![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 9 to 33 of 33. Go back in thread:
Posted by bobby on June 29, 2004, at 20:47:27
In reply to Farhenheit 9/11, posted by Cass on June 29, 2004, at 12:26:23
I can't take Michael Moore too seriously. He looks like he's been freebasing ham.
Posted by jay on June 29, 2004, at 21:20:56
In reply to Opinions vs. Fact, posted by Snoozin on June 29, 2004, at 15:24:53
Well...I have disagree, politely, with you Susan. I've been following Moore and this movie and it's making. Much of it is based on his last book "Dude, Where's My Country?" He uses and names every single source, citation, quote...and has it all archived in his massive lawyers offices. It's stuff reported by the NY Times, Washington Post, BBC, CBC, etc. The more *popular* media tended to ignore these stories. (i.e. Fox...who is headed by a Bush friend...CNN..etc.)
If you get the chance...read his book (or books!) and see this movie...I beg of all of you, no matter what your political sway.
Best,
Jay :-)
Posted by jay on June 29, 2004, at 23:01:02
In reply to Re: Farhenheit 9/11, posted by john andrews on June 29, 2004, at 13:20:50
> thats the main problem with this documentary, people are going to take the info in the movie as fact when michael moore himself said that none of the accusations in the movie are based on any facts that he had......the movie was based solely >on his opinion and his opinion only.
Umm..no he didn't say this movie was just his opinion. (If you can get me the quote...great;-)
He has tons, archives organized by lawyers to back up every single claim in the movie. For more info..please see: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/f911facts/Any info you got..please share. :-)
Best,
Jay
Posted by gardenergirl on June 30, 2004, at 1:39:06
In reply to Wow I can't wait!, posted by Jai Narayan on June 29, 2004, at 20:14:49
Me neither. If I get a fair amount of work done this week, I am going to reward myself by going to see it. I have a signed copy of "Dude, Where's my Country" from when Michael Moore came to my school. I enjoyed his talk, and he was very personable while signing books, even at 11:30 pm.
Regards,
gg
Posted by Snoozin on June 30, 2004, at 9:15:36
In reply to Re: Opinions vs. Fact..Saw it...awesome movie! » Snoozin, posted by jay on June 29, 2004, at 21:20:56
>>He uses and names every single source, citation, quote...and has it all archived in his massive lawyers offices.
<<I did see the movie and I really liked it. I guess I wasn't clear on that with my first post. And yes, his facts are accurate. But he was drawing some connections that I didn't think were logical. I am not articulate enough to describe what I think about this. The only thing similar is when Bush was trying to convince us that Iraq was a threat and involved in the whole axis of evil, war on terror, 9/11 connections, I just didn't FEEL the true connection -- there was no logical nexus there for me. Same with some of the things in Moore's movie. Just some.But there were tons of things I agreed with. One is that we are all up in arms about the Patriot Act and its erosion of our civil rights.
But I kid you not, I never hear stories about how the new law has been abused. Never! Moore points them out. But where is our media? I am a news fiend, and watch CNN, FOX, BBC, and read myriads of news analyses, and I have yet to see these things reported, and that really bothers me.
>>It's stuff reported by the NY Times, Washington Post, BBC, CBC, etc. The more *popular* media tended to ignore these stories. (i.e. Fox...who is headed by a Bush friend...CNN..etc.)
<<Yes, I totally agree.>
> If you get the chance...read his book (or books!) and see this movie...I beg of all of you, no matter what your political sway.
<<I second that. I've read one book and seen two movies, and they are all very thought-provoking.
Posted by Snoozin on June 30, 2004, at 9:21:44
In reply to I've got an opinion » Snoozin, posted by Racer on June 29, 2004, at 19:13:29
>> but I happen to agree with him in general principles, so I'm interested in seeing how he does it.)
<<That's a good way to express it. I feel the same.But, unrelated I suppose, I am getting to the point now of not opposing the war, because it's done, it's happened, there's nothing we can do about it now. And I'm focusing on how we can find a resolution to this, help set up a viable representative government in Iraq and help rebuild their economic infrastructure. Whoever said, "we broke it, now we own it" -- I totally agree. We have a moral obligation to help get Iraq back on its feet.
>>Some of the cable news channels make me grind my teeth, because they present such an insular view of the world and such a paucity of Actual News.
<<God, yes. An *in depth story* on NBC Nightly News lasts about 2 minutes!
>>So many people I've come into contact with just don't seem to think of questioning what they hear from any one source.
<<Isn't it funny how some people complain the media is too liberal and too quick to point out everything Bush does that's wrong? And I sit here and wonder what the heck is going on that we don't know about? When it comes to news, I'm not liberal or conservative. I want the truth, and I want it all, so I can make up my own mind....
> (And I think the idea of encouraging Congresspeople to send their own sons and daughters into the military is a great one -- and to public schools, too, for that matter.)
<<I'll always love Jimmy Carter for that one, sending Amy to DC public schools. I live in Maryland, I know what that truly meant. And I admire it.
Posted by Snoozin on June 30, 2004, at 9:28:56
In reply to Re: Farhenheit 9/11, posted by john andrews on June 29, 2004, at 13:20:50
> thats the main problem with this documentary, people are going to take the info in the movie as fact when michael moore himself said that none of the accusations in the movie are based on any facts that he had......the movie was based solely on his opinion and his opinion only.
<<I agree that it can't truly be called a documentary. I think *Fog of War* was closer to that. But I think Moore is using a lot of factual data to present his distaste for the Bush Administration. I think it points out a lot of things that seem to fly under our media's radar screen, for whatever reason.
But then, as I've stated in other posts, I think it's also slanted enough to be considered an op/ed piece.
Someone on the Sunday morning news shows (to which I'm addicted, I'd marry Tim Russert if he weren't already married). Anyway, someone said Moore is a lot like Rush Limbaugh. He uses facts to present his opinion, yet his arguments are not always logical, and are based more on emotion. They are just on opposite sides of the political spectrum.
But I do think an open-minded individual can go in and see this movie and see what is fact and what is opinion, and then make up his or her own mind.
Personally, I didn't like the way he busted on our troops themselves. That was a real turn off for me. To my knowledge, he's never fought in combat, and really doesn't understand the psychological devastation that can occur from being required to kill other human beings.
But then I *loved* the piece about the policeman *infiltrating* a peace organization under the Patriot Act. That was just too cool.
Bottom line, EVERYONE should go see the film. And make up your own mind....
Posted by Racer on June 30, 2004, at 10:07:00
In reply to Re: I've got an opinion » Racer, posted by Snoozin on June 30, 2004, at 9:21:44
> (And I think the idea of encouraging Congresspeople to send their own sons and daughters into the military is a great one -- and to public schools, too, for that matter.)
<<I'll always love Jimmy Carter for that one, sending Amy to DC public schools. I live in Maryland, I know what that truly meant. And I admire it.Isn't it funny? I always did like Jimmy Carter -- even when he was president -- and I find it a little ironic that it's really only now that he's finally getting his due respect from the broader audience. He did a lot of good for this country, and I don't think he really gets credit for it. Sending his own child to public schools is one of those things that he really should receive credit for doing, but probably won't. {{sigh}}
At a campaign stop for Willie Brown in San Francisco a few years ago, when he was first running for mayor, someone asked him about public schools. I interupted (who, me?) to say, "Mr Brown has shown his support for San Francisco Public Schools through his actions -- his son Michael was in my class through grammar school, and not only that -- Mr Brown came to all the parents' nights." (And Willie Brown -- say what you like about him -- is a Smart Politician. There's a lot to be said for that, too. While I said that, I saw him looking at me, he came up to me later and chatted for a moment, and months later when we ran into one another in the Civic Center, he remembered my name, that I had gone to school with his son, and one other personal fact about me. Everyone else I've spoken to about him has said the same thing: he makes it a point to remember people by name, with one little personal thing, and it makes people feel good. That does count when we vote, even if the rest of the picture ain't so rosy.)
Thanks for the discussion, Snoozin.
Posted by Cass on June 30, 2004, at 11:48:07
In reply to Documentary or OP/ED Piece? » john andrews, posted by Snoozin on June 30, 2004, at 9:28:56
The success of Michael Moore's documentary is good news, and here's a little more good news. The Supreme Court isn't letting Bush assert omnipotence in taking away American rights.
The New York Times
June 29, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Court v. Bush
By ANTHONY LEWISWASHINGTON - A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it
comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." With those words, Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor confronted the claim of President Bush that the "war on
terror" entitles him to act without any meaningful check by the courts. She
and seven of her colleagues on the Supreme Court firmly rejected his
presumption of omnipotence.It was as profound a day in the court as any in a long time. The justices
did what they have often shied away from doing: said no to the argument that
the title commander-in-chief means that the president can do whatever he
says is necessary to win a war. In 1944, for example, the court upheld
President Franklin D. Roosevelt's order to remove Japanese-Americans from
their homes on the West Coast and confine them in desert camps - on the thin
argument, as it turned out false, that they might be disloyal.At issue yesterday was Mr. Bush's claim that he can label any American an
"enemy combatant" and hold him or her in prison indefinitely without trial
or access to counsel. The case involved Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American
citizen who was taken prisoner in Afghanistan and has been held in solitary
confinement in a Navy brig in South Carolina.Justice O'Connor, for herself and three other justices, upheld the
government's power to detain Mr. Hamdi under what she called the "narrow"
circumstance of his capture in Afghanistan. But the opinion, methodically
rejecting the administration's arguments, said he must be able to go to
court with a real chance to challenge his "enemy combatant" designation.The government argued that it need produce only "some evidence" that Mr.
Hamdi fought with the Taliban, which he denied. What it produced was a
statement by a Pentagon official that contained no firsthand evidence and
was never subject to cross-examination. Justice O'Connor said a process in
which government claims "are simply presumed correct without any opportunity
for the alleged combatant to demonstrate otherwise falls constitutionally
short."Justice O'Connor also fired a warning shot at what she said was the
"substantial" possibility that the administration would hold Mr. Hamdi for
the rest of his life. At times, in fact, her opinion seemed to be addressing
the president and his lawyers directly about constitutional values. In
challenging times, she said, "we must preserve our commitment at home to the
principles for which we fight abroad."Two other opinions in the Hamdi case underlined the extent of the Bush
administration's deceit. Justice David H. Souter, for himself and Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the president had no power to detain Mr. Hamdi at
all. Justice Antonin Scalia, for himself and Justice John Paul Stevens, said
that Mr. Hamdi had a right to trial by jury. "The very core of liberty,"
Justice Scalia said, "has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the
will of the executive." Only Justice Clarence Thomas endorsed the
president's approach.The administration also lost another critical case in which it claimed to be
exempt from the judicial process. It argued that federal courts had no
jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus cases brought by prisoners held at the
Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. A 6-to-3 majority rejected that
proposition.The extreme reach of the administration's view that a war president is not
subject to check by the other branches of government was apparent in the
recently disclosed memorandums on torturing prisoners. A Defense Department
memo from March 2003 said that "any effort by Congress to regulate the
interrogation of unlawful combatants would violate the Constitution's sole
vesting of the commander-in-chief authority in the president." The
administration later disavowed that argument. It would plainly fail the
Supreme Court's test.One of the few times the Court said no to a wartime president was in 1952.
Harry Truman had seized the country's steel mills to forestall a strike
during the Korean War. The court held his action unconstitutional. Justice
O'Connor, tellingly, cited the steel decision with her statement that war
does not give presidents a blank check.
Anthony Lewis is a former Times columnist
Posted by Snoozin on June 30, 2004, at 11:55:55
In reply to More good news!, posted by Cass on June 30, 2004, at 11:48:07
Yup, as an attorney, I totally agree.
When I was in my teens, the South African government held Stephen Biko, a PACIFIST black rights leader, in prison under that country's law called the *terrorist act* And the country held many others without the right to trial/representation/etc.
The government did not have to give a prisoner a judicial hearing to hear what charges he faced; he did not have a right to legal counsel; and the government could and did hold them indefinitely.
Seems like that's what we've been doing, too. As a *civilized* nation, I really hope we stop.
Posted by pegasus on June 30, 2004, at 17:46:13
In reply to Farhenheit 9/11, posted by Cass on June 29, 2004, at 12:26:23
The part that hit me the hardest was how the poor and disadvantaged were the ones fighting the war and getting maimed and killed. It's not the people who support the war, or even those who don't. It's the folks who don't have the luxury of any other plausible path success in their lives than joining the military. It just breaks my heart.
Also, I want to weigh in on the documentary vs. op/ed issue. I think this is called a documentary mainly because op/ed is not a recognized film category. So, it's either documentary or drama. It might include a lot of speculation and conclusions that might not be accepted by everyone, but all of the actual film footage was of things that were actually happening. It wasn't dramatized footage. So, it's a documentary. Personally, I don't think any documentary presents facts without proposing conclusions or presenting opinions. And if they did, they'd probably be pretty boring. Michael Moore may be more in-your-face than other documentarians with his opinions, but I don't think that makes this any less a documentary.
pegasus
Posted by Jai Narayan on July 1, 2004, at 18:35:32
In reply to Farhenheit 9/11, posted by Cass on June 29, 2004, at 12:26:23
1971 I was emotionally torn up about the war in Viet Nam and saw the movie "Z"
1991 I was emotionally destroyed about the war in the Gulf and a local man burning himself to death on our town common.
2001 Twin Towers, the war in Afganistan and then the carnage in the Gulf...way too much for an emotional person!
2004 the movie "Farhenheit 9/11"
Posted by Cass on July 2, 2004, at 12:00:47
In reply to I feel shell shocked....what a powerful film., posted by Jai Narayan on July 1, 2004, at 18:35:32
I'm not sure if I believe in the antichrist per se, but it's interesting that the pope may believe that Bush is the antichrist.
Pope fears Bush is antichrist, journalist contends - Church - journalist
Wayne Madsden - Brief ArticleWASHINGTON DC -- According to freelance journalist Wayne Madsden, "George W
Bush's blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs and his
constant references to 'evil doers,' in the eyes of many devout Catholic
leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of
Revelations--the anti-Christ."Madsen, a Washington-based writer and columnist, who often writes for
Counterpunch, says that people close to the pope claim that amid these
concerns, the pontiff wishes he was younger and in better health to confront
the possibility that Bush may represent the person prophesized in
Revelations. John Paul II has always believed the world was on the precipice
of the final confrontation between Good and Evil as foretold in the New
Testament.Before he became pope, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla said, "We are now standing in
the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through.
I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of
the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final
confrontation between the church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus
the anti-Gospel."The pope worked tirelessly to convince leaders of nations on the UN Security
Council to oppose Bush's war resolution on Iraq. Vatican sources claim they
had not seen the pope more animated and determined since he fell ill to
Parkinson's Disease. In the end, the pope did convince the leaders of
Mexico, Chile, Cameroon and Guinea to oppose the U.S. resolution.Madsen contends that "Bush is a dangerous right-wing ideologue who couples
his political fanaticism with a neo-Christian blood cult."COPYRIGHT 2003 Catholic New Times, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group
Posted by Snoozin on July 2, 2004, at 12:05:36
In reply to Bush, the antichrist?, posted by Cass on July 2, 2004, at 12:00:47
I think the Pope is a person in a glass house who shouldn't be launching RPGs. He needs to clean up his own *house* first, where the lack of his action is implicit sanction of child molestation in the Catholic Church.
Posted by TofuEmmy on July 2, 2004, at 12:42:24
In reply to Re: Bush, the antichrist? » Cass, posted by Snoozin on July 2, 2004, at 12:05:36
Run quick...you-know-who will return and make me look up ad hominem again!!
Emmy
Posted by Snoozin on July 2, 2004, at 12:43:00
In reply to Bush, the antichrist?, posted by Cass on July 2, 2004, at 12:00:47
Cass,
Sorry, I didn't mean that as anything against you. I guess the Pope/Catholic Church can really burn me up sometimes.
Susan
Posted by Snoozin on July 2, 2004, at 12:44:41
In reply to Re: Bush, the antichrist? » Snoozin, posted by TofuEmmy on July 2, 2004, at 12:42:24
> Run quick...you-know-who will return and make me look up ad hominem again!!
>
> Emmy<<Good one. I deserve that. :-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2004, at 19:30:54
In reply to Bush, the antichrist?, posted by Cass on July 2, 2004, at 12:00:47
> Bush, the antichrist?
Sorry, but I need to ask you not to exaggerate or overgeneralize. People who support him may be here, too. Thanks,
Bob
PS: Follow-ups regarding posting policies, and complaints about posts, should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration.
Posted by Cass on July 2, 2004, at 19:40:58
In reply to Re: Bush, the antichrist? » Cass, posted by Snoozin on July 2, 2004, at 12:05:36
Actually I agree with you, Snooz'n. I just think the article is interesting because it seems to show that distrust for Bush is becoming more prevalent and openly stated.
Posted by Cass on July 2, 2004, at 19:44:31
In reply to Re: please be civil » Cass, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2004, at 19:30:54
Sorry to Dr. Bob or anyone I offended. I probably should have given that submission a little more thought.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2004, at 16:09:30
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Cass on July 2, 2004, at 19:44:31
Posted by Notaliseliz on July 4, 2004, at 15:35:04
In reply to I haven't seen it yet, posted by bobby on June 29, 2004, at 20:47:27
> I can't take Michael Moore too seriously. He looks like he's been freebasing ham.
I couldn't help but smile at that! I thought I was the only one who freebased ham
Posted by gardenergirl on July 4, 2004, at 22:25:58
In reply to Re: I haven't seen it yet » bobby, posted by Notaliseliz on July 4, 2004, at 15:35:04
I enjoyed the movie. It's powerful and thought-provoking. But I guess I was not prepared for the more gruesome images that have been censored from our daily news here in the States.
So, if you are planning to go, be advised that there are potentially upsetting images.
But great film! I thought the way he handled the Sept. 11 tragedy was powerful. He really humanized it by showing people's reactions.
Take care,
gg
Posted by Snoozin on July 6, 2004, at 9:07:36
In reply to Just saw it today, posted by gardenergirl on July 4, 2004, at 22:25:58
I totally agree. They were the reason he couldn't get the PG-13 rating and it was left as Rated R.
They were extremely hard to see, especially the kids.
And I thought Moore's handling of the 9/11 attacks in New York was brilliant. He kept the destruction of the buildings off the screen, yet we heard all those noises we remembered, and saw the destruction of the humans' lives on their faces.
Utterly brilliant, in my opinion.
Posted by karen_kay on July 12, 2004, at 15:28:17
In reply to Re: I haven't seen it yet » bobby, posted by Notaliseliz on July 4, 2004, at 15:35:04
well that's just too much! i'm searching for hams right now.. will pot pies do?
and about the movie... i didn't cry until i saw the woman crying in iraq.....
but, i'm about to cry because i can find neither ham nor pot pies....
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.