Word is out that Ray Bradbury is torqued with Michael Moore over Moore’s titling his film “Fahrenheit 9/11.” Seems he doesn’t like the homage, if you will, to his classic tale of book burning and censorship.
I can see both sides of this one. On the one hand, Moore should’ve gotten Bradbury’s blessing. Then again,if he asked Bradbury’s permission, he’d have to be willing to toss the title if the response was negative, and Moore likely didn’t want to do it. On the other hand, I don’t exactly see where the author of “Something Wicked This Way Comes” gets to bìŧçh about riffing another author’s words. At least Moore changed his title rather than using a verbatim quote. And considering there’s going to be a new edition of “F451” coming up in a few weeks, what’s the harm in some free publicity?
I think Moore should stand firm with the title but offer to put a big ‘With thanks to Ray Bradbury” in the credits or, if that’s no longer possible, in the DVD release. Maybe even interview Bradbury for a DVD extra to get his take on what’s going on these days.
PAD
• 
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 Fágš.” 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’ “Ðìçk’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 bášŧárdš 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 dámņ 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 “fággøŧ” — 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 çøçk-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:
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