No White Chicks

Now it's official: It's Michael Moore's world; we're just livin' in it.

Comments

[Mark Fox]

I prefer Moore's cartoon persona: Peter Griffin.

http://www.planet-familyguy.com/characters/index.php?id=1

[Jarod]

If it really is Michael Moore's world, thank goodness we've entered the age of private space travel, because I'm out of here.

[Tully]

Don't forget DODGEBALL....

[Phil]

Wow, it's already made a lot of money -- that must mean it's good!

[Mike]

Michael Moore, Michael Moore
Riding through the land
Michael Moore, Michael Moore
Without a merry band
He steals from the poor
And gives to the rich
Stupid bitch

[Peter Parker]

Get it while you can 9/11, Spidey swings into town next week to clean up.

[Ray]

I don't do Hollywood so I don't know if that figure is relatively good or not but I'm sure it's not sustainable.

Those who have already seen it are the first and last hurrah. There are those who actually buy into Moore's drivel, a definite minority nation wide and make up maybe a third to a half of the initial box office receipts. The rest of them are rubber necking; like snow birds on the freeway looking at a car wreck.

[Andrew Lynch]

Ray,

Since you purport not to do Hollywood, we'll take your projections and comments on box-office receipts for what they are: hot air.

[tim]

moore wins the friday box office with only 1/3 the number of screens...disagree with him if you will, but there's no arguing wth success

[Jason Ligon]

Going out on a limb here:

If Moore's piece holds at least the 2 spot for three weeks, Bush is done.

This film is not so much a film as a proxy measure of the popularity of NotBush as a candidate.

[John Q]

It's interesting that those who usually proclaim the unimpeachable virtue of the market are so quick to rip into this movie. Just pondering, that's all . . . 🙂

[Eiki Martinson]

Well, that's what the free market is all about - occasionally putting up with vile jackasses like Moore. I rather like what Hitchens said: "Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish to do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film". But of course, that doesn't suggest that we shouldn't "rip into" the movie every chance we get - just don't try anything that looks even remotely like censorship (even Moore's leftist 'you have no right to not publish my books' version of censorship). After all, the last thing to do is to satisfy Moore's pathological self-martyrdom.

[Gimme Back My Dog]

John Q,

When we start suggesting the government should prevent people from seeing this movie to correct the problem, then you can point out our hypocrisy.

[Rick Barton]

Jason, Your prediction is noted.

I would not want to live in a MM ruled world. But I welcome his reel critiques of the real world. He can give us mostly crap, like his first flick, or perhaps something more substantial..????..I haven't seen the new one yet.

The Bush administration foreign policy certainly needs critiquing, and we can get it with quality and without leftist nonsense from: http://www.antiwar.com/ and from : http://www.amconmag.com/

[kevrob]

Pop culture, while it may not be "filth", is not a good marker for political success. Think of all the great counter-culture films, bands, even Broadway shows of the 1960's. What did that get us when election day rolled around? Nixon was elected twice, once in a landslide.

The Bushies aren't going to go see the Moore flick. They stay home on Saturday nights, barbecueing on the patio while the kids are watching Veggie Tales videos.

The wall-crawler will wipe the floor with everybody, from Doc Ock to the F4. (The Fat Fraud From Flint.)

Kevin
(am willing to see Moore's movie if I get comped.)

[Shady O'Grady]

Hollywood cabal agreed to release White Chicks as the only other movie to come out this week.

Anyone who is complaining about the movie should see it first. If you are worried about paying into the left wing echo chamber, just download it.

[Ruthless]

Now that Notbush seems to be the favorite, I'm wondering if nudest nudist web sites are getting more hits.

[Ruthless]

I haven't seen the long long minutes where Dubya continues to interact with those kids in Houston, but can't we empathize with a guy whose gut response is that it's senseless to rush to close the barn after the horses have escaped?

Of course we must wonder, after he finally goes on to create a Department of Homeland Security which is supposed to do just that.

[Perry]

Here is why i don't think that this whole F-911 thing matters very much in relation to the election.. [and no, I haven't seen the movie]

The movie is all about preaching to the converted. The only people I know that are really worked up about seeing this movie are the same people that I know that would never vote for Bush (or probably any republican, for that matter) anyways.

There isn't one republican on the planet thats going to get turned just by watching this movie.

And from all that i read about it, any swing voters that do see the movie and have one bit of critical thinking skills will question what the 'real' agenda of the movie is.. The over the top nature of the movie content may even make some potential voters rethink some of their own doubts about bush.

[Shady O'Grady]

"Moore is not the Left's equivalent of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, he's much more radical"

"Until the responsible left kicks the likes of him and George Soros out of the party, the Democrats better be prepared to be a minority party for a while."

I think the fact that Moore has not explictly called for anyone's death will poke a hole in your Michael is more radical than Ann argument.
And between her and Sun Myung Moon, I think you can also prove that a political party can survive exreme members.

[Phil]

What if Bill Clinton had done business with Tim McVeigh's brother, and 2 days after the Oklahoma City bombing Clinton had helped McVeigh's brother escape the country?

Of course, Bush didn't help anyone escape the country. Richard Clarke has said, and said explicitly, that the decision-making on that went no higher than him. I bet that fact isn't in Moore's movie.

Incidentally, why would they need to "escape" rather than simply "leave?" Are you implying that they were involved in the plotting? Is there some evidence offered by Moore to this effect?

I think the fact that Moore has not explictly called for anyone's death will poke a hole in your Michael is more radical than Ann argument.

Moore's reaction, on 9/11 itself, that if someone was "trying to get back at Bush" that they "hit the wrong buildings" is at least as sleazy and inexcusable as anything Coulter's ever said.

[thoreau]

I just saw the movie.

Season 2 of 24 suddenly seems more plausible.

Has anybody ruled out a connection between Al Qaeda and actor Tobin Bell?

[oddsman]

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the above site, which has an amusing clip that has gotten under Moore's skin. 🙂

[thoreau]

I've just uncovered a link between Tobin Bell and SD-6. Could Al Qaeda be next? 🙂

[iraqwarwrong]

Haven't seen this yet but I"m sure it's great because how could it not. I totally aggree with it The IRaq war was WRONG and all you complainers are just a bunch of nitt pickers. Especially how can you criticize a movie you haven't seen even seen what's that all about.

[digamma]

Man, that last scene in the stadium was awesome.

[Donny Cox]

Haven't seen this yet but I"m sure it's great because how could it not. I totally aggree with it The IRaq war was WRONG and all you complainers are just a bunch of nitt pickers. Especially how can you criticize a movie you haven't seen even seen what's that all about.

I haven't seen it yet, I plan to, I'm hoping to get in free (a friend of a friend works at the theatre) and I agree with Moore that Bush is an asshole and Iraq was a bad idea, but I don't agree with all of his other leftist crap, like when he stood outside the Canadian hospital in BFC so he could extol the virtues of socialized medicine, and it is for that reason I will continue to rip into Moore whenever he comes up in conversation.

[open source]

Here in Australia, I'd prefer much 'lesse' of Moore!

🙂

[Jon H]

Ruthless writes: "I haven't seen the long long minutes where Dubya continues to interact with those kids in Houston, but can't we empathize with a guy whose gut response is that it's senseless to rush to close the barn after the horses have escaped?"

You're talking about a guy who walks around with the nuclear launch code briefcase. He's supposed to act quickly and decisively in the case of emergency.

If, instead of being told about planes hitting the WTC, he'd been told that 2,000 Russian ICBMs were in flight, would you think it appropriate for him to sit there reading a childrens' book for 7 minutes?

The horses weren't out of the barn. He didn't know how many horses were involved. He only knew about 2. It might have been 10 altogether, for all he knew. Instead, there were only 4, so he got "lucky".

Frankly, Bush's actions were those of someone who's not in control, an underling. The fact that Cheney, not Bush, ordered that planes be shot down if necessary, even though Cheney has no authority to do so, strongly suggests that Cheney is the one with the the presidential role, and Bush is just a cheerleader.

[b-psycho]

there's one scene that should have made libertarians cringe: A convention for companies, many of them government contractors, looking for opportunities in Iraq. They just gushed about how much money they'll be able to make because of Bush's policy, and many of them added that a lot of their profit will be directly from Uncle Sam.

As usual...*sigh*

This type of crap is the reason the rhetoric of the Left gets even as far as it does. Companies that will gladly shove aside the market in exchange for corporate gubmint cheese, they ruin it for the rest of us and should be called out -- loudly -- as traitors to capitalism.

[crimethink]

I haven't seen it yet, I plan to, I'm hoping to get in free (a friend of a friend works at the theatre)

Just remember that thieves will be the first against the wall when the libertarian revolution comes.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Maybe with this latest success, he'll want to settle down and enjoy his new found fame and welath and, say, start dating Britney Spears. Oh, I forgot, she's already engaged...

[fyodor]

Phil, you're absolutely right, Richard Clarke's taking of responisibility for the flights of bin Laden family members during the flight ban is NOT in the movie.

Thoreau, with all due respect, you're comitting a fallacy that may or may not have a name but is very common and clear. You're saying that if the tables were turned, the other side would be making a stink. Well, maybe (and maybe the analogy isn't a good one), but that leaves aside the all important question of whether EITHER side SHOULD be making a stink! If you really think that Bush's family's business ties with bin Laden's family is a serious issue, please say so explicitly and and then say why, please do not just say the other side would be making a stink if the tables were turned because that tells us nothing. Maybe the other side is just as crassly opportunistic as Moore? Does doing what the idiots on the other side would do make what you're doing right?

Personally, I find the ties unsavory, but I didn't vote for Bush last time and am unlikely to do so this time anyway. And before I would use said ties as ammunition to convince someone else not to vote for him, I would feel the need to show that they led him to do something(s) very bad. Of course, if he's done something very bad, that speaks for itself, it doesn't even necessarily even matter WHY he did it. So far I've heard no evidence that the bin Laden family members who left the country shortly after the flight ban was lifted (not during the ban according to Snopes, although they did get to fly to their exit cities during the ban; I noticed that Moore never explicitly said they left the country during the ban, although most people would come away with that impression) would have aided an investigation, and, again according to Snopes, the FBI did NOT have any interest in interviewing those people, despite the opinion of ONE person interviewed on camera for F-9/11 who said something about some of the family members attending a wedding in Afghanistan. Even that person didn't claim those family members had any valuable info or that the FBI thought so. I judge the value of information by whether I would consider it helpful in convinging someone who disagreed with me, and I think this stuff just doesn't cut it.

[Mark Fox]

Would it be preferrable if non-US companies were eager to bid on Iraq-related business? Or perhaps if workers were excited to learn their company had a chance for safe and long-term contracts that would help send their kids to school?

The pursuit of work and profit is evil? The opportunities exist probably as a result of objectionable state action. The trouble it seems, is in the state creating the opportunities, not the people who seize them.

Anyone who feels guilty or shameful for the pain Bush has precipitated has an option to work at restoring Iraq without pay. Vultures are denigrated, as if they themselves created the carrion on which they feed. Such a perspective seems blindly idealistic, that vultures must not eat because it was wrong for the buffalo to die in the first place.

The buffalo is dead, Iraq is conquered. Play the cards you hold. Recriminations about past mistakes do not help those suffering.

[T Bone]

No one here said the pursuit of profit is evil. No one here disparaged vultures.

I agree that we shouldn't expect companies to turn down any opportunity created through government interference, no matter how immoral the govnt's actions. That's why government power should be limited, and violence should be outside the perameters of private enterprise. However, when it becomes possible for a company to influence government decisions - and in this country it is - then companies are not operating strictly within the market. We as consumers certainly should teach those companies trying to scramble through the holes in the market a lesson in capitalism before their ass get's all the way through.

[Jennifer]

The guy's just doing for the left what the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have been doing for the right for years, now. This is as close to Fair and balanced as American political commentary is likely to get, at least for the foreseeable future.

(I wanted to go see the movie last night, but all four showings at my local theater were sold out.)

[Shady O'Grady]

I actually know at least one intelligent, articulate, right wing parrot heads THAT HAS BEEN TURNED AROUND by this movie. I am not joking, one of these people who all the fun was arguing the facts and both sides did not see a snowball's chance in hell of converting. The movie is slanted but it is based in fact and fact alone, most of the time spoken by the guilty parties themselves. The connections are apparent, the extreme conclusions drawn by Moore need not be applied to see the disgusting business big government has become.

All of the stuff he highlights is out there, but is grossly underreported. Even as one of the few people who actually searched out international news to figure what was happening in this country, putting it all in one 2 hour piece was powerful, powerful stuff. I went to the Saturday matinee and it was packed to the gills with older folks, the movie takes very insightful commentaryfrom some older folks. You better believe the word will spread, and these more liberal older folks are now telling their conservative friends the same thing I am telling you. Critisize this movie, tear it apart, but see it first and realize what the right is afraid of here.

[crimethink]

I denigrated a vulture once. It was a most unsatisfying experience.

[Phil]

Hollywood cabal agreed to release White Chicks as the only other movie to come out this week.

Uh, I sincerely doubt that, however much I might dislike Moore. Given that a) release dates for major studio summer releases are often chosen two years in advance, and b) Moore didn't even know what his release date was going to be until about two or three weeks ago. No studio with any release that's expected to make any kind of serious money was about to change it now.

[Larry]

Moore is not the Left's equivalent of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, he's much more radical. He is the equivalent of the nuts how wrote books and made documentaries showing Clinton was a drug-dealing murderer.

[John Kluge]

Moore is to the left what the John Birch society was to the old right. Until the responsible left kicks the likes of him and George Soros out of the party, the Democrats better be prepared to be a minority party for a while.

[Jak King]

I hope that everyone gets to see John Pilger's superb 45-minute documentary called "Breaking The Silence". Covering he way that the US created "terrorists" they are currently battling, the documentary is made by one of the finest journalists of our generation.

It is free at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pilger_breaking_the_silence_35mb.htm

While I admire Michael Moore, his swashbuckling publicitry machine should not divert interested viewers from a piece that is better made.

[Jaybird]

I used to think that the John Birchers were nutcases...

[thoreau]

I actually think (no joke here) that Moore is much more mainstream than he's being credited with on this forum. He basically argues the aame things that many administration critics argue. Now, those points may be 100% wrong and it may in fact be that our Maximum Leader is Holy, Virtuous, Prudent, Brave, and Wise, but the fact remains that Moore's points are hardly outside the mainstream.

The thing is that Moore REALLY likes to have A LOT of FUN while making his points. It was priceless to see him in DC handing enlistment brochures to Congressman and encouraging them to sign their kids up to help the war effort. And he's good at making humorous use of images.

You might disagree with him 100%, but there's nothing particularly out-of-the-mainstream in his views. Maybe that means the left is full of dangerous ideas, or maybe it means that he's actually more moderate. Either way, his views are hardly unusual. The only thing different about Moore is the way he has fun.

[thoreau]

BTW, I'll be very interested to hear a refutation of the information presented in that movie. The conclusions are of course debatable. But the information? I'll be waiting.

And there's one scene that should have made libertarians cringe: A convention for companies, many of them government contractors, looking for opportunities in Iraq. They just gushed about how much money they'll be able to make because of Bush's policy, and many of them added that a lot of their profit will be directly from Uncle Sam. Many of them were NOT people who will use their skills to make better and cheaper widgets and sell them to Iraqis to earn an honest profit.

Crony capitalists gushing about how they'll profit from gov't policies always make me want to puke.

[fyodor]

Heard at the pre-opening midnight preview in Denver: "Did you like it?" "Yep. I agreed with it all."

I was glad it didn't annoy me as much as Bowling For Columbine, and I even laughed a few times (of course, with Bush as a subject that's like shooting fish in a barrel). Message wise, it's basically just "it's all for the oil" and "Bush is very very bad" and "I am your hero." Ho hum.

[EcoDude]

""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." --Michael Moore

Just like how all the corporations moved to Haiti and Somalia for the cheap labor right? Obviously, Moore has no idea that it's w/MP thats important...

[Captain]

Spare me, Thoreau. Moore is crackpot top to bottom. There are serious arguments against the war, but not ones dealing with childish conspiracies between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens. It's easy enough to look up clearly drawn refutations of his arguments on the web, but why bother when the idea that the secret motivation for what Bush did (e.g., his closenes to the Carlyle group, a wish to put a pipeline in Afghanistan) is too silly to take seriously to begin with.

As for all his alleged "facts," anyone could just as easily select actual facts (and ignore contrary arguments) to "prove" that the USA was the bad guy in WWII.

[thoreau]

What if Bill Clinton had done business with Tim McVeigh's brother, and 2 days after the Oklahoma City bombing Clinton had helped McVeigh's brother escape the country? Don't you think there would at least be a few raised eyebrows?

But when eyebrows are raised about Bush's actions, oh, we're just being paranoid!

[walden sucks]

"But I'm assuming that it's best to not criticize the gov't officials involved in the crony capitalism?"

Nope, go right ahead. But you bash people from profiting from the goverment, I really hope you don't use roads, US Post Office, etc. cause otherwise you are a hypocrite (though it isn't wrong to use those things, as you did put up the money).

[Kevin Parker]

"Getting the ads pulled from TV is counterproductive."

Maybe, but it helps show what a monster McCain-Feingold-Frankenstein is. "Hrrrrrnngnggggg!! Electioneeeeeering!! Aaaaaahhrrgg!! Likeness of caaaaanndidate!!"

[LightningTree]

The movie may be "preaching to the choir". But even so, it might encourage some choir singers to vote.

[Mark Fox]

crimethink: As long as you had the vulture's consent... 🙂

[Russ D]

Huh? He's talking about construction contracts, not usage. Mosey on over to Chicago to see Daley's paving contracts given to cronies, everybody gets to use the raods, but only the connected get to profit from building them.

[walden sucks]

Usage/contracts, it is still profiting off of tax money. We can quibble on the degree of tax-consumption, but unless you are the unabomber we all do it.

Condemn the taxes and I will cheer you on. But pretend you are holier-than-thou and above using other people's money and be prepared for me to laugh in your face, because it is just the usual libertarian mental-masturbation!!!! (or worse, just a pathetic attempt to appeal to commies!)

[thoreau]

My critic does raise some important points. I still think there's a difference between using a small portion of what's offered because, well, it's there, versus pulling political strings to get yourself a piece of the pie and then bragging about it.

And, just to prove that I'm fair and balanced, let me point out that I am against taxes and I realize that the left would be even worse. There, happy?

[MarkW]

What I find astonishing is that leaders of the Democratic Party are willing to turn out to honor Moore:

http://www.nbc10.com/entertainment/3455752/detail.html

Given what Moore has said, not just specifically about Bush, but about America and Americans in general:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/26/opinion/26BROO.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists

Is Moore any worse than, say, Ann Coulter? No, probably not (except that his influence is much greater than hers). But, as far as I know, the Republican leadership doesn't turn out to suck up and honor Coulter's new book releases (in fact, she managed to get herself canned by 'National Review' for being too far out there).

Given what Moore has already said, repeatedly, I'm trying to imagine what he would have to do or say to cause leading Democrats to keep their distance.

Man, I've seldom felt this alienated from both our major political parties.

[Kevin Carson]

Mark Fox,

Michael Moore's chin does not look like a scrotum.

[screw walden]

"Crony capitalists gushing about how they'll profit from gov't policies always make me want to puke."

But not a hint of vomit about the non-corporate crony capitalists of the bureaucracy.

Personally I see nothing wrong with profiting by governmetn contracts. It is stolen money, someone should at least get the value back in private hands.

But go back to sobbing about the evils of "state-capitalism"! Maybe you get a solidarity button from your leftist friends. It is sooo enterntaining.

[Russ D]

At least Moore is targeting the government, and one government leader especially, instead of private corporations (or in the case of "Bowling..." no one in particular).

I don't get the whole "seven minutes" thing. If you make a case that George W. Bush is basically stupid, wouldn't a quick reaction instead of a seven minute pause likely result in another fuck-up of some kind? In a movie, seven minutes of nothing is hell, in real life it's not.

Moore gets to do his movies, and people get to debate about the content. Sounds like a good thing to me. I just think it's funny that people will pay money to go to the theater to see the news. There's some Albert Brooks' "Real Life" humorous connection in there somewhere.

[question from sincere libertar]

What is the party line here, so I can be on track: That it is OK to lie at all costs to stop Bush? Or that F911 is just artistic fiction, but if you lie and say it is the truth that is OK if it stops Bush?

[fyodor]

Dear Sincere,

You ask too many questions!

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"You're talking about a guy who walks around with the nuclear launch code briefcase. He's supposed to act quickly and decisively in the case of emergency."

I think it's very dangerous to expect god-like forsight in our leaders. As far as Bush knew at that point, a "small airplane" hit the building and it would be quickly dealt with. I was with a disaster response organization at the time, and that is what we thought during the first 10 minutes. All this "My Pet Goat" hype is pure political cheap-shot.

We need to focus on what Bush did AFTERWARDS. The Department of Homeland Security is an extremely expensive mess and was a terrible idea from the very beginning.

[John Q]

Personally I see nothing wrong with profiting by governmetn contracts. It is stolen money, someone should at least get the value back in private hands.

That's great thinking, Einstein, but some of that money is mine and that of other readers of this blog. When billions of dollars are siphoned off by Halliburton and other "contractors" (a huge number suspiciously headquartered in NoVa), that only means we all have to pony up even more for roads, police and other frivolities.

[fyodor]

Look, the unstated (I believe) implication of the movie is that we went to war so that Haliburton et al can make big bucks off it, which is a whole different ballgame than there simply being taxpayer money available to opportunistic businesses. Now, is it true? I personally doubt it's that simple, though I don't doubt that friends of the administration having the opportunity to make big bucks helped "grease the wheels," so to speak. But I would hesitate to try to make that case per se because there essentially is no strong evidence for it. And the movie provides no evidence either, despite its brief scene of some gleeful folks talking about the big money to be in Iraq. In other words, the notion is dramatized in the movie but not proven. Of course, if Moore were into ferretting out such info, he'd be a journalist, and that would be so much less fun.

[dhex]

"(a huge number suspiciously headquartered in NoVa)"

they just don't want to walk too far to the trough, is all. 🙂

[fyodor]

to be *made* in Iraq...

[thoreau]

Personally I see nothing wrong with profiting by governmetn contracts. It is stolen money, someone should at least get the value back in private hands.

It's one thing to make the profit as long as it's there to be made. But it's rarely the case that gov't largesse to corporations springs up spontaneously and the corporations merely act like agents of the free market seeking profit. I don't know if any of the people actually in that film specifically lobbied Congress to invade Iraq (surely not! The hawks would NEVER, EVER do anything dishonest!), so I can't specifically claim that any of those contractors lobbied Congress to approve this war for the sake of profit. I do know, however, that there is a long history of corporations actively seeking protections from the market, rather than merely finding ways to profit from unsought gov't programs.

For instance, I seem to recall from John Stossel's recent article in Reason that agribusiness has actively campaigned for both farm subsidies and sugar tarriffs, because cane sugar competes with corn syrup in the sweeteners market. I also took some of my economics classes from a professor who was an expert on the airline industry. He observed that the major airlines preferred the status quo of regulation, and that when deregulation finally came new discount airlines entered and started taking some of their market share.

Anyway, I've just learned Hit&Run Lesson #6759 on Libertarian Purity: Criticism of crony capitalism is verboten unless accompanied by even more criticism of public officials. But I'm assuming that it's best to not criticize the gov't officials involved in the crony capitalism?

[thoreau]

Fyodor-

Even if the war wasn't fought for the specific purpose of enriching Halliburton et. al., it could still be considered crony capitalism if the bidding process were rigged. If, say, private contractors from various European countries were barred from bidding then that would give an advantage to politically connected US companies: Fewer chances for somebody else to offer better service at lower prices.

Or if, say, Halliburton were given a printing press for money...um, I mean a no-bid cost-plus contract, where they don't have to bid against others to get the contract, and they charge the gov't a fixed mark-up on whatever they spend on the project. That's an open invitation to do the project as expensively as possible, as opposed to "Here's a certain amount of money, now do the project, and if you don't make a profit in the course of fulfilling your contractual obligations that's your problem!" (You know, like the sort of arrangement I have with most businesses that I patronize as a consumer.)

[drf]

not to worry thoreau:

the law you cite is merely contained within the "for every criticism of 'conservativism', there must be an automatic criticism of the left with the 'of course it would be worse' statement".

it's the second law of bureaucrat-statics. it's just as important as the oldest rule in the book, which, of course, is not getting involved in a land war in asia. and you know the second oldest... 🙂

remember the criticism of the past election? "things under gore would be worse" is a standard concluding line.

cheers,
drf

[drf]

BTW, nice python (dennis moore) reference!

[fyodor]

thoreau,

Not points raised in the movie, IIRC, but good points in their own right, at least some of which have been previously debated in these (virtual) parts.

[Warren]

The numbers are too big for F911 to be "preaching to the choir". A lot of people are seeing this movie. And if there's one thing we can be sure of, it's that most folks don't think too hard about their politics. This film is definitely going to move people away from Bush. The Reps would have to launch an effective counter attack, but I don't think they got it in them. Getting the ads pulled from TV is counterproductive.

[test]

test