I disagree. They are both second hand sources and I don’t think it’s fair to allow one usage of second hand information and to disallow it on the other. I can critisize Andrew Jackson without witnessing what he did first hand and I don’t have to see ‘From justin to Kelly’ to know that it’s bad.
The videotape of Bush is a first hand source, not second hand. Moore is commenting on a vdeo that he HAS seen. That is quite different than some people who are willing to pop off about a movie that they haven’t seen.
Oh, Airman Doors! The denominator is your friend! Why would you abuse it so?
From The NHTSA we get the statistics for 2002: fatalities=42,815, licensed drivers=194,295,633. We’ll take the numbers just for Iraq, since I can’t find the stats through a brief check for Iraq and Afghanistan. Troops=130,000, fatalities=909.
Here is a handy calculator for odds ratios: http://www.hutchon.freeserve.co.uk/ConfidOR.htm.
What you find is that, comparing the number of drivers in 2002 with troops in Iraq, the soldier in Iraq is 31.77 times more likely to be killed than an American driver.
If you had stats for the number of fatalities among the number of members of the armed forces from 1979-2004, and the number of fatalities among the number of car drivers during that time, you could also calculate the odds ratio for that comparison. I suspect, however, that the greater risk will continue to be found among the service members. It is a risky job, hence the debt of gratitude that we owe members of the armed forces. It’s a bit of a surprise that you would argue otherwise.
Haven’t seen the movie, not likely to, though the Hair Apparent raves about it. I’m much more interested in F 9-11 as an event than as a movie.
The weaknesses of the film as a documentary have been hammered on incessantly, and I think that quite misses the point. Given what I’ve heard, I think MM did a rather poor job of propaganda as well: there are any number of stronger points to make than the ones he made, its like making a movie about Ted Bundy and busting his chops for parking tickets.
But the impact of this movie is wildly out of proportion to its content. How many of you would have been rapt in breathless anticipation for Airman’s (noted cineaste and film critic) take on Citizen Kane or Spiderman II? Note well the ammunition expended on the rather paltry question of whether or not ObL’s relatives got some sort of special treatment. Of course they got special treatment, we’ve been sucking the Saudis like two-dollar whores for years! As an issue of centrality to politics, it ranks right up there with the Bush twin’s drinking “problem”.
The film isn’t important as a documentary, because it shows us nothing really new, there is no information content of any real significance. Nor is it especially important as propaganda, if it were better propaganda, it wouldn’t spend so much time on trivial issues.
The film is important as an event: it arrived at precisely the right moment, a time of widespread discontent and suspicion. It provides a focus, a common ground to connect and argue, its like a thread with a provocative title. As far as I’m concerned, that makes it a huge success: it gets people talking and questioning, and that works for me because we got the facts on our side.
To sum up: as a documentary, its a flop, a documentary should have a “fly on the wall” viewpoint, showing the plain facts and allowing the viewer to come to their own conclusions. As propaganda, its weak, because it emphasize issues that are of, at best, secondary significance.
But as an event, as a McCluhan-esque happening, it’s a ring-tailed rip-snorter. No way would I have anticipated the impact this movie would have, because it landed on a tender spot few of us knew existed: an unexpressed but tangible anxiety with GeeDubya, the growing sense that the Emperor has no flight suit, that The Leader is nothing more grand than a stubborn and self-righteous mediocrity, misled and misleading.
It is the questioning that is a deadly threat to the Bushiviks, not the accusing.
We’ve ALL seen the videotape of Bush that he has seen, and some of us have come away with a different take on it, including the principal herself — who was in the room. Speaking of popping off, what about people who pop off about straw men? I have never commented on any of the contents of Moore’s film other than those I have seen myself. What I have commented on are clips he himself has shown and statements he himself has made, all of which I saw with my own eyes. I just finished saying this. Care to ignore it again?
I was responding to Kidchameleon, Lib, not you. I object to a claim that Moore commenting on the classroom video is equivalent to anyone commenting on the MM film without seeing it.
BTW, so what if other people got a different impression from the classroom video? ll Moore did was show it and wonder aloud what Bush was thinking. It’s a perfectly valid question, is it not? Regardless of your take, the point is that Moore did not form an opinion on something he had not seen, nor did he ask the audience to take his word for anything. He showed the video and allowed the audience to draw its own conclusion. I personally think that Bush looked like an uncomprehending idiot, not because of what Moore said but because of what he showed. YMMV.
Just wanted to add to monstro’s point here.
According to this site the United States had 130,000 troops in Iraq in March 2004. It’s the only statistic i could find for over US troop numbers, so it’s the one i’m going to use. If anyone has better or more complete figures, i’d be happy to see them.
Now, it been 16 months since the invasion began, and in that time, according to Airman Doors, the US has lost 909 troops in Iraq. So, over 16 months the losses are 909/130,000.
Now, we want the figures for a one-year period, so we multiply this by 12/16. This gives us a figure of about 755/130,000, or about 5.8 deaths per 1,000 troops per year.
Now, Airman tells us that 45,000 people die each year on America’s road. I’m happy enough to accept that figure. Total population of the United States is about 280 million. So, 45,000/280,000,000 gives us 1/6222, or about 0.16 deaths per 1000 Americans.
Even if we use only licensed drivers, we find that in the year 2000, there were about 190 million licensed drivers in the United States. This makes driving appear slightly more dangerous, with final figures of about 0.24 deaths per 1000 drivers.
So, let’s review the figures:
US soldiers in Iraq: 5.8 deaths per 1000 soldiers per year
Americans on the road: 0.16 deaths per 1000 population per year
Americans with drivers’ licenses: 0.24 deaths per 1000 drivers per year
So, a soldier in Iraq is somewhere between 24 and 36 times more likely to die in Iraq than an American on our nation’s roads. I see, on preview, that Hentor arrived at a figure of 31.77. Pretty close to my numbers.
Furthermore, Airman’s “statistics” try to take us all the way back to 1979. But what he gorgets is that, during periods of peace, when American troops are not stationed in hostile territory, they are subject to the same risk of traffic accidents as the rest of the population. Correct me if i’m wrong, Airman, but i believe that you served much of your time in the armed forces right here in America? In which case, you probably ran the same risk of being in a car accident as any other American.
It’s not correct to suggest, as Airman did, that dying on the roads and dying in combat are mutually exclusive possibilities. For someone in the armed forces, the chances of dying in a combat situation like Iraq have to be added to the everyday risk they face of dying in a car accident when they’re stationed in the United States.
Excellent point, given that so many supporters of the war have been yelling at the rest of us that we should be grateful to those in the military for risking their lives. Well, i am grateful, and that’s another reason i don’t like seeing all the pointless deaths they’ve had to suffer in Iraq.
But I made the same point. Moore was not commenting on the video; he was commenting on what happened in the room. Commenting on the video would be something like, “The photographer pointed the camera down at a critical time.” I’ve commented on what I’ve seen of Moore’s film, including that portion of it. He used a technique called “parallel editing”, which has been used by great directors from DW Griffith to Alfred Hitchock for the express purpose of making time seem to pass slower. Every freshman cinematography student, and many self-taught fans of cinema, would know this. Seven minutes (or even nine or fifteen) is not an inordinant amount of time for security matters to be hammered out, and security is exactly the people who are in charge at times like that. They are authorized to grab the president under his armpits, if necessary, to move him or hold him in place as they see fit. Just like the principle that you should put the oxygen mask on yourself before you put it on your children in an aircraft emergency, the first thing that the Secret Service should do in a national emergency is secure the president himself. If he just runs out of the school like George Costanza in an apartment fire, it endangers the whole country. And there was no safer place in America than right where he was at that time. Weeks of security measures had already taken place — air and ground coverage, personnel clearances, inspection of the physical plant — all these things had already been done to insure his safe visit. Criticizing that aspect of September 11 betrays an enormous ignorance of how things are done, not just for Bush, but for Clinton and every president since Kennedy.
What happened in the classroom is plain to see on videotape. No one who was there in the room would be any better informed than anyone watching the tape.
All you’re doing is disagreeing with Moore’s opinions about what the videotape shows. I disagree that Moore is commenting on anything he’s not in a position to know about. He’s commenting on a videotaped event.
By your criteria, we can never make an assumption about who won a football game unless we’re in the stadium.
Bush’s lack of response did not strike me as some sort of calculated decision, btw. It looked like clueless confusion. It didn’t look like he really even understood what was happening. He acted like they told him it was raining. There was no emotional response at all execept confusion.
Or Maybe he just wanted to know the ending of My Pet Goat. That would make sense too.
Nonsense. Most of what went on most assuredly wasn’t even IN the room. It was outside the room where a whirlwind of activity likely took place. It’s quite active enough when Secret Service plans events weeks in advance. The activity during emergencies would approach the level of frenzy, were it not for the fact that they act professionally. It’s what they’re trained to do.
But that’s what’s stupid about it. It’s like commenting on a videotape of a ripple in the ocean while underneath is a tsunami headed to shore. Parallel editing, combined with an MTV generation 2-second clip mindset, makes Bush’s wait seem like a long time, when in fact it was an incredibly efficient security action.
I disagree. It looked to me like a man who was patiently waiting for his Secret Service to get done as quickly as possible to make arrangements for him to leave, but who wished it could all be going even faster.
That shit won’t fly with me. I’m not buying into any red herrings. Since you ignored the thrust of my point altogether, I’m going to make it again.
Seven minutes (or even nine or fifteen) is not an inordinant amount of time for security matters to be hammered out, and security is exactly the people who are in charge at times like that. They are authorized to grab the president under his armpits, if necessary, to move him or hold him in place as they see fit. Just like the principle that you should put the oxygen mask on yourself before you put it on your children in an aircraft emergency, the first thing that the Secret Service should do in a national emergency is secure the president himself. If he just runs out of the school like George Costanza in an apartment fire, it endangers the whole country. And there was no safer place in America than right where he was at that time. Weeks of security measures had already taken place — air and ground coverage, personnel clearances, inspection of the physical plant — all these things had already been done to insure his safe visit. Criticizing that aspect of September 11 betrays an enormous ignorance of how things are done, not just for Bush, but for Clinton and every president since Kennedy.
Just to amke sure we’re on the same page here, but are you sure we’re talking about the same videotape?
Michael Moore (and myself, and Diogenes, and probably a bunch of other folks) are talking about the raw, unedited, seven-minute videotape of Bush in the classroom. Is that what you saw? Did you sit throuhg the entire seven minutes? Or did you see the bit that was edited for the news media, where Bush sits for a spell, Andrew Card whispers in his ear, and that’s the end of it?
Just want to make sure we’re working on the same topic here, is all.
(For those who haven’t seen the full footage, you can find most of it here, starting from when Card whispers in Bush’s ear. Requires Quicktime for the full video, or you can follow the snapshots at five-second intervals)
And as long as we’re talking about the classroom video, it’s interesting to note that after ANdrew Card whispers to Bush that a second plane has hit the WTC, Card steps away immediately after delivering his message. He doesn’t hang around for any orders from the President… as if he didn’t expect Bush to have any reaction or requests of his own…
Cite?
And who gave the orders for how this whirlwind should proceed? Bush gave no orders, he just sat there like a stump.
I ignored your last paragraph because it was irrelevant to my point-which WAS- that Moore was not forming an opinion of something he hadn’t seen, but something he- and the rest of the audience, was free to view for themselves.
Your conclusions about the significance of the videos are yours and you’re free to make them. It was not my intention to debate what Bush should have done or not done in the classroom (But since you asked, he should have quietly excused himself and left, IMO. No one has suggested that he should have lept up in a panic. Personally, I was more irritated by his lack of emotional response than his lack of a physical response). What I object to is any assertion that Moore commenting on the video is analogous to someone commenting on F9/11 without having seen it.
You’re point? Sorry. I hadn’t realized that I had walked into a circle jerk and that you were the pivot man. I had a point of my own to make. I would appreciate your addressing it. It goes straight to the heart of your own point as well, namely…
Seven minutes. He saw seven minutes of waiting. It took thirty-four times longer than that for security to arrange for Clinton to get a haircut on an airport runway. Be anti-Bush, Dio, but don’t be petty and recalcitrant about bullshit like this. I mean, think about it. Do you realize you just asked me for a cite that the Secret Service was busy arranging Bush’s egress? It’s time to get a grip and gather your wits about you.
Seven minutes (or even nine or fifteen) is not an inordinant amount of time for security matters to be hammered out, and security is exactly the people who are in charge at times like that. They are authorized to grab the president under his armpits, if necessary, to move him or hold him in place as they see fit. Just like the principle that you should put the oxygen mask on yourself before you put it on your children in an aircraft emergency, the first thing that the Secret Service should do in a national emergency is secure the president himself. If he just runs out of the school like George Costanza in an apartment fire, it endangers the whole country. And there was no safer place in America than right where he was at that time. Weeks of security measures had already taken place — air and ground coverage, personnel clearances, inspection of the physical plant — all these things had already been done to insure his safe visit. Criticizing that aspect of September 11 betrays an enormous ignorance of how things are done, not just for Bush, but for Clinton and every president since Kennedy.
As for this…
That’s what my thrice posted argument addresses directly. No president — not Bush, not Clinton, not any of them — gives orders to the Secret Service in times of emergency involving the safety of the president. THEY give the orders to HIM. That’s their job. It is in fact mandated by statute.
So, in times of national securitry, the President of the United States only gets to know what the fuck’s going on when his Secret Service detail says so? :dubious:
(And it’s worth noting, for the folks in the audience who’ve just joined us, that Liberal still doesn’t have the moral courage to see the movie, and all his criticism are pulled from his ass. 
)
Was that supposed to McLuhan as in “Understanding Media” McLuhan? I wasn’t quite sure at first, but just a point of clarification.
I don’t follow you here. How is this an event of any importance other than something the anti-Bush crowd can rally around? I can’t see that anyone is going to change his or her vote because of this film, if that’s what you mean. Will it even help “get out the anti-Bush vote”? I doubt it. We tend to have too short of attention spans. Maybe if the film had been released 3 weeks before the election, but I think it’ll be forgotten come November.
His security notwithstanding (and there really wasn’t any security issue for GWB that day. He wasn’t anywhere near the attacks), there was a hijacked airliner still in the air headed for Washington DC. Any authorization to shoot down an airliner filled with civilians had to come directly from the CiC. Those seven minutes were crucial. Never mind the SS, he made no attempt to communicate with anyone. He didn’t so much as ask a question. He shoud have left the room immediately. There was apparently an empty classroom next door filled with SS and Bush aides. His certainly in no more danger in that clasroom than the one he was in and he would have had the advantage of being able to communicate with the Pentagon while the SS was bringing a car around or whatever the hell they had to do.
Clinton would not have just sat there, nor would W’s father.
Hell, even when someone finally did tell him that maybe he should get off his ass and do something, all he did was go cower in a bunker.
In times of the president’s security. Don’t you know a man from a map?
Actually, it’s worth noting for the third time in this thread that I comment only on what I have seen, you dumb fuck.
Ah, hell. Cite? :rolleyes:
I reiterate that Bush’s security was not in any jeapordy. I also reiterate that it was critical for him to get in communication with Pentagon as soon as possible.