apparently, gives Moore himself only about 20-25% of the screen time he had in the previous one, and from all accounts this one is playing it a good deal straighter.

(Moore's quote was something like "Bush had all the funny lines anyway, so I didn't see a need to get in the way of that.")

Did Bowling for Columbine win anything at Cannes? Joke as people will about France, Cannes generally does pick out fairly good films, so that bodes well...

I honestly don't know whether the film will be good -- but I'm hopeful.

TWL

Tim:

Less of Moore expositing would be good.

Did Bowling for Columbine win anything at Cannes?

Apparently, a special prize, the 55th Anniversary Prize. I chalk that up to Europeans being happy that somebody's saying "Americans are all gun-obsessed nutjobs!" *grin* Kidding.

Oh, come on now! Permission is not needed, as even Bradbury said. I can record a song, call it "Born to Run" if I want. There are numerous songs with the same name, movies with the same name, books with the same name (OK, only one called "Imzadi")... so long as a trademark isn't violated, using **the same** name isn't a problem.

And then there's satire. Does Weird Al Yankovic get permissions for all his song title variations?

Then there's evocation. As another poster mentioned, "Something Wicked" is designed to draw from another work. Geez, that's what art's all about.

Much as I'm a fan of Bradbury, he really needs to get the starch out of his shorts here.

I once got to listen to a Bradbury speech and then interview him as a journalist and, I must say, he was an obnoxious, ultra-right-wing jackass. Still love a handful of his stories, but he's obviously the kind of guy who likes getting his panties in a bunch over ANYTHING. If Michael Moore has managed to tick him off--I say good for Michael Moore!

Troll. Or, wait, am I allowed to call "BOYCOTTPAD NOW" that? There's a bad 1986 horror movie called "Troll", and I might be breaking some arcane copyright law by using the word in this context. Because, apparently, even homage is no longer acceptable. Just off the top of my head, that means we lose Evelyn Waugh's "A Handful of Dust", Charlie Kaufman's "Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," Philip K. Dick's "A Scanner Darkly", and, oh yeah, Ray Bradbury's "Something Wicked this Way Comes." I'm sure there are *countless* others I'm not thinking of here.

An acknowledgement in the credits of the film would be nice, but geez. I love Bradbury, but he comes across like a cranky old man on this one.

Who idolizes Ann Coulter?

I'm just wondering because I'm the only one who attacked Moore's character, and I'd probably do the same if Coulter came up. They're both political hachet women, just different sides of the same coin.

Yay, man, I love it when I get an opening to call Micheal Moore a woman...

Jam,

I wasn't referring to you. You might just possibly want to look at the post directly above the one where I made the Coulter reference.

(As for enjoying "an opening to call Michael Moore a woman" ... okay, if that's what floats your boat...)

TWL

"Something Wicked This Way Comes" was quoted from a play whose copyright ran out somewhere around three hundred and fifty years ago.

Last I checked, "Fahrenheit 451" was still protected by copyright.

And yes, Weird Al does get permission from the relevant music publishing company (and, usually, the artist as well) before recording a parody. If he doesn't get that permission, he might perform the song in concert (kind of skirting copyright law on that), but won't put it on an album (cf "Pac-Man", "It's Still Billy Joel To Me", "Pet Names For Genitalia", et al).

Shortdawg,

I don't know Bradbury's politics per se, but I've certainly heard various interviews with him, and even gotten to meet him once (not as a journalist, though). Through all that, he's never struck me as particularly obnoxious. Old and crotchety, perhaps, but the man's old enough that I think he's entitled to that.

I think Moore's well within his rights here, but I'm not going to sit back and bash Bradbury just because of a difference of opinion.

TWL

Jonathan,

Yes, Weird Al gets permission -- but I'm fairly certain that's out of courtesy, not out of legal restrictions. There's certainly no legal restraint on parodying a TITLE, whether it's a song or a book -- it gets dicier when you're going after a song's musical stylings as well, but the fact that F451 is still copyrighted doesn't really strike me as an issue.

TWL

"And then there's satire. Does Weird Al Yankovic get permissions for all his song title variations?"

Actually he does (with the exception of Amish Paradise which there is a dispute, but Weird Al honestly thought he had permission). He just doesn't NEED to. Falls under Fair Use.

Joelfinkel,

Yes he does, at least the ones he puts out on albums. Even though Parody is protected by the First Amendment, Al takes pride in getting permission from the original artist first, which is why is still hasn't released any Prince parodies and why he scrapped his video for "Couch Potato", his parody of Eminem's "Lose Yourself". Em gave the okay to parody song, but then said no to the video. So rather than take advantage of the law, Al dropped the video.

As my friend Julia wrote, "The laws of physics are also speaking to an attorney."

"And then there's satire. Does Weird Al Yankovic get permissions for all his song title variations?"

He gets permission, but it's not required for the satire itself. Doing satires of the words would fall under fair parody use (just as it does when Mad Magazine says "Sung to the tune of"). Where Al needs to clear rights is for playing the actual music. If he had written "Eat It" and the music had been in the style of Michael Jackson, but not the actual note-for-note music, he wouldn't have needed permission for that either. Either way Al, wisely, chooses to get permission all the way 'round up front.

As for Shakespeare being public domain, technically, so is the phrase "Fahrenheit 451" since it's more or less a scientific expression of temperature.

PAD

I like your suggestion as a compromise, Peter -- keep the title (especially since Bradbury has really had a very long time to object at this point), but send the on-screen thanks.

This is assuming that Ray would want such thanks.

Personally, if I were Ray, and Moore put in some sort of thanks to me, I'd see it as Moore giving the finger.

But that's just me. I think Michael Moore is a psychotic SOB too.

"Troll. Or, wait, am I allowed to call [NAME SHROUDED]that? There's a bad 1986 horror movie called "Troll", and I might be breaking some arcane copyright law by using the word in this context."

Around these parts, we tend to ignore the particular name-switching troll you were asking about through a process called "Shrouding." He/she/it is dead to me and pretty much everyone else here and is, currently, over on Usenet pulling the same crap he/she/it tries to pull here (and not particularly succeeding.)

If you care to participate in shrouding this individual by simply ignoring him/her/it, feel free.

PAD

It's a shame (but I guess it's the reality of the internet) that whenever a subject like this one, the (homage?satire?) of an existing title, comes up that we can't get through a couple posts before the inane childish name calling begins.

I thought this statement:
just because you CAN do something doesn't always mean you SHOULD. I think he should have showed a little more respect to Bradbury.
was perfect,

but you had to ruin it with the pot shot at Moore....

PAD, I do believe Weird Al does pay something to the musicians he satires. This was referenced in the VH1 "Behind the Music" special. One of Yankovic's attorneys mentioned that while Coolio was against the "Amish Paradise" parody, he still cashed the checks.

By the way, if you ever have the chance to see Weird Al live, do so. It's a fun time.

I'm looking forward to giving Moore my cash and enjoying this film when it opens next week. On a related note, one can only hope that Weird Al goes forward with his plans to produce his own documentary on the Bush Administration.

1) as has been noted, titles can't be copyrighted.
2) Bradbury should be honored that his book has become so well-known that his title has become synonymous with censorship
3) Moore could have done what Tevye's daughter Hodel did. Not ask for permission, but ask for a blessing. But he had no legal requirement to do so.
4) Alluding to a famous work is not theft, it's an allusion. When Cuaron, the director of the latest Harry Potter, had a wizard at a bar reading A Brief History of Time, he didn't need to get permission to do that.
5) Science fiction writers don't have to get permission from Asimov's estate to use the word "Positronic" even though Asimov did coin the word, and his works are still copyrighted.
6) I doubt Terry Brooks got permission from Tolkein's estate when he wrote Sword of Shannara, and I remember doing a paper in high school comparing the plot to Lord of the Rings. Was he wrong not to do so? No. He was paying tribute/homage to a classic work of fantasy (even though that work was - and still is - under copyright)

I do think Ray Bradbury is close to deism in the writing business, and I understand his frustration. But he has zero leg to stand on. If he did, Celine Dion would have to pay Huey Lewis, or Air Supply or Charley Pride or any other of a dozen artists for "The Power of Love."
Titles cannot be copyrighted.
That's why I'm promoting my next Tornado thriller:
"Gone With The Wind."

Travis

(and of course, with #6, I should have added ... and did PAD get permission for his parody of Lord of the Rings in the Apropos novel? Of course, its irrelevant whether he did or not. It wasn't necessary.)

And by the way, for those quick to dismiss "Something Wicked" as being fair game since the source is hundreds of years old...

"I Sing the Body Electric." Walt Whitman. Published in the year 1900 in "Leaves of Grass." Appropriated by Ray Bradbury in 1969. I could be wrong, but I don't think "Leaves of Grass" fell into public domain after 69 years.

PAD

I think that there are two points people are missing here:

1) It's not just the title. On at least the cover of my edition, and I know on the title pages of most editions, Bradbury subtitles it "The temperature at which paper catches fire and burns." Michael Moore subtitles his "The temperature at which freedom burns," which ONLY makes sense in context with the Bradbury work. It's not a reference, it's pretty deliberate that Moore is trying to make a connection. Which would be fine if it WAS a satire or parody, but it's not.

2) Can this adversely affect Bradbury's ability to capitalize on his novel? They're trying to make another movie adaptation...does this harm those chances? I think it's conceivable, given the absolute hatred some people have toward anything Michael Moore puts his stamp on. People may erroneously make the connection. Of course, that says a lot about the people, but it's true nonetheless...

I am disturbed that Michael Moore didn't even feel the need to get any type of blessing, but I'm also concerned lately that he had people taking names down of those who didn't applaud his win at Cannes, and that he's set up a staff to deal with people who say disparaging things about his movie. It's stuff like that that gives people ammunition. Trust me, this Bradbury thing is like manna from heaven for some on the right, and all that does is cloud any real issue to be gained from the movie. Or for that matter, the book.

And anyone who slams Bradbury for being ultra-right and gives Moore a pass for being ultra-left isn't helping either.

To the extent that there's a legal case here -- and it would probably be murky law -- it would have to be treated as a matter of trademark rather than one of copyright. As has been noted, titles per se can't be copyrighted, but titles of films and multimedia properties often are (not that that will surprise anyone in this gallery).

Accounts have varied as to Bradbury's degree of civility or obnoxiousness -- one online article made him sound pretty polite, while another had him using profanity in discussing the matter with Swedish radio interviewers (one wonders what time it was in California when they called him, though).

As for me, I come down more on Bradbury's side in the specific case. If Moore were actually satirizing Bradbury's story, or even using the novel (play, film) as a basis for contrast or comparison to the subject of his film, it would clearly be "in bounds" as a matter of artistic or scholarly privilege (irrespective of what one might think of Moore's artistic or critical faculties).

But that's not what's happening here; nobody (including Moore) seems to be claiming that there's anything about Fahrenheit 9/11 except the title and marketing slogan to connect it to Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.

That being the case -- given that Moore's subject matter is (a) entirely unrelated to Bradbury's work, and (b) politically controversial -- it seems to me that the courteous and ethical thing for Moore to do would have been to run his proposed title past Bradbury beforehand, so that he could run in the credits either a line "with thanks to Ray Bradbury" (if blessing had been given) or a disclaimer acknowledging that the borrowing was done without permission and explicitly affirms that Bradbury didn't have anything to do with the project.

Under the circumstances, I'd say the latter rather than the former is what ought to be added to the DVD credits....

"I Sing the Body Electric." Walt Whitman. Published in the year 1900 in "Leaves of Grass." Appropriated by Ray Bradbury in 1969. I could be wrong, but I don't think "Leaves of Grass" fell into public domain after 69 years.

If I read the authority correctly, it might very well have been in public domain by that time; see this table for a look at the parameters. In 1900, you'd have been dealing with an initial copyright term of 28 years, renewable for a second term in 1928 -- the variable, assuming that copyright was renewed in the first place, would be the length of the second term.

As a point of comparison, The Wizard of Oz was also published in 1900 -- and the number of different editions of that book I saw when I was growing up suggests to me that Baum's novel (though not the movie, of course) could well have been in public domain by that time.

posted over on Sci-Fi.com

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2004-06/21/09.00.books

exerpt:
Legendary SF author Ray Bradbury told the Associated Press that filmmaker Michael Moore called him to say he was "embarrassed" after Bradbury complained that Moore's upcoming political documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 improperly co-opted the title of Bradbury's classic SF novel Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury is demanding an apology from Moore and wants the new documentary to be renamed......

Bradbury said he would rather avoid litigation and is "hoping to settle this as two gentlemen, if he'll shake hands with me and give me back my book and title."

So does Bradbury pay any money to the estates of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy for using them in a couple of stories?

Bradbury said he would rather avoid litigation and is "hoping to settle this as two gentlemen, if he'll shake hands with me and give me back my book and title."

Well, if Moore laughs in Bradbury's face, Ray has on himself to pity, because I too think he has no leg to stand on.

I don't think Moore should be laughing in Bradbury's face (for a host of different reasons), but I just think it's way, way too late to say "I'd like the title back" four days before the film hits theaters. Bradbury's got enough experience in film and television that he must know how impossible that request really is.

TWL

RJM,
What childish name-calling? If you would reread my post, I simply stated that I feel it is quite obvious Michael Moore doesn't have respect for too many people.
How is that name-calling? Or a potshot? I simply feel the second atatement backs up, and may even be a reason for the first.
It's one thing if you take issue with something I actually say. But to jab me over something I explicitly didn't do, well that doesn't exactly add to the discourse.

Charles,

I am disturbed that Michael Moore didn't even feel the need to get any type of blessing, but I'm also concerned lately that he had people taking names down of those who didn't applaud his win at Cannes, and that he's set up a staff to deal with people who say disparaging things about his movie.

I'd agree that taking down names is a real problem, but setting up a rapid-response staff just strikes me as a reasonable act of self-preservation anyway. If you know you're going to come under some of the most withering fire the Bush administration can create (which is saying a lot) regardless of how accurate you are, setting up a group that will make quick corrections (and counter-charges if necessary) actually seems like a really good idea from where I sit.

TWL

Super-Shrouding.

Let's say that I read a post and decide that reading further posts by the person at that IP address only further damages and diminishes my health. I click a little "Ignore" link next to the poster's name and *poof*, no posts made at that IP address pop up on my screen when I click the Comments link.

Doable?

Let me begin by saying that I have nothing but respect for Ray Bradbury and, over the years, his work has brought much joy and enrichment to my life. I also think well of Roger Moore, although his mouth does often run faster than his brain. Even so, he's funny, talented, and I believe well meaning. The whole issue smacks of being a tempest in a teapot to me. If Mr. Moore was stealing material from Mr. Bradbury and presenting it as his own, then there'd be a case for outrage. With a title as entrenched in 20th century culture as F451, no one could possibly be led to believe that Mr. Moore made that up all by himself. So he's not stealing anything. All Mr. Moore seems to be doing (and I can't say for sure, as I don't really know his mind - and neither do any of the rest of us) is using a well known pop culture reference as a sort of a play on words. No harm, no foul as far as I can see. Public Domain or not, for what amounts to a goofy joke, Mr. Moore should not have to ask anyone's permission and has nothing for which to apologize. Still, in these troubled, stressful times -- much of that trouble and stress brought to us by the very Bush administration being skewered in the film -- good people seem to take offense at the drop of a hat.

I suspect that if the film hadn't garnered so much controversy, this would never have hit the media's radar in the first place.

SR-B in St. Louis

I think somebody ought to write a book or article called "The Ecology of Popular Culture." Or maybe it would be better called "Think Up Your Own Damn Title."

I had read Macbeth, but I guess I had forgotten that Bradbury took the title for his book from it. When I saw the poster for 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban,' I assumed they were quoting Bradbury and wondered at the time if he had given the filmmakers permission for it.

As for Moore, whether you love him or hate him, the man knows exactly where his boundaries are. I don't think there's anything Bradbury can do about the implied use of his book title.

I also think well of Roger Moore, although his mouth does often run faster than his brain. Even so, he's funny, talented, and I believe well meaning.

Would that be Roger Moore the actor, or Roger Moore the D&D game designer/writer/editor?

Sean,

While I agree with the substance of your post, I can only assume you mean Michael Moore and not Roger Moore.

Not that the latter making a film about 9/11 doesn't call to mind its own images, mind ...

TWL

"Not that the latter making a film about 9/11 doesn't call to mind its own images, mind ..."

Except that in Roger Moore's film, 9/11 never would have happened, because he'd use the sonic generator concealed in the watch Q gave him to stun the hijackers, then pilot the plane to safety himself... ;)

Incidentally, as regards this "super-shrouding" concept...

Every so often, as I'm reading the comments on this blog, there's a scattering of unintelligible noise on the screen. I just scroll past it and start reading with the next comprehensible post.

Works for me...

Jonathon:

>Except that in Roger Moore's film, 9/11 never would have happened, because he'd use the sonic generator concealed in the watch Q gave him to stun the hijackers, then pilot the plane to safety himself... ;)

.... only after defeating that ol' metal-tooth chompin' devil, Jaws. :)

Charles K. wrote: "I am disturbed that Michael Moore didn't even feel the need to get any type of blessing, but I'm also concerned lately that he had people taking names down of those who didn't applaud his win at Cannes, and that he's set up a staff to deal with people who say disparaging things about his movie. It's stuff like that that gives people ammunition."

I hadn't read that. Sounds like a CREEP tactic from the Nixon era. Is it any wounder I refuse to be blindly parisan?

I wrote: "Is it any wounder..."

I meant "wonder," of course. :)

I wrote: "... to be blindly parisan."

I meant partisan, of course. I guess it's one of those days.... :)

Except that in Roger Moore's film, 9/11 never would have happened, because...

Okay, is anyone else getting flashbacks to the Muppets Tonight episode where everyone mistakes Hercule Poirot (played by Jason Alexander) for Hercules, not to mention Superman later on?

Hilarious stuff. Highly recommended.

We now return to your regularly scheduled politicizing.

TWL
"Hey, why don't you make the Earth spin backwards, turn back time and find out who committed the crime that way?"

If I were to follow Mr. Bradburys' logic then Spike Lee had a legal and moral right to sue Spike TV for use of 'his' name.

Please. Have we (society as a whole) gotten so nitty-picky or PC that this should be even an issue?

Mr. Bradbury's angst reminds me of the person (or persons) that insisted on disclaimers that appear on car commercials "Professional Driver on Closed Course. Do Not Attempt" Hell, it got to a point that on a clearly computer animated commercial they actually put: "Digital Driver ..etc"

If people can't distinquish between the book F451 or movie and a Michael Moore movie about Pres. Bush called F911 then I have a used bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell.

arcee:

>If people can't distinquish between the book F451 or movie and a Michael Moore movie about Pres. Bush called F911 then I have a used bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell.

Damn! I walked that bridge a few years back!!! How much do I owe ya?

Personally, I'm with Bradbury on this one, although I may be biased by the fact that I like his work a lot more than Moore's.

A few people have said that Bradbury waited too long to complain about this. From:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3821269.stm
Bradbury, who has not seen the movie, said he called Moore's company six months ago to protest and was promised that Moore would call back. Moore only called last week, Bradbury said, adding that Moore told him he was "embarrassed".

Based on that, I'd say that he behaved reasonably. I also think he gets credit for being willing to avoid litigation, rather than suing for excessive amounts of money.

I haven't seen the film (it hasn't been released in the UK yet), but I don't think it counts as satire, so that part of the "fair use" laws don't apply. More generally, I don't think it makes sense - "9/11" is a date, not a temperature, and even if it was a temperature it wouldn't have any connection to freedom.

MUCH different than Spike TV. It would very much be a legitimate lawsuit. In fact, it would be a text book example of one party attempting to illegally trade off of the work and intellectual property of another.

Spike TV was weak because not only did Spike Lee not even have a TM on Spike, it is SO generic that most people can list about a dozen of them.

But Farenheit 9/11 is a DIRECT play off of Bradbury's work.

This quote is all the evidence a reasonable jury would need to determine that Moore was intentionally riding on the coattails of Bradbury's premise.

Whether you support IP protection or not, the law protects Bradbury here.

I don't even care if he had no immediate plans at all, I would support his position just as strongly.

First, he should not be forced to tie HIS political stance of F451 to Moore's stances. Moore is a lightning rod and a sloppy one at that. Bradbury may not want to be tied to him even if he agrees with him in principle.

Second, a person shouldn't be allowed to come set up a lemonade stand in a small corner of my front yard. Even if I wasn't using it, they aren't bothering anyone, and everyone really seems to like it. It is my front yard, and I should have exclusive control of it. IP is no different than real property. Bradbury should have exclusive control of it and Moore should not be allowed to capitalize off of it.

The fact that Bradbury noted his complaint MONTHS ago, and Moore ignored him, plays into Bradbury's favor as well. Not so much legally, but in the court of public opinion. He tried to be polite. But Moore, being the ass that he is, wanted to use it anyway.

So, if Bradbury does challenge him, Moore will lose quite handily because the law is on Bradbury's side.

Tim,
I saw the Alexander bit, and I actually have to agree with you! It was very funny:)
You even included one of the best quotes.
Thanks.

While I am an admirer of Mr. Bradbury's work (not as good overall as Asimov IMO, but "Sound of Thunder" was terrific), I find his high-profile grousing over this issue to be petty and pointless. Does he truly believe that people are going to hear about Moore's movie and confuse it with his works or his reputation? Aside from the fact that the titles are only similar (and not identical), this strikes me as entirely meaningless rabble-rousing.

(Or maybe Bradbury is a secret George W. Bush fan. Hmmmm... ;-)

As for folks who are ready to dismiss Fahrenheit 9/11 because Michael Moore allegedly lies, it's worth noting that The New York Times reports that he's making a big effort to keep this one factually bulletproof: "[Moore] has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of 'oppo,' or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation." (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/20/movies/20SHEN.html?ex=1088308800&en=05f2b88c69444954&ei=5062)

Russ,
I really like "...to be blindly Parisian."
I don't know what it means, but I think I'll use it in my daily utterances.

"Pardon me for being blindly Parisian, I wasn't thinking. And please excuse my beret and incessant cigarette smoking as well as my fondness for tiny mustaches."

*chuckle*

Farenheit 451

Love the book.

Love the movie (and Julie Christie).

Steve Chung

>Farenheit 451

>Love the book.

>Love the movie (and Julie Christie).

>Steve Chung

Mel Gibson was attatched to a film project based on the book only a few years back. It's too bad it never came to pass as I was really looking forward to it.

Fred

I have found that when someone has to resort to elaborate legal arguments to justify their actions, said action is usually unethical. I kinda miss the old days, when priniciples and ethics actually meant something.

That said... Michael Moore has been proven a fabricator on numerous occasions, and has admitted that he knew about the Abu Ghraib scandal long before it broke and didn't mention it to anyone. It'll be a LOT colder than 911, 451, or any other positive number above freezing in Hell before I see any of his movies.

(And this is speaking as a HUGE fan of TV Nation. I still remember the Johns of Justice, the car-alarm guy, storming the beach in Connecticut, and watching Ford's CEO change the oil on an Explorer. Oh, yeah, and the black guy buying slaves down south just so he could free them on the day slavery was finally outlawed in Alabama(?). It was a great show. Now I look back at it as the last gasps of a genius before he started believing his own hype and degenerated into lying polemics.

J.

Oh, yeah, and Crackers the corporate crime-fighting chicken. He was great, too. And the time they hired their own KGB spy. And...

Response to Ham:

While I respect your knowledge of this particular law (and don't necessarily disagree with you on all points), I still think it's a waste of the court's time and money to prove Bradbury's point that Moore's motive to name his work was to ride his coattails.

Now had the Moore's movie been about censorship or book burning then I would be likely to agree with you.

Also 'reasonable jury' ...uh-huh...right.

While I think the US civil and justice system are better than just about anybody else's in the world, I also believe it isn't perfect.

WOW, I would not think so many people disagree with Moore's politics here. I think, from reading Peter's work over the last decade or more, than he is more Moore than most. Could be wrong? I personally think Moore is usually right on the money on his subjects, but I degress.

Titles cannot be copyrighted. I can start an online "Fallen Angels" comic book right now if I wanted.

Whether you support IP protection or not, the law protects Bradbury here.

Not true. Simply making a play on words with a title and tagline ("the temperature at which freedom burns") is not actionable. A literary premise is not a literary WORK.

Mind you, as I've said earlier I think Moore certainly should have asked Bradbury -- out of common courtesy, at the least. If it's true that Bradbury called to object six months ago and things got lost in the cracks, that's a damn shame on several counts.

Bottom line, though, is that while legally I don't think Bradbury has a case, neither side is coming off very well here. And that's a shame.

TWL

Tim Lynch: As for Moore's "lack of respect" for people ... while I doubt anyone considers Moore an especially polite and kind human being...
Luigi Novi: I dunno, he was pretty polite and friendly to me when I met him in NY a few years ago. I was standing outside the Loews 84th & Broadway theater recruiting for a movie screening my company was doing, and he walked in. I walked up to him while he was on the concession line, and told him I was a fan, and he didn't seem to mind. Since I didn't have the TV schedule of The Awful Truth in my head, and often missed it, I asked if they were still doing it, and responded that they weren't, but that he was doing a new movie called Bowling for Columbine, which I thought was a quirky-sounding title. If he had any impolite tendencies, he didn't display them.

Now whether everything in that movie was factually accurate, now THAT's a different story.... :-)

As for this latest flap, I think it's silly. The title after all, is not the same title Bradbury used, but rather a caricaturized distortion of it, just as Bowling for Columbine may have been, and moreover, titles are not copyrightable.

Frankly, this whole thing is begining to remind of the whole 'Fair and Balanced' thing that went down when Al Franken released his last book.

Um, titles are not subject to copyright. Period. Any of us could write a BOOK called "Fahrenheit 451" and we'd be completely in the clear, legally.

Peter and I think we should consult Ralph Ellison on this one, the author of the Invisible Man.

Maybe I'm spitballing here, but I'm wondering who told Ray about the movie???? Here's what get's me: In the movie "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azzkaban," the Hogwortes choiur sings a song called "Something wicked this way comes." In fact the movie poster also had that same line on it. So I don't understand why Ray is upset about because Moore is doing a film with a title that is a tribute to Ray's ideas, but is not upset that the makers of 'Azzkaban' made a song out of the title of another of his books.
I'm not saying they were wrong, I liked Azzkaban and I saw it three times. But my point is that somebody went to Ray and got him fired up about Moore's movie.
I had hoped that Moore's movie would introduce a new generation of fans to Ray's and help them to grow and become more decerning about people like Bush. But at point when artists like Moore and Bradbarry should be coming together, their being divided over a few words in a title.

Maybe I'm spitballing here, but I'm wondering who told Ray about the movie???? Here's what get's me: In the movie "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azzkaban," the Hogwortes choiur sings a song called "Something wicked this way comes." In fact the movie poster also had that same line on it. So I don't understand why Ray is upset about because Moore is doing a film with a title that is a tribute to Ray's ideas, but is not upset that the makers of 'Azzkaban' made a song out of the title of another of his books.
I'm not saying they were wrong, I liked Azzkaban and I saw it three times. But my point is that somebody went to Ray and got him fired up about Moore's movie.
I had hoped that Moore's movie would introduce a new generation of fans to Ray's and help them to grow and become more decerning about people like Bush. But at point when artists like Moore and Bradbarry should be coming together, their being divided over a few words in a title.

"1) as has been noted, titles can't be copyrighted"

Didn't Harlan Ellison successfully sue a film company that was going to release a film called I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream?

He should have titled it "Supersize Moore", to fit his ego.

I read the article where this "started" in Dagens Nyheter the 2nd of june and wondered how long it would take for it's contents to spread, hehe... I'll post the URL at the end. (The DN journalist Mårten Blomkvist got the idea of phoning RB about the title in question and afterwards...)

Still, I was a bit saddened at RB, an idol of mine, really coming of as an old miser. Still in the end I got a chuckle out of his unwillingness to compromise. OK, OK, OK, I haven't written anything like "Fahrenheit 451." I'll bitch and moan and judge about RBs disposition when I have... maybe...

Regarding Michael Moore... Love his work and I can see why all the Bush-lovers hate him. Would that they had one equally talented in their corner, or not. Democracy is so many things, among them is the power of free speech. I love it when another of the ingredients of "democracy", money, can be countermanded by the sheer talent of anothers' speech... It just goes to prove that not only power or volume rule, but also precision and wit. And that is just cool in my book...

I believe that's why I keep returning to the writing of PAD!!! Thanx man!

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1058&a=272062

"[Moore] has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of 'oppo,' or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation."

I'm no Alanis Morisette but isn't this ironic, don'tcha think?

As opposed to Kenneth Starr and Karl Rove? I think the man needs to protect himself. Look at what happens to ANYONE who is critical of this administration.

Bill,

I'm forced to side with Karen here (not that this is unusual). I'm not seeing whatever irony you are -- I'm not even seeing where you'd see it. I would hope any high-profile documentary would employ outside fact-checkers, actually.

TWL

And what WOULD people say if MM would have gone out there and said that he WOULDN'T employ outside fact-checkers... C'mon...

And may that go times a thousand regarding lawyers... hehehe...

It would be as un-american as saaaayyy, not being able to have firearms at home... for your own protection strictly only... or personal freedomie feelings of americaness or somesuch...
;)

"Here's what get's me: In the movie "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azzkaban," the Hogwortes choiur sings a song called "Something wicked this way comes." In fact the movie poster also had that same line on it. So I don't understand why Ray is upset about because Moore is doing a film with a title that is a tribute to Ray's ideas, but is not upset that the makers of 'Azzkaban' made a song out of the title of another of his books. "

Because Ray Bradbury didn't come up with the phrase for his book; he simply appropriated it from the same source that the producers of "Harry Potter" did: Act IV, scene one of "Macbeth." He couldn't exactly say, "How dare they lift lines from the play that I lifted lines from first."

PAD

Admittedly off-topic: I'm watchign Keira Knightly on Leno now, and she talked about the blue war paint her character wears in King Arthur, referring to it as "woad." I didn't realize that was a real thing. I thought it was an element in the Apropos universe that he made up for The Woad to Wuin. Guess you learn something new every day.

On the Today show Moore said that he got the title of the film from a email he recieved from a fan. That the title of the email "Farenheit 9/11" is what go him thinking about the film to begin with.

As for the concern that Moore kept quiet about Abu Ghraib. Would those that are criticizing him believed him two months ago? According to reports now coming out the Red Cross reported upon the abuse in October of last year and nothing was done.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0510-03.htm

Plus we find out now that Rumsfeld held hold a man in prison without him being identified.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5226957/

Could Moore coming clean sooner have maybe helped? Maybe or maybe not. It is still amazing to me how many questions are still not being asked by the mainstream media, let alone answered.

When the Clinton adminstration stonewalled the press hammered them with the same questions over and over again. When the Bush adminstration stonewalls many of the same journalists say "Nevermind."

As to the comment on "Weird Al" paying royalties...

He uses the original, copywritten music, so of course, he should pay a royalty to the songwriter. I'll agree that Coolio wasn't too mad about "Amish Paradise" that he cashed the royalty checks.

As for Micheal Moore. Yeah, it's too late to change the title, and Ray Badbury is old enough to realize that even bad publicity is still good publicity. A segment of the population who probably wouldn't have noticed a remake of "... 451" is now aware that one is in the pipeline. Not only that, people who hate Moore might go see it thinking they would be thumbing their nose at him.

I tend to side against Bradbury on this one. "9/11" has become synonymous with September 11, 2001 (at least no one's confusing it with Sept. 11 of any other year so far), and the film certainly isn't being marketed as anything connected to the (excellent) Bradbury novel. (Some years ago Negativeland got in trouble not for doing a U2 parody, but marketing it in a way that made it look like a U2 album.) If anyone mistakes Moore's movie for a Bradbury adaption, they probably should pay more attention to the world around them.

If there's any misleading title for an upcoming movie, it looks to be I, ROBOT. The (extraordinary) novel is a number of varying looks at the growing importance of robots in the lives of humans, all told by (and connected through) the first robopsychologist. The movie looks like a murder mystery (They can't kill! But they are!), a conspiracy (They're taking over!) and a star's desire to be an action hero overwhelming a movie (only Will Smith can save us! Zap! Pow!) at the cost of, well, the source material. (I don't recall a single human murder in the novel.) I hope Harlan Ellison beats Will Smith to death with his (Harlan's) I, ROBOT screenplay.

Speaking of Harlan Ellison (and, in honor of PAD, digressing), when I heard him speak he had absolute hatred for Gus Van Sant for remaking PSYCHO. Wonder how he feels about another truly great movie -- THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE -- getting the unnecessary modernizing treatment. Feh.

Still talking about Weird Al ...

His side of the story is that there must have been some sort of misunderstanding because his agent had told him Coolio had said it was OK.

Coolio said that they called, he refused, but oh, well.

Weird Al's agent said that Coolio's people had said it was OK and noted that they couldn't be too upset since they were cashing the checks.

Whatever the truth may be, Weird Al's people have been more solicitous recently. They received permission from Eminem to parody "Lose Control". (I can't believe I actually remembered the name.) But ... he didn't want there to be a video.

So there isn't. Weird Al's last album went on sale without any videos to help promote it.

About Moore and Bradbury, I think it would've been courteous and decent of Moore to call and get permission first. But I don't think he had any legal obligation to do so and I'm not terribly surprised that he didn't.

I read a lot of Bradbury when I was young and I love his work, and I'm a bit saddened by his over the top reaction. If anything the title of Moore's movie is a tribute to him, not an example of theft. If you want to get really technical, the numbers 9/11 obviously stand for the date of the attack, while fahrenheit is simply a common word. If I was Bradbury, I'd be flattered that someone gave a nod to my old novel.

Also I am always amazed at the level of bile that's spewed at Moore. You don't have to agree with him, nor like his style, but he raises issues practically no one else seems to. Expecially with the pathetic excuse that passes for 'critical journalism' in this country today. How often do I have to hear stories from the BBC or the Netherlands or other coutries that are shocking revelations about the Bush Administration, only to find that the american news only talks about Michael Jackson or American Idol?

As for Moore being biased, yes, he has a point to make. Every documentary in history has been 'biased' because people always start out with a view on a topic. At least he makes his case. And at least he stays calm and collected while interviewing people of opposite views. Yet he's reviled, while legions of right-wing pundits on TV and radio (Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. etc.) scream, rant, rave with foam on the mouth, invite a left winger and a right winger to debate, completely side with the right winger, interrupt literally every sentence of the left winger, and when he/she tries to protest, start yelling at them to shut up, and call them names.

Yet THAT, which goes on almost daily, is considered 'normal'. No one protests the insanity or unfairness of these neanderthals. And then they complain Moore doesn't 'respect people'? Does that make sense on any level??

So Michael Moore making a movie once a year to show his points and doing it calmly and showing us WHY he came to his conclusions, has people calling for his head. And those same people claim to love the freedom in america. On one board I saw someone say he hate Moore for not apprecating the freedom here, and then went on to say that because of his movie (which would be Moore excercising his freedom), he should 'be beaten to death'. Classy, really classy.

Moore raises issues. He asks questions that need to be asked and most of the media has their own head up their ass. For every Rumsfeld, Cheney and Ashcroft a society needs a Michael Moore with a bullhorn. THAT's the point of the freedom of this country. I don't agree with all his views either but I'm happy and thankful there's at least one of him to go against the grain and have the balls to point out what goes on with this administration.

In Little Robot Lost, one of the robots gets about a foot away from killing Susan Calvin.

But I have no idea what that (or anything in the book other than the name and The 3 Laws) has to do with the movie.

Nick wrote: "But I have no idea what that (or anything in the book other than the name and The 3 Laws) has to do with the movie."

This won't be the first time that's happened with an Asimov story turned into a movie. I remember speaking with Asimov at a party in the late 1980's, and asked him what he thought of the film adaptation of "Nightfall." He replied that he didn't see it, because when he was called and invited to the premiere, he asked, "What is it rated?"
The film person replied "It's rated R."
Isaac asked, "How can it be rated R?"
"For some nudity and simulated sex."
Isaac, shocked, responded, "There are no women in the story! Who is getting naked and having sex?"
He concluded by saying to me, "So, I cashed the check, walked away, and never bothered to see the film."
So, fifteen years later, and it's the same story, except Isaac isn't here to offer his comments.

" So, fifteen years later, and it's the same story, except Isaac isn't here to offer his comments."

So? What of his estate? The heinlein estate sued to get his name off the STARSHIP TROOPERS movie because it differed so much from the book, I believe. Couldn't Asimov's widow also kick up a fuss over I, ROBOT being so wildly different from the story?

(Count me in the number of those who, having seen the trailer, won't be going.)

Thanks to Moore there's four sides to every story, yours theirs, the truth and whatever psychotic conspiracy theory Micheal Moore has about the situation.

Only four? I've found that there are usually more than that. Anyone who thinks issues like this there is a distinction between your story, there story and the truth are simply deluding themselves.

As for Moore's 'conspiracy theories' I may not think the Oscar's were the best place for his speech. I did not however disagree with the sentiment.

A true documentary is really hard to make. They usually aren't done well either. Raw representation of the facts gets so repitive. Mainly, I think because they either get really bad unknown narrators. There things like those crappy movies they made watch in since class when you had a substitute, or it was half day and the teachers were too damn lazy to do any teaching.

TV Nation, Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine.. I consider them thoughtumentarys. They focus on a situation, present information, they openly express a viewpoint, and at the end leave the viewer to the most dangerous (and wonderful) things human beings can do. Figure things out for themselves. To me, that's the important thing.

Fahrenheit 451 - the heat at which paper burns

Fahrenheit 9/11 - the heat at which freedom burns

Given that 451 deals with freedom to read what you want, and Mr Moore deals with freedom of speech etc - couldn't it just be a homage rather than a rip-off?

Isn't Moore's use of the title "Fahrenheit 9/11" pretty much the same thing that the adult industry has been doing since forever?
"Coming in America" is a lot closer to the title of the Eddie Murphy movie "Coming to America" than Moore's movie is to Bradbury's book.

Well, over here in the UK Moore is seen as one of the few vocal critics of the Bush administration who makes very emotive cases for whatever issue he is looking at. Also, his films/documentaries are broadcast here with the 'controversial' tag attached, so you cn guess what happens next, people watch them, interview him etc.

Let's face facts though, whatever issue there is in the world, soemone will always have an oppossing view or research it to such an extent that they will come up with some interesting evidence. I can imagine that a certain Dubya is starting to feel a little bit hot under the collar

Where I think people go wrong with Moore is that they look at his films as the straight forward, impartial documentaries we are used to instead of the visual op/ed pieces that they really are. Roger & Me was just as filled with Moore's personal views as Bowling for Columbine its just that his targets were different.

Wode - Not only is it blue, it's an hallucinogen (made from a plant). Part of why the Celts (and Picts) were such feared warriors - they weren't quite all there. Face it, the Romans were quite surprised and frightened (at first) when the Picts ran at them blue and completely naked, then seemed not to notice when wounded.

On a completely different note, I wanted to point out that Moore considers his pieces more Op-Ed than documentary.

"But I have no idea what that (or anything in the book other than the name and The 3 Laws) has to do with the movie."

I got the impression, from the commercials I've seen, that they're also stirring in elements from "The Caves of Steel", in which a robot is accused of murder - even though that's supposed to be impossible. Sadly, Will won't have an R. Daneel Olivaw-type sidekick...

Heinlein, writing about his work in Hollywood, quoted Hemingway on the topic. I don't recall the quote word-for-word, but the gist of it was that a writer would walk up to the California state line, and throw his manuscript in the general direction of Hollywood. They'd throw some money back, and the wise writer would then take that money, put it in the bank, and give the film no further attention. I think Isaac had the same idea. :)

(Incidentally, and completely beside the point, I first learned of woad from one of Randall Garrett's Lord Darcy stories, "Muddle of the Woad" - a corpse was painted with woad to mislead police into thinking the death was part of some cultish Druidic revival.)

If Bradbury's that p.o.'ed, then why doesn't he sue John Williams while he's at it (unless Williams did ask permission to swipe the title "Something Wicked This Way Comes" for "Prisoner of Azkaban" already)?

Arco, EXCELLENT points!

It's too bad these days, in "the land of the free" that people aren't encouraged to question our leaders, that if they present their views they're often ridiculed ---or worse.

Much like radio and TV shows you have the freedom to turn off things you don't like. If you don't like Moore and don't want to see his films, then DON'T.

Missed the fact someone already mentioned that. OOOOPSIIESSSS...

Kudos to Derek for pointing out that porno titles often copy or come very close to mainstream titles, yet there's no outrage over them. (It woulda been fun to see Spielberg suing over the name of SHAVING RYAN'S PRIVATES -- yes, it's a real movie.)

And let's not forget that Moore title is only similar to Bradbury's title. "9/11" doesn't appear anywhere in FAHRENHEIT 451, so Bradbury is upset that someone else used the word "Fahrenheit" followed by a three-digit number (or two #s separated by a slash).

Guys:

The title of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is a literary allusion.

Literary allusions are allowed.

They have always been allowed.

Moore had no obligation, legal, moral or otherwise, to ask Bradbury permission.

You can consider Ray Bradbury a living God, and Michael Moore a pinko fathead, and still recognize that in this case Bradbury is dead wrong.

A-TC

Guys:

The title of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is a literary allusion.

Literary allusions are allowed.

They have always been allowed.

Moore had no obligation, legal, moral or otherwise, to ask Bradbury permission.

You can consider Ray Bradbury a living God, and Michael Moore a pinko fathead, and still recognize that in this case Bradbury is dead wrong.

A-TC

Answering several points above:

Arco says that he's amazed at the amount of venom spewed at Moore when people like Rush Limbaugh prattle on and no one says anything about it. I can only imagine that Arco is living in some universe where he has no liberal friends or acquaintances, because *I* hear about it on a fairly regular basis.

Unlike Isaac Asimov, I saw "Nightfall". It is on my short list of "worst movies of all time". It's not even bad in any amusing way. It's just bad.

Then there's parody law, discussed by many:

First, it's not clear that everything that Weird Al does when setting new words to other people's music is parody under the definition given in Justice Souter's opinion in the Acuff-Rose vs. 2 Live Crew case. (This unanimous opinion is one of the most muddled messes that the Supreme Court has produced.) According to Souter, a true parody must comment on the original song. By that definition, a song such as "I Love Rocky Road" is probably not a true parody, but I Am Not A Lawyer (thank God), and the only way to determine whether my opinion is correct or not would be to go through an expensive trial.

PAD's correct that it's ok to print lyrics to be sung to an existing tune -- as long as the lyrics are *sufficiently different* from the original lyrics. That decision was handed down some time ago in a case involving Mad magazine. Unfortunately, that decision doesn't help one bit when you want to actually *record* the song.

While the U.S. has compulsory mechanical licensing if you want to record a song, the law explicitly states that you can't change the fundamental character of a song that's licensed in that fashion. Changing the lyrics around would do so.

Of course, you *can* change the lyrics if you get the permission of the license holder. And that's what Weird Al does.

He's also famous, his records sell well, and there are royalty checks of reasonable size for the license holder to cash.

Strange Joe will generally be rejected out of hand.

(Bob Kanefsky, a parody writer friend of mine, has a fine collection of what he characterizes as "hate mail" from publishers from whom he's tried to get permission to record altered songs.)

And that's probably far more than anyone wanted to know about the subject...

Karen says:
"As opposed to Kenneth Starr and Karl Rove? I think the man needs to protect himself. Look at what happens to ANYONE who is critical of this administration."

Anyone else getting tired of hearing this untrue statement? What, pray tell, has happened to ANYONE who is critical? You seem to be critical...what has happened to you?

Seems to me, one disagrees with the administration, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter slam you. You disagree with the opposition to the administration, Michael Moore and Al Franken slam you. I'm struggling to think of some official sanction that has happened to someone because he or she simply disagreed with the administration policy.

In any case, if you can't see the irony Bill was trying to express, that Michael Moore, paragon of the common man and freedom of speech, has hired lawyers to sue anyone who says something he doesn't want to hear...

Here's a nice viewpoint from a reviewer who pretty much challenges Moore to give it his best shot:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Tim says

"Bill,

I'm forced to side with Karen here (not that this is unusual). I'm not seeing whatever irony you are -- I'm not even seeing where you'd see it. I would hope any high-profile documentary would employ outside fact-checkers, actually."

Actually, the part I found ironic was where Michael Moore, Mr. Free Speech, threatens to sue anyone who "maligns" his film.

Crow, Tom Servo, and the other folks at Best Brains had better hope this sort of thinking doesn't catch on. The makers of Gigli may yet recoup their losses. And Mel Gibson could pocket another half billion.

Sue people who malign his film...! Take a chill pill, Mike.

Incidentally, the movie that was supposed to be called "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream" was retitled "And Now The Screaming Starts"...so I guess they were able to get past that whole no mouth problem.

If there's any misleading title for an upcoming movie, it looks to be I, ROBOT.

As others have pointed out, this looks to be something like another "Starship Troopers" -- the credits should really say "based on the title of a novel by Isaac Asimov" and not much more.

(I *might* go see the film, as the trailers make it look like it's got the possibility to be a decent mindless action flick. I'd need to have the aversion therapy in advance to make me stop thinking of Asimov, though.)

I'm glad you mentioned Harlan's screenplay, as it's really good. Folks, if you haven't read it, do.

TWL

Bill,

Actually, the part I found ironic was where Michael Moore, Mr. Free Speech, threatens to sue anyone who "maligns" his film.

Okay, fair enough. I assume he means "maligns" in a more specific sense than simply disliking and/or making fun of it ... but you're right that there's some good amusement value there.

(Mentioning Best Brains, though ... geez, now I want to see Joel and the 'bots silhouetted in front of a Bush speech...)

TWL

Thanks, Charles :)

Hey Michael Moore !!!

I have the perfect solution to this dilema - and I call it, for resaons that will become obvious,

THE HARRYHAUSEN RESOLUTION

(1) Ray Bradbury draws attention to the fact that something you are working on bears something of a similarity to something he worked on in the past

(2) Being an affable fellow, you contact Mr Bradbury and suggest that you and he, as two civilised men, discuss the matter over tea and biscuits - or, if you prefer, a beer

(3) As a gesture of goodwill you both make a small gratuity to Mr Bradbury - money, or some fine malt whisky, or an original King Kong poster ( the 1933 version, natch ) and give a tip of the hat to him in the credits of your movie.

You are happy. Mr Bradbury is, well, molified...

And you get an ideal alternative title for your movie - and this you can have for nil.

You call it...

Wait for it...wait for it

The Bush From 20,000 Fathoms

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha

I made a funny !!! I slay myself !!!

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha

What ? What's everyone shaking their heads at ?

Did I err ?

Adam, a literary allusion within the body of a distinctly different story is one thing - even when said story is a pastiche, as with Asimov's moderately obscure short, "The Up-To-Date Sorceror", a Gilbert & Sullivan pastiche.

However, when you have used a given title, altering a total of two words within it, with a substantial resemblance remaining, you are, at the very least, skirting the edge.

Remember that there is a remake in progress of "Fahrenheit 451". There is a chance (IMHO, a rather strong one) that a portion of its potential audience, who might have been drawn in to watch "this here sci-fi flick", and only then exposed to its subversive message (Think For Yourself, People! Inform Yourselves - Don't Rely On Someone Else To Do It!), will instead see the title, associate it with Moore, and turn away in droves (a Palm d'Or isn't the same thing as Box Office d'Or, after all). In this sense,. Moore has indeed potentially harmed Bradbury financially, and should at the very least publically apologize for having done so.

Tim says:
(Mentioning Best Brains, though ... geez, now I want to see Joel and the 'bots silhouetted in front of a Bush speech...)

Well, can't do that...but here's a little something posted by a guy called Cronan

This is long...but worth it.

[Door sequence]

> Good evening.

CROW: For Starr, maybe.

> This afternoon in this room, from this chair,

CROW: [as Clinton] Got some got me tail!

> I testified before the Office of Independent Counsel and the grand jury.

MIKE: [as Clinton] During which time I've been reasonably assured by my people that I can categorically deny that anything involving an
orgasm occurred

> I answered their questions truthfully,

[Tom enters and takes his seat]
TOM: A wholly new experience, I'm sure.
MIKE: What were you up to, Tom?
TOM: When the time is right and not before
MIKE: I see your home-study Enigmatic Courses are paying off

> including questions about my private life,

CROW: Even thinking about his private life makes me want to question life in general

> questions no American citizen would ever want to answer.

MIKE: At least not truthfully.
TOM: Clearly someone who's never watched _Jerry Springer_

> Still, I must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public
> and private.

TOM: Which are more times than not the same thing.

> And that is why I am speaking to you tonight.

CROW: To cover my ass with Teflon and kevlar
MIKE: Let's at least give him a chance
CROW & TOM: NO!

> As you know,

CROW: [as Clinton] I'm as horny as a billygoat with half the discretion

> in a deposition in January,

MIKE: Note that he didn't say which January in which century leaving him a clear loophole

> I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

TOM: [as Clinton] Needless to say I was so aroused I couldn't continue

> While my answers were legally accurate,

CROW: They lacked that certain finesse only lies can give..

> I did not volunteer information.

CROW: He even has draft dodging information. Color me impressed
MIKE: Why not simply blame the information for not volunteering itself?

> Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not
> appropriate.

CROW: And you've hidden it SO well.
TOM: [as Clinton]We had sex. The really dirty kind.

> In fact, it was wrong.

MIKE: As is all sex with Miss Lewinsky.

> It constituted a critical lapse in judgment

TOM: Occurring on 37 separate occasions...
CROW: ...over a period of 18 months
MIKE: Hey, if you're going to lapse, you might as well make it a biggin'

> and a personal failure on my part

MIKE: To have her silenced in time.

> for which I am solely and completely responsible.

CROW: [feigning shock]You? The President? Responsible? For your own actions!? Whoa. Who saw that one coming?

> But I told the grand jury today and I say to you now

MIKE: 'Gimme a second, I'll think of something'
CROW: 'Wilt Chamberlain was an amateur!'

> that at no time did I ask anyone to lie,

TOM: Which would seem a big mistake, in retrospect

> to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action.

MIKE: Hey, you've told us the truth so far, why wouldn't we believe you?

> I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a
> false impression.

TOM: [as Clinton] The implication that I ever tell the truth has hopefully been forever dispelled.

> I misled people, including even my wife.

TOM: Curiously, that would make her the only one misled at all.
MIKE: Of course because that misleading took the form of bald face might have furthered those false impressions

> I deeply regret that.

TOM: We all do, Bill. We all do.

> I can only tell you I was motivated by many factors.

CROW: A perpetually raging hard on was but one among many

> First, by a desire to protect myself from the embarrassment of my own
> conduct.

MIKE: And we *feel* your shame.

> I was also very concerned about protecting my family.

TOM: [sneers] From everything but venereal diseases.
MIKE: [as Clinton] Thankfully they have as little shame as I

> The fact that these questions were being asked in a politically inspired
> lawsuit, which has since been dismissed, was a consideration, too.

CROW: So, he hoped to de-politicize it by volunteering a lie on national television?
MIKE: If you watched more PBS you'd understand

> In addition, I had real and serious concerns about an independent counsel
> investigation

TOM: Believing the truth is out there

> that began with private business dealings 20 years ago,

CROW: And has since come to include politics and sex
TOM: Making it perfect for the next Jackie Collins novel

> ... dealings I might add about which an independent federal agency found
> no evidence of any wrongdoing by me or my wife over two years ago.

MIKE: Which federal agency is independent of the Presidency?
TOM: Must have missed that section of the constitution

> The independent counsel investigation moved on to my staff and friends then
> into my private life.

CROW: [as Clinton] Luckily, I misled them as well

> And now the investigation itself is under investigation.

CROW: [Stan]"The truth has plagued our fragile earth for many years. We must end it."
TOM: "He's taken the responsibility... and hurled it at Ken Starr."

> This has gone on too long, cost too much and hurt too many innocent people.

CROW: How many people can say that about their genitals on national television?

> Now, this matter is between me, the two people I love most

CROW: [as Clinton]Myself and I.

> My wife and our daughter.

TOM: Kinky.
MIKE: Sounds like a good ole fashion Arkansas threesome to me.
CROW: Do I want to know how you came to be in possession of that information?

> and our God.

CROW: Sex between two people can be a beautiful thing but sex between four people... mmm mmm!
MIKE: And when one of them is God, well...
TOM: [announcer] God's spokesperson has released a statement denying ever having had any 'inappropriate relationship' Bill, Hillary or Chelsea Clinton.
CROW: [announcer] Satan immediately made a pre-emptive counter-statement with only five words, "Don't look at me, either."

> I must put it right, and I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so.

MIKE: Save tell the truth.
TOM: Let's not be unreasonable

> Nothing is more important to me personally.

CROW: Have you forsaken the almighty Twinkee, Bill?

> But it is private, and I intend to reclaim my family life for my family.

MIKE: I believe Lewinski pawned it

> It's nobody's business but ours.

TOM: And the Grand Jury, the Independent Council, the House Judiciary Committee, Monica..

> Even presidents have private lives.

CROW: Most have had this thing called discretion, however
MIKE: The rest had a modicum of taste.

> It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and

TOM: Begin pursuing abstract destruction

> the prying into private lives and get on with our national life.
[strange pause]

MIKE: We interrupt this announcement to increase dramatic tension.

> Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long,

CROW: So millions of Iraqis will have to die.

> and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this.

TOM: [as Clinton] All I wanted was a little blowjob, is that too much to ask for the leader of the freeworld?
CROW: I bet Saddam gets mucho ass

> That is all I can do.

TOM: [as Clinton] Other than the destruction of my competitors by bashing their heads in with blunt objects and feasting on their gooey insides
MIKE: What is this surprise you've got for us?
TOM: Oh you shall see

> Now it is time -- in fact, it is past time to move on.

MIKE: To women who don't talk so much

> We have important work to do

CROW: And interns to fondle.
TOM: Too easy, wouldn't you say?

> -- real opportunities to seize,

MIKE: Among other things

> real problems to solve,

TOM: Real lies to tell.
CROW: Oh and that was *much* better

> real security matters to face.

CROW: Cub scouts - the enemy within.

> And so tonight,

MIKE: I look forward to a rousing spanking from Hillary

> I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months,

CROW: And look forward to the production number sure to accompany my impeachment!"

> to repair the fabric of our national discourse,

TOM: [as Clinton] I intend to avoid all extra-marital intercourse

> and to return our attention to all the challenges

MIKE: Such as finding women who don't bear a striking resemblance to muppets
CROW: Leave us not forget the horrible threat posed by the evil cigarette cartels
TOM: With the rise in nicotine fiends mugging little old ladies who could forget?

> and all the promise of the next American century.

TOM: Therefore, since I cannot prove a leader, I am determined to prove a lover.
CROW: When you start going Shakespearean, I worry
MIKE: As should we all

[Tom rushes out]

> Thank you for watching. And good night.

CROW: That story had it all - lies, sex, and God.
MIKE: I love it when national policy is settled in the infomerical
format

[Exit Door Sequence]

I've seen some of Cronan's MSTings before -- he certainly had his moments. (David Hines did a lengthy series of MSTings as well, and his were almost always fall-down hilarious.)

This one's cute, though Jon Stewart managed to make some of the same points last night in about a tenth the time. :-)

TWL

"Actually, the part I found ironic was where Michael Moore, Mr. Free Speech, threatens to sue anyone who "maligns" his film."

Michael Moore likes to think of himself as being a funny guy so has anyone considered that maybe he's being facetious about suing people?

Charles,
Count me as one who is also tired of the weak, straw man argument that ANYONE who disagrees with this administration is...well, what exactly? Slandered? Persecuted? Karen didn't exactly say.
I guess it's just a given that from a liberal perspective, you're allowed to say anything you want, regardless of facts, and heaven forbid if someone disagrees with you strongly.
Ironically enough, this is part of what Moore has said in "Stupid White Men" and the recent Playboy interview.
Namely, that liberals in specific and Democrats in general have for the most part lost their spine. They refuse to fight for what they believe, if indeed they believe in anything besides holding on to power. I believe one quote was "Of course Democrats are mad at Nader. They're mad that they used to BE Nader, and realize that they no longer have the courage of their convictions to fight for what they believe in."
See, when I say that Moore doesn't have respect for many people - which so many automatically assumed was a partisan insult - I meaqnt what I said. Nothing more. Moore has as much contempt for fat-cat unions and sell-out Democrats as he does for big corporations and the Republicans.
It's tough not have a grudging respect for someone willing to put themselves on the line like that. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

I guess it's just a given that from a liberal perspective, you're allowed to say anything you want, regardless of facts, and heaven forbid if someone disagrees with you strongly.

And SPEAKING of weak, straw-man arguments...

TWL

A couple of quick observations:

Of course Moore's use of the title Fahrenheit 9/11 is an allusion, and there is nothing illegal or unethical about making allusions in and of itself.

But beyond the title, Moore's film doesn't have anything to do with Bradbury's story (in whatever media -- book, movie, stage play), and as such the allusion, such as it is, can be argued to be deceptive (or at least to be a weak use of good literary practice).

Meanwhile, folks keep pointing out -- correctly -- that titles cannot be copyrighted. But titles can be (and have been) trademarked. Star Trek®. Spider-Man®. Etc. ad infinitum. If Bradbury could demonstrate that Fahrenheit 451 had acquired trademark status -- and I've seen at least one intellectual property lawyer suggest that he could -- why, then he might have a case against Moore. (To be fair, that same lawyer also said he'd hate to be litigating either side of that case.)

It may be appropriate in this light to consider that the makers of Shrek 2 got permission from a certain major purveyor of coffee to use the parody-mark "Farbucks" in the film.

Last year, when Fox News was suing Al Franken over using "Fair and Balanced" in the title of his book, the Authors Guild compiled a list of other titles using others trademarks.

"Actually, the part I found ironic was where Michael Moore, Mr. Free Speech, threatens to sue anyone who 'maligns' his film."
I was under the impression his idea is to protect himself from libel. That is, you can criticize "Fahrenheit 9/11" on its merits all you like, but if you say something like "Michael Moore is an anti-American traitor whose movie doesn't have a single honest fact", then he'll drag you into the courts to prove it.

As for the anti-Moore attitudes bounced around... eh, it's the same groundless stuff from the conservative right. Despite all the folks who insist Moore is a liar, they still haven't proven that he's fabricated material. Anti-Moore web sites like bowlingfortruth.com invariably end up either splitting hairs ("Moore used clips from two different NRA conventions!") or told lies of their own (yes, Virginia, there is a bank that keeps rifles on-site for customers who open a new account).

And who knows? Maybe Fahrenheit 9/11 is so well-made that it can even persuade die-hard Bush supporters. Even the heavily-slanted Fox News admitted that the movie was "a tribute to patriotism" and "simply cannot be missed" (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122678,00.html). Can't wait to see that blurb on the billboards...

Meanwhile, folks keep pointing out -- correctly -- that titles cannot be copyrighted. But titles can be (and have been) trademarked. Star Trek®. Spider-Man®. Etc. ad infinitum. If Bradbury could demonstrate that Fahrenheit 451 had acquired trademark status -- and I've seen at least one intellectual property lawyer suggest that he could -- why, then he might have a case against Moore.

Sounds to me like the lawyer is grasping at straws. At least, I haven't seen any Fahrenheit 451 action figures, Fahrenheit 451 lunchboxes, Fahrenheit 451 comic books, or Fahrenheit 451 Underoos, have you?

One thing's for sure... I'm looking forward to seeing the movie.

Hopefully it'll inspire a few of the people sitting on the fence to vote liberal rather than fascist.

Tim,
Whatever.
I'm just going on personal experience and this thread in particular. You decided to bring Coulter into the conversation, another poster decided to use the tired "right-wing hosts that foam at the mouth and interrupt everyone who disagrees with them rant", and even Karen, whose opinions I usually respect, failed to give one. Instead, we got a blanket statement that implies that everybody who (or ANYBODY) that disagrees with this Administration....well, something bad must always happen to them! Of course, it was just left there to hang and interpret, as if we should all KNOW what happens to anybody who disagrees with Bush.Funny, but I don't seem to recall Bush's political opposition being sent to Guantonomo for speaking out, and it just gets tiresome to listen to ridiculous statements with no basis in fact.
But if you want to continue to make snide, snippy comments instead of the educated, reasoned discourse I have come to expect from you, well be my guest.

Kurt,
Ah, fascist. Haven't heard that one in a while. The sad part is you probably believe what you say.
Great way to exchange ideas:)

Sounds to me like the lawyer is grasping at straws. At least, I haven't seen any Fahrenheit 451 action figures, Fahrenheit 451 lunchboxes, Fahrenheit 451 comic books, or Fahrenheit 451 Underoos, have you?

Wrong shopping aisle. Check out the flamethrowers. :-)

TWL

Jerome,

You're missing the point. You can rant all you like about how people make unwarranted generalizations, but when you end on "it seems the cardinal rule of every liberal is so-and-so" you're shooting your own argument in the foot.

I'm not the one who's pigeonholed every member of the opposition into a neat little opinions-in-lockstep box with a label on top.

As for my "bringing Coulter in out of thin air", it's called paying attention to the past statements people have made and responding accordingly. I realize that most members of the Bush administration consider that dishonest ("no, we never said that Prague meeting was well confirmed"), but it's actually a pretty basic element of reasoned and logical discourse.

As for "nothing ever happens to them" -- I guess I must be imagining those commercials that linked Sen. Max Cleland with Saddam and labeled him as unpatriotic despite his losing three limbs in Vietnam and merely questioning Bush's plans. Yep, all my imagination.

See, saying "you know what happens to people" doesn't have to imply they're clamped in irons or quietly killed. Dishonest smear campaigns are much easier to start up, and often just as effective. I strongly suspect that's what Karen meant -- I know it's what I'd have meant in her place.

Feel free to ignore these points and mention something utterly tangential with a blanket anti-liberal generalization tossed in. You usually do.

TWL

I've interviewed "Weird Al" Yankovic in the past, so I come from a place of some knowledge on this, having spoken to him personally on exactly this subject.

Al does get permission from the songwriter (not necessarily the artist -- which is an important distinction in cases where the artist did not write the song) before he parodies a song. He doesn't HAVE to do so, but he feels it's the right thing to do. Legally speaking, you don't ever have to request permission to cover or parody a song as long as the songwriting royalties are paid. In the case of Al's parodies, it's a split of the royalties, as he receives a portion for his new lyrics.

Those familiar with Al may know that he also does "style parodies" and polka medlies. In the case of the latter, this is basically a cover version, so he doesn't have to ask permission; however, he negotiates with each songwriter so as to work out the percentage of the royalties they will receive. If any songwriter asks to be excluded or asks for too much money, they're left out. That's more on economics, though, as he negotiates a reduced royalty rate -- otherwise the medlies would be too expensive to do.

Style parodies are songs which Al does that intentionally mimic the style of another artist -- examples include "Dare to Be Stupid" (Devo), "Everything You Know is Wrong" (They Might Be Giants"), "Germs" (Nine Inch Nails) and "Bob" (Bob Dylan). In these cases, no permission is required or requested, as it's an all-new Al creation. These songs are intended as tributes to the artists, and Al only does them of artists he admires. Usually, they're flattered (at least one wasn't, though, and I know this because I was directly told so by the artist), and Devo's Mark Mothersbaugh was jealous of how thoroughly Al had deconstructed Devo.

Now, the infamous Coolio matter: Al did receive permission from the publishing company to parody "Gangsta's Paradise" as "Amish Paradise." Believing this meant Coolio was aware of -- and approved of -- the parody, he went forward. He didn't find out until after the record and video were released that this was not the case. Over the years Al has made overatures to Coolio but Coolio won't hear it. That said, there was nothing Coolio could do about it legally, and as has been mentioned previously, Coolio still cashed the checks. (And let's face it: "Gangsta's" was based around a sample to begin with, so how much moral high ground did Coolio have?)

Another instance where an artist was displeased with an Al parody was George Harrison, who wasn't happy when "I Got My Mind Set on You" was done as "This Song's Just Six Words Long." But in that case, Harrison hadn't written the song, he just popularised it, and Al did get the permission of the songwriter.

Other than that, there's never been a controversy with Al. He's on record as mentioning that he begged Ray Davies of the Kinks for YEARS before Davies finally agreed to allow him to parody "Lola" as "Yoda" (Davies felt the song was too personal to him and offered him the run of his library save that song, but eventually Al won him over). And as others have mentioned, this is exactly why Al hasn't parodied Prince, to name just one.

With the Eminem situation, Eminem gave permission for the parody, but later decided he didn't want a video done as the song was too important to him (this was after the song won an Oscar -- I believe the parody had already been approved and recorded before the Oscar was won). Al chose to scrap the video literally at the last minute to honor Eminem's wishes -- he didn't legally HAVE to, but again, he felt it was the right thing to do.

Al is generally very highly regarded in the music world, and many artists (most notably, Kurt Cobain) are on record as saying they knew they'd made it when Al requested permission to parody them.

The Negativland situation is another matter entirely. The problem was not so much in the marketing as in the piece used actual clips of U2's music (not a parody or a cover, but the actual original recording), and the combination of the two was seen as potentially misleading. They also hadn't paid for the samples, which is another factor, and still a third is the fact that the piece also made use of unlicensed, unapproved outtakes from Casey Kasem's radio show (in which the voice of Shaggy and Robin was quite ill-tempered and foul-mouthed, I might add). In my opinion, the piece was brilliant, but it was also a pretty clear copyright violation to commercially distribute it.

Fascinating stuff, Julio. Thanks. (I've seen a clip from Mothersbaugh talking about how good he thought "Dare to be Stupid" was; to this day it's one of my favorite Al songs ever. We almost had it played at our wedding reception. :-)

I assume you're not comfortable telling us which artist wasn't flattered by the style parody in question -- if so, understood.

I also always thought he got around the Prince situation nicely with "Wanna B Ur Lover" on his last album: sure, it's a style parody of Moby (I think I read that, anyway), but it's basically a style parody of Moby himself doing a Prince knock-off type of song.

TWL

Charles wrote:
Anyone else getting tired of hearing this untrue statement? What, pray tell, has happened to ANYONE who is critical?

Well, I guess the Dixie Chicks pocketbooks were a bit lighter after their criticism of Bush.

Imagine my embarrassment. Quite a brain cramp. Thanks to all for pointing out my dopey mistake typing "Roger Moore" when, in fact, I did mean "Michael Moore".

Peace,
Sean R-B

:) LOL!!!!

Sorry Sean, but the image of Michael Moore as James Bond just came to mind!!

RJM said:
"Well, I guess the Dixie Chicks pocketbooks were a bit lighter after their criticism of Bush."

Well, now that's an entirely different issue, isn't it? Tim brought up a better example with Cleland, although there were certainly other issues involved. You're talking about people making the choice not to financially support a trio of singers they disagree with. Since Ann Coulter's name has come up a couple times, have YOU ever bought an Ann Coulter book? If no, then does that prove that liberals are treating her unfairly because of her viewpoint?

Regardless, the Dixie Chicks came out of that OK, as a lot of people gleefully pointed out. They may have had some embarrasing bruises, but financially, they came out on top.

As far as Jerome's statement goes, yes, it is a blanket statement, but there is SOME truth to it. Kennedy and Gore have outright claimed that Bush betrayed his country with Iraq. Kerry has even said similar things, but not in as strong words. However, any time anyone brings up Kerry's voting record, it's "an attack on my patriotism," even if it has NOTHING to do with his patriotism. When the leaders of the Democratic party (and I don't mean rank and file, a distinction I think more people need to acknowledge) are acting in the way that Jerome mentioned, once again, that shrouds any reasonable debate on the actual issues. And I'm not talking about the good troll-shrouding thing going on, I'm talking about people ignoring what's important because they think they have a "gotcha" moment to wave in someone's face.

Do I agree with Bush all the time? No. Am I going to sit and listen to someone call him a traitor and ignore any rational discussion? No. Do I know enough about Kerry to make an informed decision? No. Am I going to rely on partisans pointing out a vote he made seven years ago and how it contradicts a comment he made on the phone to his golfing buddy thirty years ago? No. Problem is, all we're getting is either "traitor" or "Flip-flopper."

Right now, however, I'm feeling more hypocrisy from the leaders of the left-leaning than I am from the leaders of the right-leaning. To me, that speaks VOLUMES.

For those who've seen Bowling for Columbine..the commercial/video box shows a picture of a beagle wearing a hunters vest.

Does anything bad happen to the beagle?

As for folks who are ready to dismiss Fahrenheit 9/11 because Michael Moore allegedly lies, it's worth noting that The New York Times reports that he's making a big effort to keep this one factually bulletproof.

Here's one liberal (Christopher Hitchens) who would disagree with that assessment:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Bradbury would do well to read this article too. He might get the hint to lay off and let this film bury itself.

-Dave O'Connell

"I guess I must be imagining those commercials that linked Sen. Max Cleland with Saddam and labeled him as unpatriotic despite his losing three limbs in Vietnam and merely questioning Bush's plans. Yep, all my imagination."

The "Max Cleland was called unpatriotic" mythhas assumed such importance to many liberals that it seems almost churlish to remind them of the facts but here goes: from Rich Lowry:

"The case for foul play rests on a tough anti-Cleland ad that Chambliss broadcast featuring Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The ad didn't morph Cleland into either of these figures or say that he supported them. It noted at its beginning that the United States faced threats to its security as the screen was briefly divided into four squares, with bin Laden and Saddam in two of them and the other two filled with images of the American military."

"It went on to explain that Cleland had voted 11 times against a homeland-security bill that would have given President Bush the freedom from union strictures that he wanted in order to set up the new department. The bill was co-sponsored by his Georgia colleague Sen. Zell Miller, a fellow Democrat. Bush discussed details of the bill personally with Cleland, and Chambliss wrote him a letter prior to running his ad urging him to support the Bush version. Cleland still opposed it, setting himself up for the charge that he was voting with liberals and the public-employees unions against Bush and Georgia common sense."

"If you can't criticize the Senate votes of a senator in a Senate race, what can you criticize?"

Cleland's opponent won the endeorsement of the VFW--unlikely if he had truly smeared a vet.

And frankly, it's usually conservatives who trot out nonsensical bits about how if soemone has fought in the army or been wounded they are somehow immune to all further critisizm on issues of national defense. A bad argument. Cleland's injuries have no bearing on the validity of his position and visa versa.

Sorry, Bill. I'm not going to buy a picture that includes this as innocence personified.

Citing Cleland's opposition to the homeland-security bill --which, let's remember, Bush completely and utterly opposed creating UNTIL he could make it a campaign issue to smear Democrats with -- in an ad which features Osama and Saddam prominently sure as hell DOES claim that Cleland is giving aid and comfort to them. It doesn't do it explicitly, no -- but the linkage is clearly there.

The most charitable interpretation is that it's a sleazy ad. That's at best. It's most certainly an attempt to set him up in the voters' minds as "not on board the war on terror" -- let's recall that this is the same administration whose attorney general has EXPLICITLY stated that anyone who criticizes the war is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and with a defense secretary whose initial response to Abu Ghraib was to complain about the prevalence of digital cameras getting pictures to the press before they got to the Pentagon.

So no -- I'm not buying that the Cleland ad was just innocent business-as-usual. This administration has a persistent preference for stifling and quashing dissent in any form, and this is certainly an example.

And no, I'm not saying Cleland should be immune from criticism simply because of his injuries. I'm saying that charges that bear a particular relationship to his patriotism should be scrutinized carefully.

TWL

"Sorry, Bill. I'm not going to buy a picture that includes this as innocence personified."

What was that again about "straw man arguments"?

Charles,

When the leaders of the Democratic party (and I don't mean rank and file, a distinction I think more people need to acknowledge) are acting in the way that Jerome mentioned, once again, that shrouds any reasonable debate on the actual issues.

Only when they do it? Interesting distinction.

I completely agree with you that it's unproductive to avoid debate in favor of "gotcha" moments. We as a nation should be better than that.

However -- with all due respect, Charles, the Democratic party is not the one that started this fight. We tried to work with the Bush administration. In response, we have been trampled and belittled at every turn. The Congressional leadership has bent or broken rules to make sure its pet votes pass, has completely shut opposition out of the negotiating conferences, and has been willing to let bills die on the vine rather than give a millimeter. Hell, Frist is trying to abolish the filibuster, despite the fact that the GOP just adored it a decade or so ago -- and let's not even get into the multiple orgasms Tom DeLay gets into over gerrymandering.

Let's also remember that one of the actuaries who analyzed the drug-benefit bill was ordered not to reveal the true cost of the bill to Congress under penalty of losing his job. This is honest debate? Christ, Democrats and Republicans alike should be pissed off about that one.

This is not a group of people who are interested in honest debate. This is a group of people who want to control the game, and who are trying to change the rules to give themselves that control for generations.

We've tried playing nice. We got rolled.

It will not happen again.

(Disclaimer: please note that I am talking about the current leadership, and not all Republicans or all conservatives.)

TWL

Me:
"Sorry, Bill. I'm not going to buy a picture that includes this as innocence personified."

Bill:
What was that again about "straw man arguments"?

Fair enough. I don't know that I'd call this a straw man per se, but it was definitely hyperbolic and unnecessary. Consider it withdrawn.

Care to respond to the substance now?

TWL

Charles wrote:
have YOU ever bought an Ann Coulter book

No, but I've never bought an Al Franken book either.

So your point?

Sounds to me like the lawyer is grasping at straws. At least, I haven't seen any Fahrenheit 451 action figures, Fahrenheit 451 lunchboxes, Fahrenheit 451 comic books, or Fahrenheit 451 Underoos, have you?

Not to speak of, no -- though I would not take bets on there never having been a comics/graphic novel adaptation of the book.

However. Not all trademarks are registered trademarks,and trademark law (like copyright law) is a complicated animal. Neither I nor the IP lawyer said that the hypothetical trademark case would be clear-cut or that it would be wise to pursue it, only that it would be possible to argue it without getting laughed out of court.

Actually, if Mr. Bradbury had wanted to establish the "right" to complain about someone taking advantage of his intellectual property without his permission, he should have made a complaint against the movie "The Butterfly Effect." Now, admittedly, while they use the concept from "A Sound of Thunder" that going back into the past can/will change the present, they use "Chaos Theory" to explain it.

Meantime, every review I read made the point that it wasn't based on Bradbury's concept. I think the very fact that they had to defend against that thought means that they were counting on the confusion.

As far as Mr. Bradbury's selective choice of targets, I believe it is completely based on the political use. I remember Bradbury appearing on "Politically Incorrect" soon after Robert Packwood was shamed out of the Senate for sexually harrassing his employees. Bradbury's comment: so he pinched his secretary's butt; who hasn't?

Tom, the phrase "the Butterfly Effect" comes from chaos theory, not from Bradbury's story. The idea behind the concept is that the root cause of an event can be something seemingly insignificant, whose effect is leveraged by a series of results. The ultimate example of this is the flapping of a butterfly's wings in China causing a slight diversion of a particular stream of warm air, which, through a multiplicity of meterological events, results in a typhoon hitting Hawaii. It's supposed to illustrate that even chaos has an underlying cause - after all, if chaotic events happen just because, then there's little foundation for chaos theory, now is there?

The incident in "A Sound of Thunder" wasn't original with Bradbury - he just wrote one of the best stories around it. It's a particular application of the Butterfly Effect, and needn't involve a butterfly - stepping on just the wrong mutated vole in the late Cretacious should work even better...

"What, pray tell, has happened to ANYONE who is critical?"
Why don't you ask Valerie Plame, wife of former US ambassador Joe Wilson.

the credits should really say "based on the title of a novel by Isaac Asimov" and not much more.

Interestingly, the "novelization" of the movie is actually the orignal book of short stories, not a..well..novelizaTION of the movie

So, has anybody else taken note of the fact that the Bush Admin has already started to put together their smear campaign for Moore's new movie?

Posted by: Tim Lynch at June 22, 2004 02:41 PM

"However -- with all due respect, Charles, the Democratic party is not the one that started this fight. We tried to work with the Bush administration."

I don't know if I would characterize the Democrat's actions toward the Bush administration as working with him. There are still a fair number of liberals who won't even acknowledge that he won the election. If that is working with the opposition, I would hate to see what you consider an attack.

""What, pray tell, has happened to ANYONE who is critical?"
Why don't you ask Valerie Plame, wife of former US ambassador Joe Wilson?"

Damn, Scavenger! That was the point *I* was going to make!

Y'know, the other thing that I haven't seen brought up (maybe I just missed it) is that even if Moore deliberately did choose a title based on the Bradbury allusion, what, exactly, did he buy himself? Who really knows or cares about Ray Bradbury anymore? Spare me the list of awards he's won and classic stories he wrote. What I mean is, his name and the title "Farenheit 451" are not exactly currency.
This reminds me of when I was a reporter and I wrote an unflattering story about a member of a tiny little board in a tiny little town. The guy said to me later that he knew "we" (reporters) would do anything to sell papers. I know that's a fallback argument he got from watching TV but did he *really* think I called my editor the night I did that story and said, "You gotta bump up circulation, chief! That story I did for page B7 is going to blow the roof off! We're going to sell like hotcakes tomorrow!"?
Similarly, does anybody think that there are people out there saying "Well, I hated Michael Moore's other documentaries but this one has a title similar to an old science fiction story from that guy who I think died... Honey, get the kids in the car! It's movie time!"
Last, I, too, remember Bradbury's "Politically Incorrect" comment and it put him on my list of people whose work is stellar but who strike me as being real SOBs in their personal lives. (Also on that list are Bill Murray and Carmine Infantino.) I think Bradbury was trying to play the "crotchedy old man" but that goes over as well as the senior citizens snarling about how in their day, the races knew their place.

I don't know if I would characterize the Democrat's actions toward the Bush administration as working with him. There are still a fair number of liberals who won't even acknowledge that he won the election. If that is working with the opposition, I would hate to see what you consider an attack.

1) I don't think anyone currently holding office in DC (and thus in a position to work with or not work with the admin.) has made that claim of late.

2) One can work with the holder of an office even if one feels that the means by which he came to hold it are questionable. I doubt most of us support military coups, for example, but the US certainly works quite a bit with Musharraf.

3) Don't get me started on the screwed-up state of electoral politics in this country. :-) By any statistically valid count, the best conclusion is that NOBODY won Florida -- the problem is that we've no means to deal with that sort of situation. (I've said for years that instant-runoff voting is the way to go. I still think that.)

TWL

For those who've seen Bowling for Columbine..the commercial/video box shows a picture of a beagle wearing a hunters vest.

Does anything bad happen to the beagle?

Posted by: Tim Lynch at June 22, 2004 04:24 PM
"3) Don't get me started on the screwed-up state of electoral politics in this country. :-) By any statistically valid count, the best conclusion is that NOBODY won Florida -- the problem is that we've no means to deal with that sort of situation. (I've said for years that instant-runoff voting is the way to go. I still think that.)"

I was being a bit snide, but on this point I agree with you. I really wish both sides would put more effort into modernizing the electoral system instead of trying to work it to their advantage.

No argument there, Blackjack. I think I've said it before on one of the other political threads, but the first mainstream candidate who runs on a platform of instituting IRV will get one of the biggest campaign contributions I can possibly afford.

TWL

Tim Lynch posted:

Fascinating stuff, Julio. Thanks. (I've seen a clip from Mothersbaugh talking about how good he thought "Dare to be Stupid" was; to this day it's one of my favorite Al songs ever. We almost had it played at our wedding reception. :-)

Thanks for the compliment. Al was one of my favorite interviews ever, and he was a super-nice guy. I had him on my voice mail for months, and it's one of the few interviews I've done where I also bothered to get an autograph. And "Dare to Be Stupid" is way up there on my Al list, as well.

I assume you're not comfortable telling us which artist wasn't flattered by the style parody in question -- if so, understood.

Well, it was mentioned in the first interview I did with that artist and I also discussed it with Al when I interviewed him, so it's been revealed in print and online before. However, I'd want to provide the original quote to put the (very mild) objection of the original artist into context, and that interview isn't online, so I'd have to get home and pull out my archived print copy of the interview. I'll say this much for now: It's one of the ones I specifically mentioned. When I can get the exact quote, I will reveal it.

I also always thought he got around the Prince situation nicely with "Wanna B Ur Lover" on his last album: sure, it's a style parody of Moby (I think I read that, anyway), but it's basically a style parody of Moby himself doing a Prince knock-off type of song.

I saw "Wanna B Ur Lover" as a Prince style parody, and I think the spelling of the title clinches that. I wouldn't have thought of Moby at all. Now, Beck circa Midnight Vultures, I could see...

You know, just a thought on this title "controversy":

If Bradbury actually had any legal recourse here (which I don't believe he does), one of the results of the case would be that Entertainment Weekly would have to cease publication, as 95% of the headlines in that magazine are plays on famous titles...

"I really wish both sides would put more effort into modernizing the electoral system instead of trying to work it to their advantage."

Unfortunately, that's not going to happen for the very reason that they ARE opposing sides and the conflict between them rarely stops and only for things of world-shaking importance. It seems to me that the political environment has become more polarized since Clinton came into office, but I can't be sure because it could merely be an artifact of me becoming more politically aware.

Jerome - in a society in which neocons try to make the term "liberal" a dirty word, where people are told to keep their ideas and opinions to themselves, where a single, war-mongering mindset grows daily and our society's leaders are apparently above their own laws, the term fascist fits.

I don't mind conservatives. I'm all for people who are open to ideas, willing to debate, and hold educated opinions. But for the single minded "support the war or else" type of conservative, well, that's fascist. They might as well call themselves the NNANP (New North American Nazi Party) because that's what they are.

They call people like me "Pinko Commie Fags." To me, they are, in response, Fascist Nazi Scum.

Maybe after this coming election things will calm down a bit and we can have real Republicans in office again. Until then, I wait, and I suffer the fascists as best as I can.

And I always retain the right to call it like I see it.

"If Bradbury actually had any legal recourse here (which I don't believe he does), one of the results of the case would be that Entertainment Weekly would have to cease publication, as 95% of the headlines in that magazine are plays on famous titles..."

And the downside here would be...?

Incidentally, Julio, as I'm sitting here listening to "Running With Scissors", I have to wonder - did Al say what Steve Poltz thought of "Albuquerque"? I mean, if the style isn't an homage to the Rugburns' "Dick's Automotive", it's one of the most amazing coincidences I've ever run into... :)

Julio,

Sorry, my complete and total dorky mistake there. I meant Beck, not Moby. (All these one-name artists ... sheesh.) Most of the writeups I saw on the album (which I've since gone back and looked up) said Beck, though the Prince-style spelling is probably a hint as who he really wanted to be aping.

And Jonathan -- I don't know what "Albuquerque" is spoofing, but it's totally addictive. Gods, what a fantastic song.

TWL
"Hey, you've got weasels on your face..."

Tim says:
"Care to respond to the substance now?"

'kay. The hysteria over the Cleland "patriotism ads" has always seemed overblown to me, even more so given the far far higher degree of rhetoric expressed by those who got all teary eyed at the supposed hatchet job on Senator Cleland.

(As an aside, it is a bit of a surprise to me that "questioning one's patriotism" has become such a source of anger, as I would list patriotism way way down on the list of noble attributes. I believe that you once expressed the view that it would not be an altogether bad thing if the USA were NOT the world's greatest superpower. Such a view would probably make you less patriotic than me, as the word is commonly defined. But, as I say, that would hardly be a huge deal in my book. Lots of total bastards are quite patriotic. Charles De Gaul, for example.)

The Democrats cry "Attack on our Patriotism" so often that it has lost it's punch. When the republican chairman listed the various programs that Kerry had opposed it was met with the statement "Today, RNC chair Ed Gillespie made another desperate attack on the patriotism of John Kerry." Yawn.

And this from the guy who said that America, like Iraq, needs a regime change. Gee, you don't have to be Eisenstein to see the metaphor. Bush is like Saddam!

Which is my point--this is what politicians do! If Senator Cleland found that ad so over the top, he probably shouldn't be in politics. he would probably have had an embolism if he had been hit with an ad like the one that the NAACP ran against Bush. Remember that one--the one showing the chain dragging on a dirt road while the daughter of a black man slain by racists says that when Bush failed to sign a Hate Crime Bill "it was like my father was killed all over again." Wow! I'd say that that one went a bit beyond "linkage"!

In comparison, the Cleland as was a kiss from your grandma. Now, two wrongs don't make a right (though 2 rights make a left) but my own opinion is that if one collects the most negative ads from BOTH parties, the Cleland one will not be anywhere near the worst of the lot.

Was the ad unfair? A good argument could be made but you know, in 9/10 cases the ONLY honest ad would be something that goes like this--"My opponent is a decent person who thinks that their policies will make the world a better place. I think that he/she is misguided and it is MY policies that will achieve that end. Both of us have probably taken money from people who are totally out for their own good and I guess we just have to be careful that we don't let that color our position on the issues."

Which would be really sweet and all but I wouldn't recommend quitting your day job. You'd be killed by your own party for not going negative.

At any rate, I know that many Democrats will go to their graves thinking that the Cleland ad was one of the most egregious abuses in political history. Lucky for them most people haven't seen it. I'm sure that many of the same people will see the worst that Moveon.org can come up with against Bush and think "Well, that was harsh but true." So it goes.

RJM:
"have YOU ever bought an Ann Coulter book

No, but I've never bought an Al Franken book either.

So your point?"

Oh, you know what my point was. Jeez. You said the Dixie Chicks were punished. I pointed out that the government never did a damn thing to them, and besides a private person NOT buying something or NOT listening to something or a company NOT playing something on the radio isn't indicative of the threatening "this is what happens to ANYONE who speaks out against the administration." Last I checked, Bill Maher still has a job. Al Franken still has a job. Michael Moore still has a job. Barbra Streisand still has a job. If the job numbers go up any higher, Kerry's really gonna start sweating (OK...that was snide...I admit).

Scavenger:
"Why don't you ask Valerie Plame, wife of former US ambassador Joe Wilson?"

Even Bob Novak said that this was a non-story and wasn't true. He should know, being the guy who reported it and all.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20031001.shtml

I do acknowledge that it's the closest anyone's come to providing an example of what happens to "ANYBODY" who talks poorly of the administration, though.

Bill, you're wrong. Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong. It is in fact, THREE rights that make a left, and I not only expect a retraction but your first born.

Charles,

On Valerie Plame, you say:
Even Bob Novak said that this was a non-story and wasn't true. He should know, being the guy who reported it and all.

That's one of the more ... interesting bits of rationalization I've ever seen. The sonofabitch who outed a CIA agent says it wasn't malicious, so of course he must be telling the truth.

Um ... huh?

TWL
who wouldn't trust Bob Novak as far as he could comfortably spit out a rat

For whatever it's worth, I recall hearing "Weird Al" say that "Albuquerque" is a musical tribute to Frank Zappa.

Of course, given how Zappa's musical style went all over the place, I can understand why a lot of people didn't pick up on that... :-)

Me:
"Care to respond to the substance now?"

Bill:
'kay.

Great! When do you start? :-)

Sorry -- couldn't resist.

I'm not sure we've got all that many points of disagreement here, in some ways.

First:
(As an aside, it is a bit of a surprise to me that "questioning one's patriotism" has become such a source of anger, as I would list patriotism way way down on the list of noble attributes. I believe that you once expressed the view that it would not be an altogether bad thing if the USA were NOT the world's greatest superpower. Such a view would probably make you less patriotic than me, as the word is commonly defined.

You remember correctly, and I agree with that. However, what's important is the context in which the phrase is used. When the speaker is someone who wraps himself (or herself) in the flag so tightly that it becomes a tourniquet for the brain, "unpatriotic" is a word that becomes close kin to "baby-roasting." Take, for example, the word "faggot" -- I know gay people who use it to refer to one another and mean no malice by it, but if I were to walk up to a gay man (or woman, for that matter) and use it as a slur it'd be a big deal. This is similar, though less innately inflammatory (I hope!).

Besides, whether it's "unpatriotic" or not, running an ad accusing someone of giving aid and comfort to a known enemy is definitely a big deal regardless of the word you choose to use.

(As an aside: anyone else here remember the "Dinosaurs" episode around Gulf War I that dealt with the use of "patriotism" as a buzzword? Pretty funny stuff -- recommended.)

(As a second aside: suddenly I'm reminded of a moment in Mel Brooks' "History of the World, Part I". Oedipus is out begging, and Gregory Hines walks up to him. The dialogue: "Hey, Josephus!" "Hey, motherf***er." It's all in the context...)

At any rate, in some ways I agree with you: the "patriotism" card can be overplayed and often is -- and taken by itself, the Cleland ad probably isn't all that big a deal compared to other ads over the years (e.g. the infamous "daisy" ad against Goldwater). What concerns me, as I hope I made clear last time, is the rather different context in which that ad occurred. When the administration routinely links any and all criticism with anti-Americanism, when Bush's own press secretary says that people have to "watch what they say" in the wake of 9/11, and when evidence has surfaced that much of the populace is, to be frank, way too easily led about by the nose (cf. surveys showing that 60% of the country thinks Saddam personally orchestrated 9/11 due solely to implications made by those who benefited by such a linkage), the ad takes on a much bigger and uglier meaning.

Believe me, I'd love to get back to an era where (a) the ads were less negative, and (b) even if they were negative it wouldn't be as big a concern. But as I see it, that's not where we are.

I don't think it's one of the "most egregious abuses in political history". I do, however, think this administration as a whole is prone to such abuses, which is why I'm jumping on things like it much more than I was 10-15 years ago.

I hope that's sufficiently sane and reasoned for you. If not, we may be in "agree to disagree" territory here.

And lastly, as has been pointed out, if you really think "two rights make a left" you're living in massively non-Euclidean space. A-ha: your politics begin to make more sense to me now! :-)

TWL

Robert,

Given that "Genius in France" (the ultra-long song on the album AFTER "Albuquerque") is very obviously a Zappa parody (so obvious that even I got it), is it possible you mixed the two songs up, or that the person you heard it from did?

TWL

Tim:
"That's one of the more ... interesting bits of rationalization I've ever seen. The sonofabitch who outed a CIA agent says it wasn't malicious, so of course he must be telling the truth."

Well, won't argue with you about the SOB line, but the point is that there was NO PLANNED LEAK. Bottom line. Horse's as...mouth. I mean mouth. OK, you can choose to believe or disbelieve him, but other than him being an utter tool, there's no reason to disbelieve him. The stories that were circulated to MAKE it seem like there was a planned leak ("The Bushies called six reporters before they duped Novak!") were a lie. Anyway, that's all I'm saying. There's not one single shred of evidence to believe that the revelation that she was a CIA agent (which was already public knowledge in Washington) was a pinpoint attack on Wilson. It's attractive, but not true.

Charles,
There's not one single shred of evidence to believe that the revelation that she was a CIA agent (which was already public knowledge in Washington) was a pinpoint attack on Wilson.

Other than the fact that the only reason she was ever mentioned was as a way for Novak to try discrediting Wilson, of course. It's not like he was in the middle of some other article and said "oh, by the way, Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA operative." That timing goes way beyond suspicious.

The only evidence you've cited at this point for Plame's status being "public knowledge in Washington", by the way, is Novak's own claim of such. You'll have to forgive me if I don't find that especially credible.

You can believe there was no planned leak if you like, but I'm going to wait for the grand jury findings all the same.

TWL

Ummm ,let me say that I plan on seeing the movie for my own curiousity.If Ray bradbury has a problem with the movie or Mr Moore thats what the courts are for.In a slightly on/off topic does anyone but me have a problem with some websites showing pictures of the recent beheadings,and other gruesome scenes under the guise of "showing what our enemies are capable of".I mean September 11,Khobar Towers and other attacks show what they are capable of.The pictures are awful and somethings are best left unseen .

OK, I'm going to have a long talk with the buddy that sent me this link, because I've spent too much of this day here!

Onward!

My new best friend Tim says:
"the only reason she was ever mentioned was as a way for Novak to try discrediting Wilson, of course. It's not like he was in the middle of some other article and said "oh, by the way, Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA operative." That timing goes way beyond suspicious."

Well, it came up in the course of questioning. That's what reporters do. Novak asked how he got the job, someone said probably because of his wife. Boom. Nobody called Novak and said, "Hey, guess how Wilson got his job!" Where's the planned attack? Ok, granted, people in the Bush White House weren't HAPPY with Wilson, and may have gotten a bit snippy when asked ANOTHER question about the guy, but explain to me where the evidence is that there was anything more than a cock-up?

"The only evidence you've cited at this point for Plame's status being "public knowledge in Washington", by the way, is Novak's own claim of such. You'll have to forgive me if I don't find that especially credible."

I didn't offer ANY evidence, as point of fact...but, the ORIGINAL source for that is:

http://tinyurl.com/yutfj

Again, you can choose to believe or disbelieve. At some point, you gotta quit calling everyone liars.

"You can believe there was no planned leak if you like, but I'm going to wait for the grand jury findings all the same."

Yeah, silly me, falling back on that innocent-until-proven-guilty thing...! I know it wasn't you who brought it up in the first place, but it does seem like you've already made up your mind.

Charles,

OK, I'm going to have a long talk with the buddy that sent me this link, because I've spent too much of this day here!

Welcome to the club...

The only evidence you've cited at this point for Plame's status being "public knowledge in Washington", by the way, is Novak's own claim of such. You'll have to forgive me if I don't find that especially credible.

I didn't offer ANY evidence, as point of fact...but, the ORIGINAL source for that is:

That's more information than I had before -- I hadn't seen this. Thank you.

Again, you can choose to believe or disbelieve. At some point, you gotta quit calling everyone liars.

I wasn't aware that I had been doing so. A few people, yes; everyone (or even a reasonable facsimile), no.

You can believe there was no planned leak if you like, but I'm going to wait for the grand jury findings all the same.

Yeah, silly me, falling back on that innocent-until-proven-guilty thing...!

Okay, now THAT one was uncalled-for. I'm not on a jury examining his case, nor did I say anything other than "I'm going to wait for the findings." Those findings are presumably what the grand jury is empaneled to give us in the first place, yes?

Honestly.

I had more to say, but frankly at this point I'm not sure what either of us would get out of it. Feel free to let me know if you want to continue this conversation.

TWL

"Bill, you're wrong. Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong. It is in fact, THREE rights that make a left, and I not only expect a retraction but your first born."

Ha! Here's you're retraction...AND a 14 year old girl who will need to be supported in the manner to which she has grown accustomed. On the bright side...you won't need those encyclopedias any more because she KNOWS EVERYTHING!

Something tells me Charles just came out on the wrong end of THAT deal. :-)

TWL

Tim says:
"When the administration routinely links any and all criticism with anti-Americanism, when Bush's own press secretary says that people have to "watch what they say" in the wake of 9/11..."

Well, here I go again. Another popular liberal line that doesn't QUITE hold up under scrutiny. The actual thing that Fleischer said:

"I'm aware of the press reports about what he said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it (sic) unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is"

Why do folks leave out so much? Well, they would have to explain what the "earlier question" was all about and then it would turn out that it was about a jerk congressman who made some racist statement about Sikh-Americans. So Fleischer was saying that there was not a good time to be making racist statements or calling American soldiers "cowards".

It had nothing to do with disagreeing with US policy or the Bush administration. But folks can go right on pretending that it did.

But with Google it sure is a whole lot harder to get away with it.

I'm well aware of the context of the statement, Bill, and it doesn't really help very much. Even in context, saying "all Americans ... need to watch what they say, watch what they do" is creating an oppressive atmosphere.

I'm not "pretending" something I don't believe and haven't thought through -- and to be blunt, it's more than a little exasperating when you assume I'm simply spouting a "popular liberal line" without actually doing the research and thinking for myself.

That sort of condescension is something I've always thought you were better than. Or was I "pretending" that as well?

TWL

Tim,

I meant no offense, but I can easily see how my last lines would tick you off. I apologize--I was thinking of the folks who just repeat what they've heard without checking it out (and I myself have been guilty of that).

We will have to agree to disagree on Fleischer. I think it requires one to be awfully quick to see oppresion when reading his statements. I've told students that they must watch what they say in regards to other cultures or races--I was certainly not trying to oppress their little minds.

At any rate, when one sees the whole quote and the context it certainly diminishes the power of that quote as an example of the chilling oppression of our free speech by the nefarious Bush regime.

I've told students that they must watch what they say in regards to other cultures or races--I was certainly not trying to oppress their little minds.

And if you say the entire clause, it doesn't come off as such. Fleischer didn't -- and even in context, it comes off as far too broad a statement for my liking.

Not surprisingly, as a result I disagree that the quote's "power" is diminished by the context. But, as you say, we're now in agree-to-disagree territory.

Thanks for the apology. I've certainly caused my share of inadvertent offense in the past as well, though not to you (as well as I recall, anyway). Guess we both need to (wait for it...) watch what we say.

TWL

Posted by: Scavenger at June 22, 2004 04:35 PM
>For those who've seen Bowling for Columbine..the commercial/video box shows a picture of a beagle wearing a hunters vest.

>Does anything bad happen to the beagle?

Besides being brought up by some guys with no fasion sense, not a thing in the world.

Tim,

One further point though--in all the times that i've seen that quote used I never once read anyone who mentioned that it was, in part, directed at a racist statement, NOT just at Bill Maher. Doesn't that seem to indicate a certain lack of certianty on the part of the quoters...or at least a fear that knowing the whole picture would make people less likely to come to the desired conclusion?

At any rate, the whole thing is out there so folks can come to the informed opinion they choose. (Seriously, I think that any politician, left or right, could do a whole lot worse than bookmarking this blog.)

Bill,

Given that I think the quote has a chilling effect regardless of its context, I'm not sure I'm the right person to be asking here ... but I've no doubt that some people deliberately shade the truth with it, sure. I'm just not especially sure it matters in this case.

But absolutely keep the whole thing out there. I'm pretty much always in favor of more transparency rather than less. (Well ... short of posting my tests up on the Web, I suppose.)

TWL

Jerome,

Tim says,
Dishonest smear campaigns are much easier to start up, and often just as effective. I strongly suspect that's what Karen meant.

Thank-you Tim, that's exactly what I meant. Look what happened to Richard Clarke just recently. He worked for the government for so many years, for Democrat and Republican alike, but as soon as he writes something critical of this adminstration they send out news releases that indicate he is a bitter man that didn't get the job he wanted. The smear against McCain, when it looked as though he might get the nomination, only shows how willing they are to smear anyone who says anything negative, not just us lefties. Karl Rove is very good at negative PR. Ken Starr spent billions to prove there wasn't anything he could pin on Clinton for Whitewater, but kept digging until he honed in on a matter that had nothing to do with the job. (Unless you want to start maligning Kennedy, too.)

Karen says:
"Ken Starr spent billions to prove there wasn't anything he could pin on Clinton for Whitewater, but kept digging until he honed in on a matter that had nothing to do with the job."

Billions??? Like many of my fishing stories, this seems to grow with the telling.

One could argue that perjury does have something to do with the chief executive of the land...but Bill Clinton is so September 10th it's hardly worth arguing about. I wish him well.

Another popular liberal line that doesn't QUITE hold up under scrutiny.

No worse than the popular conservative line in 2000 about how Al Gore personally and single-handed created the Internet.

One could argue that perjury does have something to do with the chief executive of the land

One could argue that, sometimes, trying to dig every skeleton out of a person's closet just for the sake of trying to ruin them... it just isn't worth it.

Frankly, in that whole shebang, impeachment attempt and all, all anybody needed to do was take one look at Lewinski, shake their heads, and wonder why Bill couldn't atleast have made a better choice.

Why do folks leave out so much [of the actual quote]?

You're right...why it's kinda like leaving out "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Does anything bad happen to the beagle?

Besides being brought up by some guys with no fasion sense, not a thing in the world.

Thanks Fred. Conservatives stomping on liberty at every moment, I can deal with. Liberals whining and blowing everything out of proportian...fine. Blind parisians...whatever...

But I won't cotten to bad things happening to beagles.

More answers to Al-related questions:

Geez, the reviews that pegged "Wanna B Ur Lover" as a Beck style parody must have been written by young'uns, indeed.

When I interviewed Al, Running With Scissors was the then-current album. We did discuss "Albuquwrque," but not very much in terms of the influences behind it, sorry. From the interview:

Q: I really liked the song "Albuquerque" on the new album...

A: Thanks!

Q: I was wondering if you actually wrote the lyrics stream-of-consciousness, or did you take a lot of time coming up with just the right lyrics?

A: Well, I didn't improvise it in the studio -- I mean, I did write out all the lyrics and rehearse with the band, like a regular song, but when I was writing the song, I tried to... Basically, I wrote down a lot of stream-of-consciousness things -- like with all my songs, I write in a notebook or in a computer file, and keep notes -- and I just let my brain wander for days and just wrote down everything that kind of came into my head. After all that, I kind of figured out how to make it into a song, just to kind of condense it... [laughs] into eleven-and-a-half minutes!

Q: Was it hard to set it to music?

A: Well, that particular song, no, because it's basically a rambling kind of a George Thorogood kind of two chord ramble [laughs]. There's not that much music to speak of!

Al is on record that "Genius in France" is a Zappa style parody (and how anyone could miss that is beyond me!). Dweezil Zappa even plays guitar on it, if I recall correctly.

The Al interview is online at Ink 19 for those interested. It does reveal the answer to the question of the artist that was less than thrilled about their style parody, though without their original quote -- still need to hunt that down, as that interview's not online.

"No worse than the popular conservative line in 2000 about how Al Gore personally and single-handed created the Internet."

Actually, the line was that Gore CLAIMED to have created the internet. I mean, actually doing what you said would be a feather in one's cap, don't you think?

For the few that care, the actual quote:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Well, since no one else has apparently gotten to it...nothing bad happens to the beagle...but does to its owner. Two Darwin Award-candidate hunters got the bright idea to dress the dog as a hunter to take pictures of it. Then one got the even brighter idea to mount a shotgun on his back. The gun slipped when he was kneeling in front of the dog, and he was lucky to get off with a bullet through the shin.

Aren't you glad you asked.

Brian

Check this out as far as Gore inventing the Internet:

"During his time in Congress, he took the initiative in supporting bills that helped create the Internet." And according to other Congressmen and Senators, Al Gore was, in fact, known for being the Senate's lead for Internet related activity.

That's a far cry from saying that he personally invented it, don't you think? Even though that's what got spun in the press.

Here's a site that explains this in more detail:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml

As a bit of clarification:

“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet,” Gore said. “I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth, environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.”

...

On March 18, Gore tried to clarify his remark in an interview with USA Today. “I did take the lead in the Congress,” he told Chuck Raasch; he described his Internet work in detail.

Actually, the line was that Gore CLAIMED to have created the internet.

He claimed to have took the INITIATIVE.

Big differnece there.

Glad to see you failed to notice. Unsurprising in the least.

"Billions??? Like many of my fishing stories, this seems to grow with the telling."

Yeah, this is silly -- if we had spent billions investigating Clinton's sex life, where would we get the money to pay Haliburton for their work in Iraq?

Though the last I looked, the budget for Ken Starr's six-year witch-hunt was still bigger than the budget for the current Congressional 9/11 commission. That ought to tell you what the priorities are for the Bush Administration and/or the Republican-controlled Congress...

craig says
"Actually, the line was that Gore CLAIMED to have created the internet.

He claimed to have took the INITIATIVE.

Big differnece there.

Glad to see you failed to notice. Unsurprising in the least."

Yep, unsurprising. Craig makes a mistake--he claims that conservatives said that Al Gore invented the internet. I point out that what was actually said about Gore was that he had CLAIMED to have invented the internet. I also supply the ACTUAL QUOTE to show that Gore did NOT in fact make the claim that some had blamed on him.

And Craig thinks I "failed to notice" the quote which I had, somehow, unconciuosly perhaps, typed into my comment.

Unsurprising.

You're living in your own little world, man. At least you can control the weather.

The point, Bill, is that Gore's quote does not back up what you say Gore's claim was -- at least, if you look at the broader context (which you correctly suggest everyone else do for quotes THEY use). That's the point you're ignoring.

You're being awfully snippy this week. End-of-teaching-year letdown or something? (I could certainly understand that, having had a few of my own over the years.)

TWL

Tim,
I'm holding my head in my hands here. Tell me where I went wrong:

1- Craig says that conservatives claimed that Al Gore invented the internet.

2- I reply that no, the actual accusation was that Gore had CLAIMED to have created the internet

3- I also supply the actual quote, to show how it was twisted into what had been claimed.

4- Craig replies that I have IGNORED what Al actually said. Despite my having used the actual quote. And he finds this "predicatble" because, I guess, anyone to the left of him is the kind of guy who like to twist words around.

5- You now claim that Gore's quote does not back up what I claim Gore said.

(I take a deep breath abnd supress my inner snippiness)

What did I claim Al Gore said? Reread my post. Where did I say that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet? Can't find it, right? That's because, (and already I feel my inner snippiness rising like GW Bush on election night after a second phone call from the guy who I never accused of having claimed to have invented the internet) I never claimed that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet. I said that this was the claim that people had made. And I supplied the quote that showed it to be wrong.

What did I do wrong? Were any of my facts not in order? I realize that I failed to SPELL OUT IN PAINFUL DETAIL that the quote I supplied showed that Al Gore did NOT claim to have invented the internet but I thought that was obvious...I mean, there's the quote. Hello!

My sin is one of omission--I should know how thin skinned some folks are and quick to assume that you are disagreeing with them, even when you are doing the EXACT OPPOSITE.

End-of-teaching-year-letdown??? I'm happy as a pig in feces! I shudder to think how snippy I'll be when school stars up again and some kids asks me "Mr Mulligan, what's your last name?"

So the beagle shoots the dumb person?
Makes sense...beagles hate dumb people.

Bill,

Mea culpa. I did in fact assume that you were bringing the issue up as something more than simply correcting Craig's miswording. I didn't see it as you providing the quote to show "how it was twisted" -- I saw it as you providing the quote as evidence to support the right's claim, not showing how the quote was twisted into a different claim entirely.

Given our past differences, I don't know that it was all that bizarre to assume that you'd take the chance to slam Gore, but you're absolutely right that I rushed to a conclusion. Apologies for the mix-up.

(As for "Mr. Mulligan, what's your last name?" -- a few years ago I had a student who'd e-mailed me a lab report but had it bounce. She brought it to me after the weekend, including the mail headers so we could figure out what was wrong. I quickly figured out the problem: the usernames at the school were (firstinitial)(lastname), and rather than use tlynch she'd used mlynch. I just handed it back to her and said "um ... I'm fairly certain my first name's not "mister." She was slightly embarrassed and we were both greatly amused. She did not, in fact, make that mistake again.)

TWL

Ok, That's just stupid. Didn't you say you were leaving (hint, hint).

Anyway, I'll be honest and say I'd never heard of Bradbury or F451. Would you recommend it?

Posted by: Colonel Cortez at June 23, 2004 04:36 PM

>Anyway, I'll be honest and say I'd never heard of Bradbury or F451. Would you recommend it?

I loved this book!!! I remember being in awe of the creativity behind the concept and it was executed very well too. Frighteningly vivid images come to mind when I read those pages.

I'd highly recommend it!

An aside.... if you dig that or are psyched about the upcoming Batman movie, rent Equalibrium on DVD. It stars Christian Bane, who is starring as Batman, puts the fight scenes and special effects of the Matrix to shame, and has many similarities to Bradbury's F451.

Fred

**An aside.... if you dig that or are psyched about the upcoming Batman movie, rent Equalibrium on DVD. It stars Christian Bane, who is starring as Batman, puts the fight scenes and special effects of the Matrix to shame, and has many similarities to Bradbury's F451**

Christian Bale.... nitpicky, I know...

Travis

Although if he treats the Bat as badly as Clooney did, I might start calling him Christian Bane...

"Although if he treats the Bat as badly as Clooney did, I might start calling him Christian Bane..."

actually, i blame joel shumacher more then clooney or kilmer. he's the man that killed the franchise.

Joe V.

"I'd never heard of Bradbury or F451. Would you recommend it?"

Oh definitely. A lovely book. The film version, by Truffant doesn't measure up, though there are a few very nice bits (it was Truffant's only film in English). Great score by Bernard Herrmann (though it sometimes doesn't seem to jibe with the film--editing problems?). It's got that cheesy 60s Euro sci-fi vibe--doesn't hold up well.

(I find it amusing that so many science fiction movies show a future where everyone dresses and looks alike, when the reality is that a glance down any school hallway will give evidence of a far greater degree of sartorial independence than ever.)

Tim,

No the assumption wasn't so bizarre, in retrospect. No harm done, except to my increasingly fragile psyche (they just cancelled Lollapalooza! My chance to make a monstrous embarrassment out of myself by grooving to the Pixies surrounded by kids half my age goes up in smoke. Sob.)

What I love about school kids is how they come to believe that we teachers have no life outside of school. They see you in the grocery store and are stunned--"Mr. Mulligan, what are you doing here?" like it's a friggin opium den or something. If they ever saw me walking out of a Liquor Store or Victoria's Secret I think their heads would explode like the finale of SCANNERS.

What I love about school kids is how they come to believe that we teachers have no life outside of school. They see you in the grocery store and are stunned--"Mr. Mulligan, what are you doing here?" like it's a friggin opium den or something. If they ever saw me walking out of a Liquor Store or Victoria's Secret I think their heads would explode like the finale of SCANNERS.

I think this is a function of youth. I have a number of actors in my troup who are (sigh) young enough to be my sons and daughters. When the topic of sex comes around, everything's fine until it gets around to me...and everyone takes the opportunity to go EEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWW!

[Folks, I'm (barely) middle aged....not DEAD!]

F451 was a god book ,i recall reading it for high
school and really enjoyed it.
As far as Bale as the Batman ,i am willing to give him and Christopher nolan a chance.Shumacher was obviously doing movies with out respect or attempt at being true to the material.
One of the better episodes of the Batman cartoon
had a bunch of kids describing Batman as they saw him.There was Frank,Bill,Bob,i think but they all pretty much blew off their friend Joel's version .Pretty funny

Bill and Roger,

Another "fascinations of youth" moment came when I told my students (juniors and seniors, all girls) that we had a baby on the way. There was, of course, a great deal of congratulating and high-pitched squealing and such ... but one girl asked, clearly a little apprehensive, "so ... do your parents know?"

"Uh ... yeah."
"What do they think?"
"Oh, they're happy. My mother's been hinting for a few years that a grandchild would be welcome."
"Wow. I think my mom would kill me."
"Yeah, hon, she would. I'm twice your age and married."

[No, I didn't say the last line, though something similar to the second sentence made it out.]

Talk about having trouble looking outside one's own worldview...

And on a different note -- I've never seen Truffaut's version of F451, but I'll certainly second recommendations for the book!

TWL

Oh, "Fahrenheit 451" is definitely great reading. Our library book discussion group did a reading on it last year. I even tried to get the Daily News to do a story on it. We had just done a story on censorship, so I thought it would be timely.
Great book.

Say what you will about Ann Coulter, but she is a BABE! At least in my humble opinion.
See? I know how to reduce the most intelligent and insightful discussion to the level of base mysogyny in no time.

Tomorrow is the big nationwide debut of Michael Moore's new movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11". So, as a tribute to the most popular author and film maker on the left, I've decided to post some of Michael Moore's best quotes.

Enjoy!

---

"If someone did this [9/11] to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes' destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!" -- Michael Moore On 9/12/2001

"There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told." -- Michael Moore, October 2003

"In terms of marketing (Fahrenheit 9/11), Front Row is getting a boost from organisations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to ask if there is anything they can do to support the film. And although Chacra says he and his company feel strongly that Fahrenheit is not anti-American, but anti-Bush, 'we can’t go against these organisations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria.'"

"I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a 'deserter.' What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar, and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants"

"Unfortunately, Bush and Co. are not through yet. This invasion and conquest will encourage them to do it again elsewhere. The real purpose of this war was to say to the rest of the world, "Don't Mess with Texas - If You Got What We Want, We're Coming to Get It!"

"(Americans) are possibly the dumbest people on the planet ... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pr*cks. We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.”

"DO YOU FEEL like you live in a nation of idiots? I used to console myself about the state of stupidity in this country by repeating this to myself: Even if there are two hundred million stone-cold idiots in this country, that leaves at least eighty million who will get what I'm saying..." -- P. 85 of "Stupid White Men"

"(T)he dumbest Brit here is smarter than the smartest American". -- Michael Moore At London’s Roundhouse Theater

"On his North American tour in support of Dude, Where’s My Country, Moore substituted Canadians for Britons, telling audiences that the “dumbest Canadian” in attendance could surely outwit 'the smartest American.'" -- Moorewatch

"There's a gullible side to the American people. They can be easily misled. Religion is the best device used to mislead them."

"I like America to some extent." -- Michael Moore's response after being asked "You do not seem to like the U.S., do you?"

"Moore wrote he'd once been "forced" to listen to my comments on a TV chat show, The McLaughlin Group. I had whined "on and on about the sorry state of American education," Moore said, and wound up by bellowing: "These kids don't even know what The Iliad and The Odyssey are!" Moore's interest was piqued, so the next day he said he called me. "Fred," he quoted himself as saying, "tell me what The Iliad and The Odyssey are." I started "hemming and hawing," Moore wrote. And then I said, according to Moore: "Well, they're . . . uh . . . you know . . . uh . . . okay, fine, you got me--I don't know what they're about. Happy now?" He'd smoked me out as a fraud, or maybe worse. The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels. One, I've never met Moore or even talked to him on the phone. And, two, I read both The Iliad and The Odyssey in my first year at the University of Virginia. Just for the record, I'd learned what they were about even before college." -- Fred Barnes

"White people scare the crap out of me. … I have never been attacked by a black person, never been evicted by a black person, never had my security deposit ripped off by a black landlord, never had a black landlord … never been pulled over by a black cop, never been sold a lemon by a black car salesman, never seen a black car salesman, never had a black person deny me a bank loan, never had a black person bury my movie, and I've never heard a black person say, 'We're going to eliminate ten thousand jobs here - have a nice day!'"

"It was when Moore went into a rant about how the passengers on the planes on 11 September were scaredy-cats because they were mostly white. If the passengers had included black men, he claimed, those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes, who as we all know take no disrespect from anybody." -- From an article by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown describing a Michael Moore show in London

"Since September 11, the Bush Administration has used that tragic event as a justification to rip up our constitution and our civil liberties. And I honestly believe that [with] one or two September 11s martial law will be declared in our country and we're inching towards a police state."

"The Patriot Act is the first step. "Mein Kampf" -- "Mein Kampf" was written long before Hitler came to power. And if the people of Germany had done something early on to stop these early signs, when the right-wing, when the extremists such as yourself (Bob Novak), decide that this is the way to go, if people don't speak up against this, you end up with something like they had in Germany. I don't want to get to that point."

"The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich."

"I think (Bin Laden is under the protective watch of) the United States, I think our government knows where (Bin Laden) is and I don't think we're going to be capturing him or killing him any time soon." -- Michael Moore in an interview with Bob Costas

You're living in your own little world, man. At least you can control the weather.

Well, atleast my memory isn't so short that I've already forgotten this particular point of the Republican 2000 campaign.

Moore is least half right on that last one more than likely. Bin Laden is already in custody and waiting to be "captured" around September or October, before the election... 3 to 1 odds on that one.

"Well, atleast my memory isn't so short that I've already forgotten this particular point of the Republican 2000 campaign."

Dude, you made a mistake. No big deal, but if you keep insisting on being right you look petty. Read my post again, carefully this time, and you'll see that we agree on the point you think we are arguing about.

Unless this is something really important for you to believe or you are one of those people who has WAY to much invested in being right (the first step into chronic Deeosity).

There's a reason why Tim, although we would probably disagree on 70% of any collection of issues one might gather, is one of the people I most respect on this blog. Which, with $5, would buy him a good cup of coffee at Starbucks, but there you are.

Hmmm... last time I went to Starbucks, I was able to get a really good cup of coffee for $3.97, including tax. You mean that being respected by you means Tim gets fined $1.03 by Starbucks? And what do Boomer and Apollo have to say about all this, anyway?

Well, I was including the $1.03 tip for the foxy coffee server with the mocha colored skin that soaks up the rich smell of java blend all day until it is literally wafting out of her pores...ok I gotta go now.

(Note to the Mrs when she reads this: Kidding! Love ya! Coffee scented women mean nothing to me! Pah! We will not talk of them again!)

"Moore wrote he'd once been "forced" to listen to my comments on a TV chat show, The McLaughlin Group. I had whined "on and on about the sorry state of American education," Moore said, and wound up by bellowing: "These kids don't even know what The Iliad and The Odyssey are!" Moore's interest was piqued, so the next day he said he called me. "Fred," he quoted himself as saying, "tell me what The Iliad and The Odyssey are." I started "hemming and hawing," Moore wrote. And then I said, according to Moore: "Well, they're . . . uh . . . you know . . . uh . . . okay, fine, you got me--I don't know what they're about. Happy now?" He'd smoked me out as a fraud, or maybe worse. The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels. One, I've never met Moore or even talked to him on the phone. And, two, I read both The Iliad and The Odyssey in my first year at the University of Virginia. Just for the record, I'd learned what they were about even before college." -- Fred Barnes

Read Michael's response to it over at:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=19

Heck, they reported about it in the washington post in 1988....
Again... this is an argument where you have to take someone's word. Fred Barnes or Michael Moore...
Moore does make a good point... if it was first in 1988, then why is Barnes bitching about it now?

Travis

Actually, i kinda doubt bin Laden's actually been captured - don't think they'd be able to keep the "chatter" on that quiet for so long - but it would not surprise me in the slightest if they knew his whereabouts and were simply waiting for the most politically advantageous time to bring him in. Like, say, a couple of weeks or so before the election, so the "bounce" wouldn't have time to wear off.

Brian

After reading Barnes and Moore one must come to the conclusion that, if Moore's account is true, both are guilty of lies. Barnes, for saying he never talked to Moore and Moore for making up quotes and reporting them as fact (Barnes is not unable to describe what the Illiad and Oddysey are about--he fails a 3 question quiz about the Illiad, Dante's Inferno, and a historical question about Alexander the Great.)

For the record, I would have flunked it with only 2 out of 3 correct. Oh well, blame it on the ravages of age.

Frankly, watching Moore vs Barnes is like watching Rodan vs Megalon; I don't much care who wins but it has a certain entertainment value.

No big deal, but if you keep insisting on being right you look petty

Well, comments such as this tend to drown out all else:
You're living in your own little world, man. At least you can control the weather.

I should probably just refrain from reading this board at 6am as well.

"Well, comments such as this tend to drown out all else:"You're living in your own little world, man. At least you can control the weather."

as does
"Glad to see you failed to notice. Unsurprising in the least."

Anyway...I apologize. I got snippy. Not having to wake up at early hours allows me to stay up way past my freshness date.

I was looking forward to seeing "F 9/11" here in Augusta, GA... imagine my surprise when none of the three local megaplexes (with at least 40 screens between them) are screening it. What gives? I'd heard that it's only opening on 850+ screens nationwide, and that conservative group MoveAmericaForward.org was actively pressuring theater owners not to show it, but I figured it'd at least get a limited showing here in AndyGriffithville. I'd be interested to know where the vast majority of theaters showing it are located; not in the South, methinks...
Now I'm debating with myself whether it's worth it to drive 2 hours to Atlanta or Columbia, SC to see it, or if I should just wait until it catches a head of steam at the box office (which analysts expect it to) and see it when it eventually screens here in town. I'd be really disappointed to find out local theater owners knuckled under to a political group, especially after they made a big deal about how 'liberal' their film-screening policy was back when "The Passion Of The Christ" came out.
And how can one 'Move America Forward' by suppressing viewpoints? Wouldn't that be more like 'Moving America Backward'? I mean, I respect a political group's right to an opinion, and their right to protest/campaign/boycott in order to further their cause, but in this case the group's name just strikes me as oxymoronic. Any other takers out there? :)
That OTHER John Byrne

BrakYeller,
I suspect the limited release of 9/11 is part of a strategy to generate good word of mouth--it's an easy sell in the cities but documentries tend to have limited appeal elsewhere. I'd wait a week and see what happens at that point--it'll still be playing in Atlanta for a good month or 2.

BrakYeller, I'm not sure how, but we the good people of Oklahoma City actually got a semi-premier here tonight of this film. One of ten cities allowed to do so (most of them are on the coasts)...
Nothing shocked me more... we're a very conservative state(with a lot of Democrats... farmers, ya know... and yes, there is such a thing as a conservative Democrat)
I ain't going, cause I don't have the cash... but it still is interesting... oh... and all of the "mini-premiere"'s profits go to charity. Moore demanded it.... didn't say what charity, just charity.

Travis

Bill- I'd had the same thought with regard to the word of mouth/build-up campaign. With so much against it from the outset (the fact that it's a documentary and therefore not a surefire moneymaker, the politicking surrounding its release, etc), that'd be the smart play. I guess I just don't want somebody who sees it before me to ruin it for me... as usually happens when I'm the last person on the planet to see a flick.
Travis- Perhaps, as Oklahoma City was the victim of a terrorist attack, and as Moore's documentary deals with terrorism, the politics there had something to do with OC getting a semi-premiere? I'm just spitballing here, and not trying to point fingers or anything.
tOjb

Joe Krolik,
I absolutely agree. Ann Coulter IS a major babe! Sharp as a tack too, which has a helluva lot to do with the first point.:)

I find it funny that a conservative group wants to have any tv ads for the movie pulled that would air in late July.

This is going to be a mistake, poking through two days of posts, and if anyone asks what I'm doing oon the computer for an hour, I'm surfing porn.

Tim:
"Yeah, silly me, falling back on that innocent-until-proven-guilty thing...!

Okay, now THAT one was uncalled-for. I'm not on a jury examining his case, nor did I say anything other than "I'm going to wait for the findings." Those findings are presumably what the grand jury is empaneled to give us in the first place, yes?"

Eep. I actually thought I was being clever...! Guess I haven't gotten the rythmn of the board down...OK, sorry it sounded snarky, but I do think that the point is true. Without evidence that there was an intentional, directed leak, I just can't in good conscience accept the situation.

(And hey, how did you make bold letters and italics? Teach meee!!!!)

It's funny, and by "funny" I mean "not funny at all," that I read this morning an article about how Monica Lewinsky is upset because Clinton and cronies destroyed her life...and it made me think of all the discrediting of the women who made accusations against Clinton, and how Larry Flynt stated he would go on a crusade against anyone who tried to ring up moral issues with Clinton...and yet it was Clinton who coined "politics of personal destruction" (or was it...it was someone in his circle).

So, what does this have to do with, well, anything? Just that I'm still irked by the statements that "anyone who speaks out against this administration is (fill in the blank) when the more I think about it, short of the $800,000 Paula Jones got, it was S.O.P for the previous administration too...

Which doesn't make it right for THIS administration (if it happens, which I still doubt), but I just want to put that false statement to rest, that's all.
Actually, since there seem to be a handful of us here, I'm a ten-year teacher vet myself. And when I taught freshmen, we read F-451. Small world.

Bill:
"Ha! Here's you're retraction...AND a 14 year old girl who will need to be supported in the manner to which she has grown accustomed. On the bright side...you won't need those encyclopedias any more because she KNOWS EVERYTHING!"

The manner to which she's grown accustomed? Dude, I thought you said you were a teacher...
Oh, he did not! He did not! Yeah, I went there.

Craig:
"I find it funny that a conservative group wants to have any tv ads for the movie pulled that would air in late July."

Well, that's only because it's currently LAW. Crappy law, but nonetheless. Michael Moore shouldn't have positioned it as something to affect the election (and he DID say that was his intention) and thereby pretty much making it a campaign issue. It's his own fault, and ENTIRELY appropriate for groups to call him on it.

On teachers having a life outside of their coffin:
Try going to a movie theater where one of your kids works. Try going with a date. Try not to strangle the dozens of kids the next day who want to know every detail, or even better, if you've slept with her.

On Fahrenheit 451:
Hey, I just Tivo-ed (Oooh...not comfortable "verbing" that word) Equilibrium. I thought that movie was amazing when I saw it in the theater, and the next day I told my AP kids to see it...not necessarily because it was related to Fahrenheit 451, which they read for me when they were freshmen, but because it was coooooooool. Gunkata! Yeah! It ain't no gymkata, it's Gunkata!

Charles K,

You have re-opened wounds that I thought had finally heared when you posted the work "gymkata."

GYMKATA!!!! My God I remember watching that movie in junior high. Wow. Remember AMERICAN NINJA. They made 3 of those, i think.

Joe V.

Charles:

Well my ex-wife is a neurologist so my beloved daughter has not had to live on the steady diet of cheap Raman noodles and cans of tuna in water that her Dad has had to endure (I jest--North Carolina pays a salary that affords me the opportunity to get the PREMIUM Ramen Noodles, with the little silver packs that prevent congealing).

Gymkata! Yes!. Whenever someone at school does anything at all athletically related--slips on a pool of blood outside the boy's room, for instance, and makes a good recovery--there are a few of us who yell out "Gymkata!". Nobody gets it but that's ok because it's all part of the technique of making the kids think that you have perilously lost your mind and they had best leave you alone.

Bill, your description of putting the students off-guard reminds me of G. Gordan Liddy's description of how to survive prison...because they are EXACTLY the same. I find the thought depressing, but not in the least surprising. Heck, most schools even look like prisons.

In all fairness, when I talk about the school and the kids it is mostly with my tongue firmly lodged in my cheek. I love the job, love the kids and the pay...well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. Teachers DO tend toward gallows humor; it's our nature.

Deano,
Responding to one of your posts from a bit back..
No. I do not have a problem with the beheading scenes being shown. It is reality. And those who have a problem with it being shown as "an example of what our enemies are capable of"...well, teachers in California got in hot water over showing the beheading and saying "This is what happens when you go to war". That's a bit over the top, especially for a young, captive audience.
Obviously, such images are going to afect almost all people, and in different ways.
But whether it's to support the war or to raise questions about it, I feel it is important that these images be shown.
Such images are not only part of the debate, they bring it into a sharp focus.
Pro-war people may actually question if the cost is worth it. Anti-war people may actually question if the price, in the face of such "monters', is indeed worth it.
It's easy to make antiseptic arguments and promote theories. For the majority of americans, this is a "TV war". Such scened may drive the point home with much more clarity for both sides.

One the Roger Moore debacle:

>>I also think well of Roger Moore, although his mouth does often run faster than his brain. Even so, he's funny, talented, and I believe well meaning.

>Would that be Roger Moore the actor, or Roger Moore the D&D game designer/writer/editor?

Moore actually posted on this topic as a gag in his gooflike FAQ section of his website:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/faq/

Fred

I just remembered something about Mr. Bradbury (I may be wrong so anybody please correct me).

Was it he that made an appearance once in Bill Maher's (defunct) Politically Incorrect show and say (when the topic turned to sexual harrassment) that had he not sexually harrassed his then girl friend (now wife) he wouldn't have been able to marry her (not exact words)? Or something to that effect?

The thing I keep coming back to is that his statement was said dead seriously almost gruffly and the panel (even Bill Maher)had expressions of "Holy @#%&! Did he just say what I think he said?

Again, if it wasn't him and my recollections are wrong to the WAY he said it, my advance apologies to Mr. Bradbury and his devoted fans (I count myself as one of them, BTW).

While I haven't seen the new film, I have some thoughts I'd like to share.

One of the biggest problems we face is the lack of a total truth by the media on what is going on in the world. This has caused many to believe one side of things, and not have everything to help form one's opinion.

I don't know if there is any problems going on in setting up the Republican Convention, but it seems the local media is harping like crazy on what is going with the Democratic convention.

One problem is that we have a police union picketing. They have been working without a contract for over two years now. TWO YEARS. While the brunt of this problem is on the shoulders of the city's mayor, I don't see the governor of Massachusetts lifting a finger to try to help get this situation resolved. Granted, he is a Republican and the convention is a Democratic one.

One thing being brought up with the picketing is that there is protesting being done outside a mayor conference, and that John Kerry is to do a speech there. We all know the media will be going to show if Kerry crosses the line to do the speech.

On Fox News recently, the lieutenant governor was on to complain about Kerry's lack of time in the Senate while he's campaigning. The governor even has mentioned how Kerry 's vote could have saved a bill from not being passed that dealt with unemployement benefits, that it didn't pass by one vote. Yet, we don't hear about how many Senators were there to vote. Its the same as how we don't know how many State Senators were not present when the Constitutional Congress convened on gay marriage.

I have always been led to believe that "F451" was about fighting censorship, that people should be allowed to have ideas. If Mr. Bradbury is upset that Mr. Moore has used such a concept to talk about other media aspects to the Bush administration, then isn't he censoring information as well?

I have always been led to believe that "F451" was about fighting censorship, that people should be allowed to have ideas. If Mr. Bradbury is upset that Mr. Moore has used such a concept to talk about other media aspects to the Bush administration, then isn't he censoring information as well?

From what I gather, he's just irked that someone's using a riff on the title of one of his books in a political diatribe. Evidently he doesn't want people to assume (perhaps incorrectly) his endorsement based solely on that title. That's not censorship. As far as I know, he's done nothing to keep the information from being presented; he just doesn't seem to want it presented in a way linked to him.

Well my ex-wife is a neurologist so my beloved daughter has not had to live on the steady diet of cheap Raman noodles and cans of tuna in water that her Dad has had to endure (I jest--North Carolina pays a salary that affords me the opportunity to get the PREMIUM Ramen Noodles, with the little silver packs that prevent congealing).

I have no dependents, so the salary that the State of North Carolina pays is sufficient for me to live on sandwiches. Ain't public service grand?

Incidentally, on the Barnes v. Moore issue, did anyone else note that two of the three questions that Barnes "failed" have nothing to do with the books he was allegedly being quizzed on? (Alexander the Great lived 800 years after the Iliad was set, and Achilleus wasn't killed by anyone in the book, although he was in the movie-- maybe Moore had an advance screenplay... 16 years in advance.)

I suspect that Moore, like most people, think that The Illiad also has the Trojan Horse in it as well.

Out of curiosity--from what sources DO we have all the parts of the Trajan War myth that are so familar but nowhere to be found in either of Homer's works? Were they aspects that were added to the story over time or were these stories well established in Homer's day?

Bill, regarding the "reality" of the Trojan War myth--there's is no single myth.
It should be remembered that Homer's telling (assuming there really was A Homer--even that can lead to literary discussions rivalling Shakespeare's legitimacy) is supposed to be the first written account of the epic. The saga had existed previously only through oral tellings and retellings, and as in so common in oral literature, changes are often made to the original story to suit the audience being entertained. (One source suggests that there is really no way that the Homeric "Iliad" could even be correct in that a recitation of the Homeric tale would take days, if not weeks, to complete, if done in the traditional fashion.)
One way to look at the Homeric take on "The Iliad" is to view it as "Homer" being more an editor than an author. Homer--assuming his existence as the person we believe him to be--likely took several existing stories, involving several similar personages, and combined them into a single narrative, even though the new narrative doesn't necessarily follow a single continuity. (There are a few disparate legends involving a Helen, all of which seem to refer to the legendary Helen of Troy, yet the different stories seem to span a timeframe of nearly a century, when contrasted to the framework of "The Iliad".)
Greek mythology has a wide number of conflicting tales, but then, too, many traditional American legends tend to conflict with each other (tales of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill, for instance, include a few versions which seem contradictory, but they don't make the overall legends any less enjoyable).

Bill, regarding the "reality" of the Trojan War myth--there's is no single myth.
It should be remembered that Homer's telling (assuming there really was A Homer--even that can lead to literary discussions rivalling Shakespeare's legitimacy) is supposed to be the first written account of the epic. The saga had existed previously only through oral tellings and retellings, and as in so common in oral literature, changes are often made to the original story to suit the audience being entertained. (One source suggests that there is really no way that the Homeric "Iliad" could even be correct in that a recitation of the Homeric tale would take days, if not weeks, to complete, if done in the traditional fashion.)
One way to look at the Homeric take on "The Iliad" is to view it as "Homer" being more an editor than an author. Homer--assuming his existence as the person we believe him to be--likely took several existing stories, involving several similar personages, and combined them into a single narrative, even though the new narrative doesn't necessarily follow a single continuity. (There are a few disparate legends involving a Helen, all of which seem to refer to the legendary Helen of Troy, yet the different stories seem to span a timeframe of nearly a century, when contrasted to the framework of "The Iliad".)
Greek mythology has a wide number of conflicting tales, but then, too, many traditional American legends tend to conflict with each other (tales of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill, for instance, include a few versions which seem contradictory, but they don't make the overall legends any less enjoyable).

Apologies for the double posting. Computer has been acting wonky lately.

One of the shows I saw around the time Troy was released in theatres was that not only had Homer perhaps taken many different stories regarding the Trojan War, but that the stories may have actually involved different wars over Troy (and the surrouding area) stretching over several centuries of time.

From THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS DEPARTMENT:

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is doing quite well, and you know what? Kudos.
I refuse to make any comments on the film itself until I have actually seen it (what a concept!), which I intend to do tomorrow.
Anyway, some friends of mine were joking that since the movie was so anti-Bush and so marketed by its creator as helping oust Bush, that it might run afoul of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" act.
We weren't serious, but it turns out the Federal Election Commission is.
The FEC is considering a ban on TV and radio ads for the flick after July 30. The new law bans corporate-funded ads that identify a federal candidate just before a primary or election - and, for purposes of stifling the political debate, the Republican National Convention is considered a primary.
This troubles me. I believe very stringly in Free Speech, and I feel that political ads, be they by corporations, "special interests", the Right of the Left, or the campaigns themselves, is the ONLY way for candidates and groups to get their message out to the media, whether you feel the media is Conservative, Liberal or "Fair and Balanced".
This is yet another example of what happens when the government tries to "fix" something.
And before anyone blames the FEC for being a Bush Administration tool, please keep in mind that none of Arnold Schwarzenegger's films were allowed to be shown a few weeks preceding the California gubernatorial election because it was felt they would violate the "Equal Time" provision.
I felt the decision then was both ridiculous and harmful to democracy, and I feel the same way about FEC's proposed action.
Because if it enacted, ask yourself:
How long will it be before they attempt to stop Moore from showing the film altogether, because of its partisan overtones?
How long will it be before they try to shut down - or censor - newspapers for their political slants?
Have affairs really come so far that because of McCain-Feingold, government has vested in itself the power to constrict the political debate - right before an election, when voices and opinions matter most?
This is "reform?"
This is what the McCain-Feingold law has wrought.
Yeah, Michael Moore can be a demagogue and a blowhard, but the First Amendment doesn't care about that.
Neither should Congress or the FEC.