The Blog From Another Dimension: 9/11 News Archives

...Or Maybe There Will Be an Attack

In my last post, I suggested that the bin Laden tape might be his way of mucking with our elections in lieu of an attack, but then my father reminded me that people have said that bin Laden sometimes uses video announcements as signals to sleeper cells to activate.

Hmm.

Fahrenheit 9/11 in Japan: Sold Out

The day's tickets, sold out by noon.

Well, I wanted to see F-9/11 again today, and planned to go with a colleague from school. It was playing today at the Ebisu Garden Cinemas, on both screens. My colleague and I agreed to meet at the theater at 2:30 so we could see the 3:10 show. But when I went, I figured I would be smart: I would get there at 2:00, a half hour early, so I could be sure to get a ticket.

Well, you can guess what happened. I was too late. By about four hours. Apparently, when the tickets went on sale at 9:30 am, there was already a big line, which eventually stretched out to longer than a city block. The whole day's tickets were already sold out before noon, and the tickets to the 3:10 show were gone well before that. Lauren Shannon, who went very early to get tickets for the 11:30 show, couldn't get anything before the 3:10 show, and eventually wound up giving her tickets to a couple who came all the way from Chiba and found the day sold out.

It may be the first day, a special showing and all--but the fact that so many people came, so early, and some from so far away, are all suggestions that this film will be a very big hit in Japan. Already this film has grossed $114 million in the U.S. and $32 million overseas as of a week ago--with Japan it will without doubt break the $150 million mark--and it still hasn't been released in Russia, Italy, Greece, Scandinavia, and a dozen other countries; receipts from Mexico, Egypt, Switzerland and a dozen more have still not been tabulated into that total. And then there will be DVD sales, often matching or exceeding domestic ticket sales. For a documentary, this is beyond extraordinary.

And the audiences are... sometimes interesting, as evidenced below. As many of us sat outside (having arrived early, I was waiting for my colleague, and others were taking care of a get-out-the-vote drive), we noticed two gentlemen in robes--clearly monks--talking to reporters outside the entrance. I would've loved to know what they were saying about the film...

DAJ on TV

It looks like all the news broadcasts of the DAJ press screening for Fahrenheit 9/11 have aired. You can find the CNN and NTV broadcasts hosted here, in Quicktime MOV format (thanks to Mark for the larger version of the CNN segment). The TBS broadcast is available only via their web site, on streaming video, in Real Player or WMP formats.

Darn CNN, they didn't show a moment of the 4 or 5 minutes they spent interviewing me! I did get on screen for a moment, though, signing the donation form for the event as I arrived (I think I was the first one to do that, I got ticket #110 of 110). But the interviews they did show were good, and I would have probably looked like a goofball anyway.

The CNN report also talked the the Republicans Abroad person, who just smugly announced they were already uncorking champagne for their November 3rd celebrations. Republicans Abroad, by the way, is only a fundraising and voter registration organization--unlike Democrats Abroad, the GOP does not recognize Republicans living outside the U.S. except by absentee ballot only.

Fahrenheit 9/11: Review, Part I

So I saw the film on Tuesday at the Democrats Abroad Japan-sponsored press screening at the Toho Cinemas in Roppongi Hills, with a crowd of about 150, 110 of them guests of the DAJ. It was enjoyable just to be going to an event like that, but I appreciated much more being able to see the film before mid-August. And to see the film without commercials was even better.

Like most people, I had preconceptions about what the film was going to be like. We've seen the trailers and commercials showing some of Dubya's less-than-elegant moments. I expected a lot of funny moments, many I've which I'd already seen elsewhere, and a lot of biting, humorous commentary. I'd heard the reviews which talked about Lila Lipscomb, and her being the emotional heart of the film. But just by hearing about these things, you can't really even begin to get a sense of what you'll experience when watching this film.

Moore begins with the 2000 election in Florida. Even with a two-hour-long film, he has to gloss over quite a but: he doesn't explain that the angry mobs of "Floridians" at the recount are really Washington D.C. staffers for the GOP bussed in to shut down the vote count. He doesn't have time to cover the absentee-ballot fraud in Seminole and Broward counties, or how African-Americans were intimidated by the police presence on election day. He does mention how Harris got tend of thousands of legitimate voters, mostly Democrats, kicked off the voter rolls as "felons," and quickly mentions how the Supreme Court got Bush into office.

But he doesn't have to cover these too much in detail; he knows that many Americans are familiar with that territory, and wanted to show us some things most of us did not know--a style that he follows for the rest of the film. Much of what we see in Fahrenheit are things we never saw or heard or read about before, and that's a big part of what makes the film important. There are things the media doesn't tell us. Whether you agree with Moore's conclusions or not, it is fully worth seeing this movie just to see all the things that have been happening which you were not aware of.

For example, he shows us the joint session of the House and Senate meeting, and African-American House members, one after the other, raising objections to the certification of the election results. Each one calls into question the validity of the election--and each one is told to sit down, by none other than Al Gore (as President of the Senate), because none of the objections has been signed by the single required Senator in order to make the objection valid. The entire proceeding reeks of irony--the winner of the election certifying the loser as president, the Bush victory declared valid while the objections of those who represent the unjustly disenfranchised being told they had no voice. "The Senate is missing."

Moore continues the prologue with Bush's swearing in an subsequent fall in the polls, and then his long vacations--42% of his first nine months. The credits roll as Bush and his staff are dolled up for the cameras: it's showtime. And then he comes to 9/11. Artfully, he never shows us a plane hitting a building or a tower collapsing. He blacks out the film and gives us audio only, making the experience far more intense--and when he does show us the aftermath, he shows us only the faces of the witnesses, and the paper and other debris roiling in the clouds of smoke.

I was hoping to see the entire 7 minutes of video showing Bush sitting in the Florida classroom, having the minutes tick by as Moore commented on what was going on, perhaps even split-screen. Moore was much more merciful than that, instead flashing through the time with a clock showing at the bottom of the screen, then launching into how the Saudis--among them the bin Ladens, who despite their claims did indeed still have ties with their errant sibling.

Moore brings their departure--without the kind of interviews and screening that would have been mandatory in a case of far lesser impact--and uses it to introduce the Bush family history: Bush's ties with James R. Bath, a connection to the Saudis and bin Ladens, who financed Bush's early companies, which led to the Carlyle Group, which had strong ties with Bush Sr. and the Saudis, and so forth and so on. The ties are labyrinthine and damning, and you wonder how people could excuse the obvious influence. During the Clinton-Gore years, the GOP railed about the administration ties to the Chinese, which were almost completely fictional--and yet here we are in a War on Terror™, covering for the Saudis who finance and support those out to kill us, and no one has a problem with the president having the Saudis, and even the bin Ladens, as his financial backers throughout his career?

Surprising also is what you hear from Bush's own mouth: "When you're the president's son, and you got unlimited access, combined with some credentials from a prior campaign, in Washington D.C., people tend to respect that. Access is power. And I can find my dad and talk to him any time of the day." There he is, talking about abusing his family position to buy influence and power, as if this were appropriate.

You have to pay close attention during this sequence, because Moore moves back and forth between the pre- and post-9/11 days--perhaps intentionally blurring the lines to show us the relationships. Whether that was intentional, it works; we see the ties with Saudis and the censored 28 pages of the report; we see "Bandar Bush" and we see the secret service guarding the Saudi embassy. The 15 Saudi hijackers and Bush and Bandar dining as the Pentagon burned in the distance. Even without the juxtaposition, it would be hard to miss the connections, reeking of corruption.

And despite the necessity of going to war with Afghanistan to root out al Qaeda, Moore makes clear the ulterior motives behind the war there--Bush's prior meetings with Taliban officials and Unocal to build a pipeline through the country--and point out that the legitimate goals were never achieved while Bush's backdoor dealings were. This is perhaps the weakest assertion in the film, and yet it is still strongly supported, albeit circumstantially. After taking over Afghanistan, Bush put into power Hamid Karzai--a former Unocal advisor--as president, and appointed Zalmay Khalilzad, former chief consultant to Unocal, as the United State's special envoy to Afghanistan.

Within a few months of the invasion, Karzai signed an agreement to build the pipeline that Unocal wanted. Bush achieved that much. But the Taliban mostly got away (they are presently fighting back and taking territory) and Osama bin Laden and most of al Qaeda, its ranks swelling with new volunteers, also slipped the dragnet (Bush: "I don't know where [bin Laden] is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."). So why did we invade Afghanistan? If it was to disable the Taliban and capture Osama and al Qaeda, Bush failed miserably. If it was to take effective control of the country, secure a military presence and build a pipeline, then mission accomplished. But that's not supposed to be why we went.

Moore also spends time on how the Bush administration uses the War on Terror™to frighten the public--something that most Americans discount or refuse to believe. After all, who would want to say that they could be frightened into toeing the line? But it is a strongly valid point, a technique used by oppressive governments throughout history, and Moore does an excellent job of showing how Bush gets the job done.

---

End of Part I of the review. Part II coming soon.

On Camera

While watching the press screening of Fahrenheit 9/11, we were being filmed--a lot of photographers and camerapeople, interviewers with big ol' microphones (macrophones?), and even filming done during the screening--which is how I got on NTV yesterday, at least for a moment, as they showed the crowd watching the film (I'm just left of center, in black with glasses, in the photo at right). I didn't get interviewed by them, mostly because by the time I got to their position, they had Dave Spector, a long-time foreign "talento" in Japan and commentator on just about everything, and they stayed with him for quite a while.

I did, however, get nabbed by CNN and got interviewed by the Tokyo Bureau Chief Atika Schubert. I forgot to ask at the time when the segment might be filmed, but later contacted the CNN office, who said that the press screening story would be edited early Friday (Japan time), and if it gets aired, might be on American Morning, on Friday evening in Japan, Friday morning in the U.S., and possibly the rest of the day as a filler piece for the straight news shows on CNN. No guarantee I'll be in it, but if you see an overweight, long-haired goofball dressed in black, you'll know who it is.

By the way, F-9/11 is set to break the $100 million mark by Friday....

Fahrenheit 9/11: Press Screening (First Impressions)

I'm on the subway now, heading back home just a little after midnight. I just got out from seeing a special press screening of Michael Moore's movie at the Roppongi Hills cinema complex. That's the event that I've been hinting about for the past week or so, one that's been in the works a while at Democrats Abroad Japan. After attending the Democratic caucus earlier this year, I paid more attention to the DAJ, getting on the mailing list and sometimes contributing to the blog. That's how I found out that they were sponsoring a special press screening of the film tonight.

The film was more than I thought it was going to be. I had expected really not much more than a funny, biting polemic with a point of view, and certainly it was that. But it was more than I'd expected. Though I'd heard people talk about the film's emotional impact, I wasn't ready for what hit me. Yes, there are a lot of funny, sometimes hilarious bits with Bush and his staff, along with a variety of other politicians from both parties. There is irony and juxtaposition and a few good laughs. There are moments when you just roll your eyes or shake your head in exasperation at the outrageousness of what's being laid out in front of you.

But this film, while funny, biting, and full of information, has an intensely stirring force to it, a jolt to the system that can be as hard to take as it is intensely necessary to receive. There is a great deal about this film that deals with the high and mighty, the forces and nations, the numbers and statistics, but where Moore is most effective is at the individual level, where you see the impact that the past four years has had on the lives of so many. Moore knows that to express the pain and devastation of so many people, it's best to focus on one individual and see the full force of trauma on that person, at a level you can understand and empathize with. And then you realize that you have to amplify that feeling a thousand times and more, and then you get close to understanding what has been happening here.

Reading about all those people who had seen the film before as it opened in other countries, I'd heard of the standing ovations the film had gotten. And here we had this one viewing, filled with members and associates of Democrats Abroad. But this was no war-whooping crowd, and there was no standing ovation at the end. And it didn't seem strange. Not because the film was not appreciated--it was, more than you could know from reading this. And maybe it was not even because the film ended just shy of midnight, after a full work day on the hottest, most oppressive day of the year so far. It was partially because this particular crowd was so jaded, so familiar with the territory--and it had just been presented to us in a new way, one that made the entire thing so much more human, so much more frightening and so much more real. It was not a moment where anyone felt like cheering, it was a sobering feeling, like waking up even more. We weren't a crowd of film enthusiasts cheering the art, and we weren't a bunch of rabble rousers cheering a hatchet job. We were a group of serious people who just got the emotional wind knocked out of us, and felt more than ever the motivation to fight this fight, to change this unreal reality.

More later. I'm going to have to review the film's content more, explain a lot about what I've seen. More tomorrow, it's late.

But not too late.

Playing Politics with Terror

This is reprehensible.

The Bush administration sees Kerry get a bounce from his announcement of Edwards and his newfound equal footing in the media, so what does he do? He fucks with our national security so that he can steal the news cycle away. I am listening to Tom Ridge, after repeating the old news that al Qaeda is up to something but we have no information--exactly the same as he and Ashcroft announced before--and now he's droning on about how cool their new communications equipment is. There is nothing new, no new data, and absolutely no reason for the announcement except as a political dirty trick.

The announcement was even scheduled to take place exactly as Kerry and Edwards appeared at a rally in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, where the networks and news shows would have covered them; additionally, the conference was made early in the day, the better to control the news cycle.

This is blatantly political, there is no getting around that. He even began the broadcast with a rehash of the right-wing fiction that Spain's election was turned by the al Qaeda attack. That, however, is bullshit, had Aznar's government handled the investigation competently then he probably would have won the election--it was his skewing the reports of the investigation to his political advantage that angered the Spanish people and tipped the scales to lose him the election.

But Ridge, like so many other right-wingers, are deliberately skewing that fact for the dual purpose of attacking their political enemies overseas (i.e., the Spanish opposition which pulled their troops from Iraq), and of laying down the foundation of the belief that if al Qaeda attacks, it will be to throw the election to Kerry--which again, is complete bullshit, as an al Qaeda attack, most analysts believe, would rally support for Bush and cinch the election to him.

This is politics, and not just your standard vindictive, nasty, underhanded spit-in-your-eye dirty-tricks politics--this is far worse. This is the Bush administration taking advantage of our security apparatus to frighten the American people and derail a political opponent. National security is a sacred cow, you don't fuck with it--but to them, it's just another tool for party hacks.

Sorry for all the language, but I am seriously pissed off right now.

Update: the White House is reporting that they have no choice about this, that they are "damned if they do, damned if they don't" make these announcements--which is more bullshit. That's a classic either-or fallacy: they have other choices, like reporting this at the end of the week rather than the middle, or making the announcements only when there is new information, not just when they feel like it.

Don't believe a word. At best, this is cover-your-ass, making the announcement so they can say "we warned you" later on, but I would put every cent I have on the take that this is just as I have outlined before. Bush may have misstepped, as the news services are highlighting the political aspect of the story, but that notwithstanding, they are still talking 90% about terror now, and will be all day, instead of reporting on Kerry and Edwards--so that's a big "Mission Accomplished" for Bush and Cheney today.

July Surprise

New reports are suggesting that Bush administration officials are pressuring Pakistan to make significant al Qaeda captures or killings before the election this year, and to announce these "high value target" deliveries on the first three days of the Democratic convention at the end of July. According to The New Republic:

This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan. A succession of high-level American officials--from outgoing CIA Director George Tenet to Secretary of State Colin Powell to Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca to State Department counterterrorism chief Cofer Black to a top CIA South Asia official--have visited Pakistan in recent months to urge General Pervez Musharraf's government to do more in the war on terrorism. In April, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, publicly chided the Pakistanis for providing a "sanctuary" for Al Qaeda and Taliban forces crossing the Afghan border. "The problem has not been solved and needs to be solved, the sooner the better," he said.

This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November. The Bush administration denies it has geared the war on terrorism to the electoral calendar. "Our attitude and actions have been the same since September 11 in terms of getting high-value targets off the street, and that doesn't change because of an election," says National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack. But The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs by the election. According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), "The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections." Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, "no timetable[s]" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, "The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections." (These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.)

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

This is rather scandalous, even though completely expected. There was a great deal of suspicion and some circumstantial evidence that in 1980, Reagan's people visited Iran made deals that the hostages would not be released until Reagan took office, and lo, the hostages were released practically the very moment Reagan took the oath; a release before the election might have won the election for Carter, and a release before Reagan took office would have robbed him of a glowing start to his tenure. That Reagan was found to have been involved over many years in shady dealings with Iran was also supportive of this idea.

And now we see Bush doing something very similar: making deals with shady governments in the region to sway the election at home. While Bush says that he is promoting democracy in the region, it cannot be ignored that his biggest new ally, Pakistan, is a military dictatorship that gained power in a coup d'état over a democratically elected government, was developing weapons of mass destruction, and had practically invented the Taliban. That they agreed to help us in Afghanistan is less a measure of their friendship to us and more a sign that they saw an unstoppable military force coming their way and wisely decided not to get in its way; their alliance with us is questionable in light of massive internal support for al Qaeda and their reluctance to truly go after him, and Bush's weakness in dealing with them is apparent in how his administration did nothing whatsoever when they found Pakistan was giving nuclear secrets to other countries in the region--they allowed Pakistan to blame the whole operation on one man, who was then pardoned. (“It’s a quid pro quo: we’re going to get our troops inside Pakistan in return for not forcing Musharraf to deal with Khan.”)

Let us not forget that Reagan oversaw Saddam's rise and gave him massive support as a perceived necessity in dealing with Iran. Bush has not learned the lesson of history, and now cuddles up with Musharraf, letting him spread nuclear technology (while claiming to invade Iraq because it had nukes, when it did not) and give safe harbor to al Qaeda (while claiming to be going after that organization full boar).

But now Bush, after years of letting Pakistan host the al Qaeda "high-value targets," is getting "tough" with Pakistan: fork over some al Qaeda VIPs as sacrificial lambs during the Democratic convention, or the election might be lost--and then Kerry might not let you sell nukes to Iran and others, and might actually demand you fight al Qaeda for real.

Who'd like to place a bet that in 10-15 years Pakistan won't be the new Iraq, and that a Republican president won't be trying to scare us over the madman of Karachi?

Fahrenheit with Legs? (Also: Japan Release Date News)

Fahrenheit 9/11 is doing very well, even better than expected, and this film might have a good set of legs, possibly generating million-dollar-plus daily grosses for weeks to come.

The film opened in 868 theaters as the highest-grossing film, beating out the opening weekend of the Wayans Brothers' film, White Chicks and the second weekend for DodgeBall and the Spielberg/Hanks film, The Terminal. In the first four days of its wide release, F-9/11 grossed $28 million, easily breaking the record for highest-grossing documentary that had been held by the nine-month release of Bowling for Columbine. The new film also broke record for per-screen grosses, pulling in about $9,000 per screen, even better than Spiderman 2 did on its opening weekend.

Even better news followed: F-9/11 held up well in the weekdays after the opening. Most films lose a huge chunk in those days, but Fahrenheit fell less than most films do, continuing to bring in between $3 million and $5 million per day during the week.

And more good news: Fahrenheit got a wider release, now in 1,725 theaters, and again, held up well for its second weekend, often a sign that the film will do well over time. It broke $50 million last Saturday, on its 8th day of wide release, and its second 4-day weekend gross was $22 million, just a 23% drop from the first. Compare that, for example, to the 50% drop for White Chicks.

The holiday weekend also helped F-9/11, with the revised Monday grosses ($5.75 million) besting Sunday's, for a grand total of $61 million so far. Excellent news. The third and fourth weeks will be more telling as to this film's longevity, though--and it may well have a good run, as there is great word-of-mouth, continuing controversy, and a lot of people who will be watching this film two, three, or even more times.

All of this is even despite the fact that the film faces a widely-reported (though not official) September DVD release, and is already available on the Internet for download. What's more remarkable is that Michael Moore has stated publicly that he is perfectly fine with people downloading the film: "I don’t agree with the copyright laws and I don’t have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they’re not trying to make a profit off my labour. I would oppose that." Even more remarkable is that lion's Gate has also given a public-but-not-official OK for people to download the movie. That is unprecedented!

For those who want to see the online version, it can be found on Torrent (I recommend Shareaza for PC users, Limewire for Mac); the valid files are just over one gigabyte in size, in ".cue" format (you have to download a special program called VCD Gear to decompress), and it unzips into a folder containing two half-gigabyte MPEG files. The quality is fair, but too much of the sides are cropped out. Speaking for myself, I want to see it on the big screen first, and would use the downloaded version for reference after that while I see the film a second and third time at the cinema.

And now for the news the Japan crowd has been waiting for: I can't tell you a release date for F-9/11 in Japan yet, but I can tell you that Gaga Communications will be announcing its Japan release date this weekend--I just called them to find out. I will be calling them again the day they make the announcement, and will post it here immediately, so stay tuned. If you want immediate news, get an RSS feed program (for Macs, NetNewsWire Lite is the best, IMHO); just enter "blogd.com," or the Feed Address, or just look this site up under the program's "Site Drawer" (I'm listed under "Weblogs A-F").

The release date should be mid-August, perhaps around the 13th.

9/11, Military Families Urge Bush to see Fahrenheit 9/11

Actually, they want everyone in Washington to see the film--and while many will, it's a sound bet that Bush won't, and just as sound that few in Washington would change a bit, unless they felt pressured by a groundswell among their constituents.

Meanwhile, F-9/11 remains at the top of the box office through the early part of the week, losing less of its audience than other films, and now grossing a total $32.3 million through Tuesday. It should be interesting to see how F-9/11 will fare once Spiderman 2 comes out--will it be knocked way down in revenue? Will the increased number of screens prop it up? Or, under the rosiest scenario, will it both benefit from having more screens and catch most of the overflow from sold-out shows of Spiderman 2?

Wow!

According to PolkOnline.com ("Your guide to Polk County, Florida"), Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be coming to that area this Friday, after not being included in the original release. The site reports that F-9/11 grossed $24 million up to Monday, and no wonder--according to the site,

"'Fahrenheit 9/11' was released to approximately 868,000 theaters last week; however, this week only 19,000 are carrying the film, according to reports received from Dickinson Inc., Lakeland Square 10 Cinema's parent company."

Nearly a million theaters got the film! I didn't even know there were that many theaters! So Lakeland Square 10 Cinemas in Polk County must have been the only one not showing the film! Taking that number, on can figure that's about one theater for every 350 Americans, and it means that the per-screen gross up to Monday was just $27 per theater. What a let-down; no wonder 849,000 theaters dropped the movie by this week so only 19,000 are carrying it still.

A Different Transition: The Illusion of Sovereignty and Stealing of Billions

The "handover of power" in Iraq is not much more than a political illusion. The handover will not give real power to the Iraqi government, it will not be a release of control by the U.S. government, the troops will not be pulled out, and really very little will change other than superficially.

Before leaving, occupation chief Paul Bremer signed more than one hundred edicts controlling everything in Iraq from traffic rules to constitutional amendments. Here are just a few of the facts about the changeover:

• 138,000 U.S. troops will stay in Iraq, in addition to 20,000 non-U.S. foreign troops
• Fourteen U.S. military bases are being constructed, many of them permanent
• The Allawi government will not have the power to change the constitution
• The Allawi government will not have the power to change the laws set down by Bremer, or make laws of their own
• U.S. and Western defense contractors will have complete immunity from Iraqi law
• The U.S. can still ban any political party it wants and prohibit their candidates from running

In short, the handover is one pretty much in name only--our troops will still be there, we will still be hand-picking the leaders and writing the laws, our corporations still running the show.

According to some, this amounts to an occupation power interfering with another country's sovereignty, which is against international law--but that might be a problem, as we are hearing--only laterally, subtly--that this is not a real handover of power, not real sovereignty. Reports from anonymous senior Bush officials speak of what will happen when Iraq gets "full sovereignty." Ah, that explains it. What we have now is limited sovereignty, similar to prisoners having "limited" freedom to travel, i.e. from one side of their cell to the other.

And to add insult to injury: billions of dollars of oil revenues from Iraq cannot be accounted for. Apparently, no clear records were kept and we don't know exactly how much oil was pumped or sold, and there is anywhere from one to four billion dollars missing from the coffers.

Well, that should certainly allay all suspicions around the world that we're stealing Iraq's oil.

F-9/11: Better then Expected...

As I had noted before, the $21.8 million weekend earnings for F-9/11 were estimates only, given before the weekend had even ended, and I was a bit cautious that perhaps the numbers might be higher than what the film would actually gross, though I was optimistic.

Well, I should have listened to my instincts. Fahrenheit 9/11 did not earn $21.8 million, it earned $23.9 million, $2.1 million more than expected.

Still No Japan Date for F-9/11

An update on the Japan release date for Fahrenheit 9/11: they still haven't set the date, but at least they got a little more specific than just "August" and are now talking about a mid-August release. Well, there's still time. No update on the Democrats Abroad Japan effort to get a special screening in July.

In the meantime, Rex Reed adds his own two-thumbs-way-up to the long list of ecstatic reviews of the film, while the all the newspapers are taking the industry estimates of F-9/11's weekend gross as fact (despite the fact that the weekend isn't over yet) and proclaiming the $21.8 million figure as set. I'm a little worried about this, as it is just an estimate--but not too worried, because the film is more likely to outperform rather than underperform the estimates.

To see exactly how much so, just take a look at some of the photos on Moore's site of the many screenings of the film across the United States--a few examples shown above, with F-9/11 showing every 45 minutes at one theater (top), and almost every show sold out at another theater (bottom).

By the way, when you see the "user ratings" for F-9/11 on many movie sites, keep in mind that practically all of the rock-bottom negative ratings are fake--disgruntled conservatives trying to skew the outcome. The ratings, as I mentioned previously, are starkly contrasted between 9s & 10s and 1s & 2s--very few ratings in between. So how can we know that the low ratings are fake and the highs, for the most part, are not? Because they've been polling people leaving the theaters in 15 cities and have found that 98% would "highly recommend the film."

Fahrenheit 9/11 Still Tops Box Office

F-9/11 still outgrossed all other films this Saturday, taking in an estimated $7.8 for a Fri-Sat $16 million-plus total. Box Office Mojo projects from this that the Sunday take will be $5.8 million, for a grand weekend total of $21.8 million--which would be greater than the $21.2 million that Bowling for Columbine took in over the course of nine months. Furthermore, F-9/11 still kept way ahead of all other films in per-screen revenue, taking in almost $9,000, more than three times the next-highest grossing film.

For a documentary, the is unheard of.

Changing Hearts and Minds

The reports are starting to come in, not of just liberal throngs at the movie theaters, but of moderates and even Republicans seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 and deciding to switch away from Bush.

Before the movie started, Leslie Hanser prayed.

"I prayed the Lord would open my eyes," she said.

For months, her son, Joshua, a college student, had been drawing her into political debate. He'd tell her she shouldn't trust President Bush. He'd tell her the Iraq war was wrong. Hanser, a 41-year-old homemaker, pushed back. She defended the president, supported him fiercely.

But Joshua kept at her, until she prayed for help understanding her son's fervor.

Emerging from Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, her eyes wet, Hanser said she at last understood. "My emotions are just... " She trailed off, waving her hands to show confusion. "I feel like we haven't seen the whole truth before."

And then:

For Richard Hagen, 56, it was the footage from Iraq: The raw cries of bombed civilians, the clenched-teeth agony of wounded American troops. A retired insurance agent from the wealthy River Oaks neighborhood in central Houston, Hagen described himself as a lifelong Republican. But then, standing by his silver Mercedes, he amended that: A former lifelong Republican.

"Seeing (the war) brings it home in a way you don't get from reading about it," he said. "I won't be voting for a Republican presidential candidate this time."

Mary Butler, too, may not bring herself to punch the ballot for Bush.

She didn't vote for him in 2000, but Butler, 48, said that until this weekend, she was leaning strongly toward supporting him this year. "In a war situation, I figured it was too hard to switch horses midstream. I thought the country would be too vulnerable," she said.

Butler, a librarian from suburban St. Louis, said one sentence in Moore's film made her rethink.

After showing faces of the men and women of America's military, Moore reminds his audience that they have volunteered to sacrifice their futures for our country. We owe them just one obligation, he says: To send them into harm's way only when we absolutely must.

That got Butler. She doesn't feel the war in Iraq fits into that category. And that one sentence -- a filmmaker's accusing voice-over -- might cost Bush her vote in the pivotal swing state of Missouri: "This is probably the strongest I've ever felt about voting against him," she said.

Just as the film has been far more successful at the box office than even the optimists predicted, it may well be far more successful at changing hearts and minds than many predicted--certainly more than the few hundred that swayed Florida into Bush's column in 2000, and perhaps enough to make a big difference this time around. This is, to a large extent, a case of many Americans simply not knowing certain truths, truths hidden by the administration and glossed over or discarded by the media. A lot of people will be leaving the theater in the next several weeks saying, "I didn't know...."

Fahrenheit 9/11 No. 1 at Box Office

Though it was expected to open behind the new Wayans Brothers film White Chicks, Fahrenheit 9/11 exceeded all expectations and shot to the top of the box office, bringing in between $8.2 to $8.4 million on its opening day. Moore's last film, Bowling for Columbine, broke all records for a documentary film by grossing $21.6 million, but Moore's new film may exceed that amount in its opening weekend alone.

Further, F-9/11 beat out White Chicks despite showing on only 1/3 as many screens.

Fahrenheit 9/11 Moving the Nation, But Not Without Hitches

This article from the San Francisco Chronicle tells of how F-9/11 is selling out shows--sometimes almost selling out morning and late-night shows--around the Bay Area. Some theaters are now setting aside the voluntary R-rating on the film and and letting teens under 17 into the theaters, and in response to the sold out shows, some theaters are adding midnight shows.

The film might also be already changing people's minds. According to the Chronicle article:

At the Century 14 Downtown theater in Walnut Creek, Matt Henley, a 37-year-old sales representative from Concord, said he was an independent who had not decided how to vote in November. He said, however, that a section of the film showing U.S. troops in Iraq speaking out against the war had a strong effect on him.

"That really hit me," he said. "That did tilt me toward the Democrats."

Much of today's entertainment news was about the film, some of it bad: the film is enjoying only a limited release on 848 screens nationwide (though that might just drive up per-screen revenues), and apparently there was not enough time to strike enough prints--only 700 had been completed in time, and so some theaters will have to wait a day to get prints. Also on the good side is the fact that with high weekend grosses, more theaters are likely to pick it up a week later. One can only hope that the film has legs and can maintain large audiences for more than the opening week--because you know, you can bet your life, that if ticket sales drop soon the right wing will start dancing about, calling the film a dud, a failure, what have you, no matter how many records it breaks for a documentary.

We have also learned the identity of one of Moore's embedded cameramen, one Urban Hamid, a Swedish-Iraqi journalist studying in the U.S. He's visited Iraq three times this year, and says, "Every time I go back, it seems it's gotten worse ... When I last went back, people were so tired and exhausted and had lost hope. It's extremely sad to see."

On the Internet Movie Database, almost 2500 users have rated the film, and it's not too hard to see which are conservative and which are liberals or moderates. On a scale of 1 to 10, 65.1% gave it a "9" or "10" rating, and 32.9% rated it as a "1" or "2," leaving only 2% for the 3-8 ratings. So people probably either love it or hate it--encouraging, since moderates seem to be going along with the "9" or "10" scores. Most likely, however, is that almost all of the 762 rock-bottom "1" votes were made by conservatives trying to trash the film without having seen it.

In the meantime, part IV of the right-wing attack on Moore consists of new filmmakers making anti-Moore documentaries (gee, I wonder who funded those), titled Michael Moore Hates America and Michael and Me. Sounds pretty pathetic, really.

Yet Another Attempt to Stop F-9/11

Yet another conservative action groups, this one called "Citizens United," yet again tried another tack in trying to stifle or stop Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 from being seen. This time, they're trying to bend election law to their advantage.

They're claiming that ads for F-9/11 which picture Bush would violate an FEC law that corporations cannot take out political ads 30 days before a convention and 60 days before an election. Fortunately, even if that tactic is successful, it would only limit 9/11 ads after July 31st, more than a month after its general release, and it would only mean that Bush's image would have to be cut out. It might, however, hurt DVD sales of the film, due out in October.

However, this is yet another example of the right wing going to any and every length imaginable to stop people from seeing this film--and frankly, I believe it is doing not much else than giving the film even more PR and sending even more people to the theaters--not to mention bolstering the morale of liberals, who see all of these attacks as signs of desperation on the right wing. If so many conservative feel they have to work so hard at nearly hopeless attempts to stops a few people from seeing the film, then they are very likely very, very worried about the effect this film could have.

So, what's next? They going to stand outside theaters like they do at abortion clinics and rant and scream at every patron going in?

Fahrenheit 9/11: Already Breaking Box Office Records

F-9/11, as it is now often called, got off to a galloping start, breaking ticket sales records in two New York Theaters where it started showing prior to the main release on Friday to help generate good word of mouth.

In both theaters, it broke box office records, selling more tickets than the opening days for "Men in Black" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon."

the film opens to wide release in 868 theaters in two days, and seems set to break a lot more records, the first of which would be the highest-grossing documentary film ever.

Fandango reports that advance ticket sales for F-9/11 outstripped not only the current No. 1 film, but also a big summer blockbuster. Moore's film alone accounted for 48% of all advance ticket sales, followed distantly by Dodgeball (11%) and Spiderman 2 (9%).

Wow.

A Good Question

Rob, an apparent Bushie commenting on a Michael Moore post on this blog, gave me a nice, big easy one right over the plate, and I wanted to share it at more than just the deep-comment level.

His question was, "WHO WOULD A TERRORIST VOTE FOR, BUSH OR KERRY?" The all-caps thing is his, by the way. And he obviously expected me to meekly admit that yes sirree George Bush has them terrorists on the run and they just tremble in their sandals when they hear his name, and would love nothing better than for Kerry to get elected, what was I thinking?

Yeah. Right.

Here's my reply:

---

Boy, are you a Kerry supporter or something? Because that question so obviously works against Bush, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Let's see....

Given that Bush's actions have sent a tidal wave of eager applicants to the doors of al Qaeda (whose ranks swelled to 18,000), that Bush has overseen a dramatic record-breaking surge in terrorist acts around the world, has opened up an entire country for terrorists to swarm to and kill Americans (837 and counting) without having to go far from home, and has gotten terrorists incredibly effective media coverage all over the world...

And on the American front, they get a president who has horribly underfunded local and state efforts to prevent and fight terrorism domestically so that it has become a macabre, ugly joke; who has a history of dropping the ball and ignoring his top intelligence and counter-terrorism officials when they warn of terrorists planning to attack--and they get a president who kindly obliges their wishes to frighten the American people and deprive them of their liberties, whilst making America a pariah around the world, after the entire world had boundless sympathy and friendship for the U.S. after 9/11. A president who takes the greatest advantage of the terrorist attack and pisses it away to the outrage of the world and plays right into the terrorists' hands.

Not to mention a president who approved of a policy of torture and humiliation which sent millions of Arabs ballistic, unspeakably furious that such a thing could happen even if the president had not known of it directly (as it now seems certain he did). Not to mention a president who is best buds with Saudi Arabia and is willing to cover for them while they remain one of the world's leading supporters of terrorism--and has abjectly failed to catch the one man held most responsible for 9/11, Osama bin Forgotten-by-Bush.

Al Qaeda is far better off now than it was the day after 9/11. There is no question whatsoever that these guys are hoping, fervently praying with every fiber of their being that Bush gets re-elected. That would be their greatest victory.

And Bush is probably hoping that Osama helps him out by pulling off a terror attack on U.S. soil within a month of the election--that way he could stoke up the people's fears even more, scare them into voting for him, but best of all for Bush, he could simply ignore Kerry and claim that it was an election between himself and al Qaeda--yes, if al Qaeda attacks, Bush will feel like giving Osama a big wet one right on the lips.

So, thanks Rob, good question.

More on the F-9/11 Front

Moore's film was recently given an R-rating by the MPAA for "violent and disturbing images and for language." Moore is fighting this in public, even hiring former New York governor Mario Cuomo to argue for a PG-13.

Frankly, I'm on the fence on this one. Sure, a PG-13 would be better, and as Moore pointed out, kids 16 and under will soon be of an age where these issues will be of great importance--but quite frankly, I do not think that many kids under 17 will be crowding the theaters. The vast majority of the film's audience, I expect, will be adult viewers.

At least, this generates good coverage for the film, and if the MPAA rating story isn't good enough, then the conservative organization Move America Forward (they must have liked the name "MoveOn.org" so decided to rip it off) will surely help out. Its head, a guy named Howard Kaloogian (no, I didn't make that name up) has tried to stir things up.

How? By posting a list of email addresses for movie theaters that will soon be showing Moore's film and urging right-wingers to "speak up loudly and tell the industry executives that we don’t want this misleading and grotesque movie being shown at our local cinema."

This is stupid for two reasons: first, the campaign gives no specifics about what people should say, and will really just fall flat as an empty threat. I mean, what will people say? I'm not going to go to see movies at your theater any more? Please. Usually when a movie plays in an area, one theater chain only has it, meaning that no one can simply threaten to go to another theater chain to see the same movie. So are a large number of conservatives going to simply give up seeing movies because the theaters showed one movie they didn't like? Not gonna happen.

The second reason their move was stupid was that when they listed all the email addresses and other contact information for the movie theaters and chains, they made it accessible to everyone--including liberals, who promptly took up the task of contacting the theaters on the list and cheering them for running the film--and from what it seems, vastly outnumbering the conservatives calling to complain.

Oops.

---

UPDATE: An alert reader provided a Disinfopedia link which explains a good deal about the true nature of "Move America Forward." Just under the rather ludicrous claim that they are a "non-partisan" organization, they list their leadership as "Republicans" and "conservatives," mentioning Republican positions several times, not to mention dropping Reagan's name 13 times on the "About" page. Not a single liberal mentioned on the list. Big talk about how they attacked the Reagan miniseries and got it off broadcast TV. Yeah, that's non-partisan.

There was also a bit of a flap about the registered owner of the domain being "Russo Marsh and Rogers," a political PR firm that has strong ties with the GOP. Immediately after the WHOIS information was exposed by several web sites, the domain registration information was changed to remove any mention of Russo Marsh and Rogers.

I don't think there's any secret, though. These are obviously far-right foot-soldiers working for the GOP. So what's new?

August Release for Fahrenheit 9/11 in Japan

I just got off the phone with the people at Gaga-Humax, the Japan distributor for Fahrenheit 9/11 (Japanese title: "華氏911"). They say that while they have not decided on an exact date, the film will be released in Japan sometime during August. Their office (03-3589-7416) says that a specific release date will be decided sometime in the next week or two. When I learn of it, and which theaters it will show at in Tokyo, I will let you know.

Fox Loves Moore?

Either someone took over the Fox News editorial room at gunpoint and forced them to print this, or Fox News may have just run one of its only non-partisan stories on a political topic in God-knows-how-long--but either way, the Fox review of Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 is positively glowing. An excerpt:

But once "F9/11" gets to audiences beyond screenings, it won't be dependent on celebrities for approbation. It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.

Or there's a third possibility, I suppose: that Moore's film is really so fantastically good that even partisan Republicans can't help but love it.

Except Bill O'Reilly, of course. But then O'Reilly is an idiot, even by Republican standards.

Playing Politics with Terror, Again

In April, the Bush administration reported good news: terrorist attacks around the globe were at their lowest in 34 years, and gave itself an "A" grade, attributing this to "unprecedented U.S. collaboration with foreign partners."

Great news! We're winning the War on Terror™!

Except for the fact that it's a lie!

Actually, they omitted a great deal of data that was pretty glaring--like all terrorist attacks in the last 50 days of the year (leaving out a major attack in Turkey and bombings at a bank and two synagogues), and all terrorist attacks in Russia carried out by the Chechens (13 attacks killing 244 people).

When asked why they failed to include any data after November 11, 2003 in the report--which was labeled as for the whole year of 2003--they claimed there was no time, as they had to submit the report by April 29, 2004. Essentially, that means that it takes them 170 days to get around to reading the damned newspaper.

The fact of the matter is, instead of terrorism falling to record lows, terrorism instead had risen more than 35% in the highest levels of terror activity in 20 years.

This is not just a "clerical error," as the administration is so laughably trying to sell to the public, but an outright, deliberate lie to avoid admitting abject failure during an election year. Bush is not winning the War on Terror™, he is losing it badly. He ignited terrorist activity in the Middle East with his Iraq invasion and sent floods of eager volunteers to the doors of al Qaeda, while at home he devastated our freedoms while at the same time underfunded local security, improving not at all our ability to stop terrorism within our borders.

Fahrenheit 9/11 Trailer Now in Non-streaming QuickTime

Well, I don't have to host the non-streaming version of the Fahrenheit 9/11 trailer any more--Apple has a full-sized, non-streaming QuickTime version up. It's a good trailer--who's music is that at the start, by the way? Phillip Glass? (The film's original music was composed by Jeff Gibbs, who also did the music for Moore's Columbine flick, by the way.)

This paper reports on how the new Fahrenheit 9/11 web site melted down due to a blizzard of requests for the trailer--they had to take it down for a while. The QuickTime version of the trailer on that site is now hosted by Apple, meaning that it also is the non-streaming size. Apple to the rescue....

Fahrenheit 9/11 Has a Distributor for June 25 Release

The New York Times is just now reporting that the independent Canadian Lions Gate Films has won the distribution rights for Moore's film, and that a release date of June 25 has been set. The film will be released on "about 1,000 theaters" in the U.S. Showtime, which caught the ditched Reagan miniseries, will show the film on pay cable.

If you go to Michael Moore's site, you'll see the initial flash screen confirms this, though there are as yet no details on the main page.

For those of us in Japan, I have found no release date for this country, though films quite often are delayed by a month or so; smaller films like those Moore makes are often delayed by several months or even more than a year, but this film is time-based enough that we will hopefully see it before November.

Fahrenheit 9/11 Reviews

So far Moore's new film is getting outstanding reviews, after receiving a 20-minute standing ovation at Cannes--the longest a film has ever received there, according to some. All the comments I have found of people who saw the film are positive, even from critics of Moore.

TIME Magazine's positive though not ecstatic review says: "...Moore is such a clever assembler of huge accusations and minor peccadillos (as with a shot of Wolfowitz sticking his pocket comb in his mouth and sucking on it to slick down his hair before a TV interview) that the film should engage audiences of all political persuasions," and concludes, "In sum, it’s an appalling, enthralling primer of what Moore sees as the Bush Administration’s crimes and misdemeanors."

From the short but enthusiastic review from A. O. Scott from The New York Times:

Its bill of particulars against Mr. Bush can be found in a number of recently published books, and it is unapologetically polemical. It is also the best film Mr. Moore has made so far, a powerful and passionate expression of outraged patriotism, leavened with humor and freighted with sorrow. Yes, I said patriotism, though there will inevitably be those, pointing to the film's enthusiastic reception in France, who will insist that it is the opposite. They should (unlike Disney's board of directors) see it first. ...

"Fahrenheit 9/11," his most disciplined and powerful movie to date, suggests that he is also, arguably, a great filmmaker. Using interviews and archival video clips (including a tape made by the staff at the Florida elementary school Mr. Bush was visiting on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001), he has assembled a moving and invigorating documentary. Is it partisan? Of course. But there are not many important films that haven't been.

The Herald has just now come out with this review, titled "Unexpectedly bold and moving piece of work.

"Fahrenheit 9/11 is a baggy, eccentric, unashamedly partisan animal, which makes its many points with broad strokes and even broader humour.
However, it's also an audacious, angry, and unexpectedly moving piece of work, the boldness and relevance of which few could deny.

Not that the movie didn't have its detractors, albeit ones who have not seen and do not care to see the film at all. The vehemently right-wing news rag News Max more than once compared Moore with Adolf Hitler and said he "screeched" at the audience, then hinted in a variety of ways that this was a left-wing conspiracy, whose members are "aligned with America's enemies"--while managing to sneak in references to Ann Coulter as "brilliant" and Bush as being strong and having "guts." Now, there's an objective review!

Fahrenheit 911 and Patriotism

Well, Fahrenheit 911 opens today at Cannes, and Moore has let a bit of a cat out of the bag: the film is not completely about what he said it would be about. Yes, much of the film deals with Bush's ties to the Saudis and the bin Laden family, as has long been reported. But at least half the film, Moore says, is about Iraq. With very unexpected footage: "we were able to get film crews embedded with American troops without them knowing that it was Michael Moore."

This should be interesting, and the timing more than just a little bit spot-on, considering how Iraq is now dragging Bush down more than anything else in his three and a half years. "The film is only partly to do with the Bin Ladens and Bush," Moore added. "I was able to send three different freelance film crews to Iraq. Soldiers had written to me to express their disillusionment with the war. It's a case of our own troops not being in support of their commander-in-chief." Moore has been printing letters from soldiers on his web site since last October.

One should also not miss the New York Times article on Moore and his film, which adds details about the films content, and does a very balanced job reporting on the issues involved and public views on the film.

---

One columnist points out that Moore is often seen as less than a patriotic American, a theme which is more often implied and hinted at than stated outright, but it does bring up a point that I think a great many people would agree with, but an ideal that is far from universally observed in the U.S. these days: one can be no more patriotic than to point out what is wrong with one's own country.

Many people have a skewed perspective on patriotism. They think that "my country, right or wrong" means that whatever terrible things happen in their country, or is done by their country worldwide, the patriotic thing to do is to deny they happen, zealously attack anyone pointing out these faults, and wave the flag while singing the national anthem at the top of their lungs. They have mistaken patriotism for idiocy.

Patriotism means that one will do whatever is necessary--sacrifice your life, your fortune, your sacred honor if needed--to ensure that your country is safe, sound and secure. And ignoring, even denying its faults will not accomplish any of those. Protesting what we believe is wrong is not just simply a right, it is a vital mechanism required to keep this country from destroying itself from within.

Some times good countries come under the control of bad people, some times people with base and selfish motives subvert the mechanisms of government. And some times even well-meaning leaders and administrators do things that are wrong despite their good intentions. Were we never to criticize these things, the results would be disastrous. Bad policies would not be reversed. Wrongdoings would not be corrected, and wrongdoers would know that all they have to do is get elected and they could abuse and undermine the system as much as they wanted, without fear of challenge from the people.

No, it's the ones who are mindlessly and blindly patriotic who are dangerous, those are the ones who the wrongdoers will prevail upon to hide and legitimize their misdeeds. Those are the people who attack the real patriots, who have the courage and will to stand up and criticize their own country, not because they hate it, but because they love it, because they know that however painful it might be, criticizing their own country is sometimes the only way to keep it whole and true.

If a family member became an alcoholic or other kind of drug user, went driving while under the influence and displayed other self-destructive behavior, would the measure of a loyal family member be to quiet their conscience and their criticism, and tell their kin nothing but positive things? Of course not--you would only be helping to destroy them if you did such a thing. A true parent, sibling or child would take that person aside and tell them what was wrong, and would do everything possible to help them make it right.

The same applies to one's country. Right now, Bush and his people are driving this country into the ground. We do our country no favors if we simply stand by, put our fingers in our ears, and hum the national anthem real loud. Public criticism, at times like these, is the highest and truest form of patriotism.

Moore Responds to Critics and to Disney

Michael Moore has written an open letter responding to many of the criticisms that have come out against him, as well as Disney's excuses for why they are doing this:

Disney told him a year ago they would never distribute the film. Moore points out that Eisner did not stop the film a year ago, as he could have, that Miramax promised it would be distributed by them, and that Disney itself spent $6 million on the film in that past year--hardly the actions a company would take if they had always planned on not distributing the film.

Disney stopped distribution because the film is political, and Disney is not. Moore points out that they distribute Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh regularly, and that they even distributed one of Moore's films, one with a political edge, in 1998, and election year.

Disney only distributes family fare. True, Moore concedes--but only under the Disney label; one of the reasons they have Miramax is to distribute more adult films, like Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill, two films that are most decidedly not "family fare."

Moore is really behind all this as a publicity stunt. Moore points out that films which switch distributors at the last minute have often failed. And let's not forget that this film hardly needed something new to be controversial; this film is a giant controversy all in itself, and needs no help from something like this. Moore does not touch on a more blatant fault in accusations I have seen--that Disney is as often being targeted as complicit in this, that it is all a publicity scheme plotted by Disney and Moore. Which, of course, is absolute BS, as Disney is getting a huge black eye from this, not to mention the fact that the film will almost certainly be distributed by someone else; how will Disney profit from that?

As usual, Moore's critics have tried to smear, ridicule and marginalize the filmmaker, and as usual, they do it by making extremely limited claims, making them sound bad while they are actually full of holes, and then pretend they are iron-clad and somehow represent the entirety of Moore's work. The most common example is the job his critics did on "Bowling for Columbine." Critics claimed that Moore was lying when he claimed that the Lockheed-Martin plant in Littleton, near Columbine, did not manufacture arms (they did), or that Moore portrayed Charlton Heston as speaking in Colorado 10 days after the Columbine shootings when he "actually" gave the speech 900 miles away and a year later (which is false--Moore's account was accurate). Moore refutes these false claims on his site, but when you find yourself speaking to conservatives, they always proclaim that Moore's films are "full of lies" and point to the fake attacks.

So these new claims are not really all that new, but unfortunately, they have possibly helped convince a lot of people that Moore is less than reputable. He's not slick, like his critics are, I'll give you that, but he is honest, and is far, far more accurate than the right-wingers. It is sad that a few people at the Academy Awards in 2003 (not the whole audience, not even a sizable part, but a few people up in the upper tiers) booing Moore when he gave his speech have somehow given conservatives a form of traction to discount him in the eyes of many people. The truth is, Moore is like a film version of 60 Minutes, but with wit, passion, and humanity. I may not always agree with him on everything, but I do respect him.

Boycott Disney

Democrats.com has announced a boycott of Disney, a move I heartily approve in light of Disney's current attempt to prevent Moore's new film from coming out (see previous post below). Disney has no right taking such a partisan stand on this issue--if they do not like the film, they can hand over distribution to someone else. If they truly fear "alienating viewers," then they made a huge mistake--banning the film will alienate far more liberals than letting a subsidiary release a Moore film would alienate conservatives.

At this time, the Democrats.com web site is not responding, for what reason I do not know (too many visitors? Or a malicious denial-of-service attack? Or just maintenance?).

Update from Mark at VuDeja: FAIR has the email address of a Disney bigwig, Chairman George Mitchell: george.mitchell@piperrudnick.com. Working for Change has a page with a pre-written, editable message to Mitchell where you add your personal information and send it from there.

I'll edit this post to add more information as it comes out, but make your position known to Disney, as I am doing: I will not buy any Disney DVD, CD, video, or movie ticket. Around the World in 80 Days looked like it might be entertaining, but I will not go to see it. Every Disney associate and subsidiary should also be boycotted: ABC, ESPN, A&E, Lifetime, The Disney Channel, Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, Caravan Pictures, Discover Magazine, and many more; here's a list of Disney's holdings.

Do not boycott Miramax films, however--Miramax is the good guy here, taking Moore's film when Gibson dumped it, and standing by Moore, so go see Kill Bill, Vol. II, Jersey Girl, or Ella Enchanted if that is to your tastes. Steer clear of Around the World in 80 Days, Haunted Mansion, or The Incredibles (even though Steve Jobs' Pixar made the film, it's still Disney). Don't buy the Finding Nemo or Pirates of the Caribbean DVDs or videos.

More later.

Update: a new AP article with a definite right-wing spin has appeared that nonetheless seems to have some reassuring news: apparently Moore is free to find a new distributor, and Disney is not able or willing to shelve it; Eisner reportedly told CNBC, "That film will get a distributor easily." I'll take a wait-and-see attitude on that one.

Disney Forbids Release of "Fahrenheit 911"

This is a pretty big one. Michael Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 911, is being distributed by Miramax. The Disney Corporation owns Miramax. And Disney is telling Miramax that it will forbid the distribution of Moore's film. In other words, if Disney has its way, you will never see Moore's new film. This is the newest censorship play by media elements, after Clear Channel disconnected Howard Stern and Sinclair Media forbade its stations to show the Nightline broadcast which listed the names of American soldiers who have died in Iraq. Not surprisingly, all instances of recent censorship have favored Bush.

For those of you who are not aware, Moore's film centers on President Bush's relationship with the bin Laden family, and likely will also focus on the Bush-Saud connections and other Bush scandals related to 9/11. Originally, Mel Gibson's film company was to distribute the film, but Gibson dropped it, and Miramax stepped in. Moore has been working on this film for a long time, and is only one week away from finishing it. The film has been selected to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival.

So Disney's decision, essentially, is to tell the American people that they are not allowed to see the film. Period. End of sentence. The reason? Moore claims that Disney CEO Eisner asked Moore not to distribute the film last spring because it might anger Florida governor Jeb Bush and cause him to yank away tax breaks that Disney enjoys in Florida, home of a great many Disney properties. Disney denies this, but offers no alternate explanation except to say that "the film is against the interests of the company because it would alienate viewers."

Disney is using a contract clause which allows it to axe a film "under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating." Disney and Miramax are talking, but Disney says it will not budge--which could lead to arbitration. Moore himself says that "if I have anything to say about it, you'll see it this summer -- because, after all, it is a free country." Irony noted.

Personally, I can see no legitimate reason for Disney's actions, and the fact that Jeb Bush holds an incredible amount of influence over Disney in Florida makes Moore's claim all the more believable. Moore is finishing work on the film, just before it is released at Cannes; fortunately, the Disney censorship move will not prevent the film from showing at the festival.

But it may mean that you won't get to see it anytime soon. Miramax's chairman Harvey Weinstein stands behind Moore, but that may not be enough. Still, the furor caused by this may be enough to reverse Disney's stand. After Harper Collins threatened to destroy Moore's already-printed book "Stupid White Men" in the wake of 9/11, a campaign headed by librarians changed their minds and the book became a huge No. 1 bestseller.

I would ask that all readers who want Disney to stop this to call or send email/letters to Disney. Alas, Disney makes it incredibly hard to find any way to contact them directly, but I have gleaned possible addresses from the Internet:

Disney's Corporate Offices in Burbank: 1-818-560- 1000
Disney's corporate address: 500 South Buena Vista Street, Burbank, California, 91521
Michael Eisner's email address (possibly changed by now, but it still goes to Disney): meistb@go.com or michael.d.eisner@disney.com

Talk to them, and speak loudly!