 |
| Home | Hot News | Economic Crisis | Barack Obama | Impeachment | Election Integrity | LGBT Gay | Media | Business - Economics | Edges | Government | Religions |
| Life Arts Science | Security WMDs Terror | Rights Justice Democracy | Obama transition | Veterans Military | Torture Guantanamo | Barack Obama Family, et | Iraq Afghanistan Pakista | MiddleEast |
|
Tags for This Article:
2008 Elections (2448) Voting (1715) 2004 Election (588) Election-Voting Issues News (432) Education (272) Health Care Universal - Single Payer (261) 2000 Election (224) Dissent (169) Disinformation (142) Repression (107) Marriage Civil Unions (82) LGBT (67) Software Driven Voting Systems (54) Labor Laws US (47) Michael Moore (41) Review_ Documentary (30) Plutocracy (27) Uprisings (16)
|
(more...)
(less...)
Add to My Group
Director Michael Moore
This free release chronicles Michael Moore's 62-city tour in 2004. It is his best effort, his slickest, most exciting, most inspirational film to date. It is not bent on educating us about dark truths. Instead, it's a rousing musical-speech-video tour aimed at Getting Out The Vote (GOTV). The film seeks to reach the nation's youth with its strong anti-war message. It calls for a nonstop movement for universal health care, quality education, marital and reproductive freedom, racial equality, and fair labor standards. Slacker Uprising is the best GOTV message on the market. Moore applauds the 21 million youth who voted in 2004 and blames their parents for reelecting Bush. He slams mainstream media for lying to the public about the war in Iraq, but is pathologically silent on electoral cyber theft and Democrat wimplicity. The film flays Republicans, our evil warlords, but never mentions that Democrats refuse to impeach BushCo, that they continually vote to fund the war, to shred the US Constitution, and, most recently, to squelch dissent with terrorizing brutality. His lack of honest criticism of the Democratic Party dulls the brilliance of this motivational film. The genius of Slacker Uprising serves the plutocracy as effectively as Moore's past films condemned it. An instrumental When Johnny Comes Marching Home by Instant Death and Andrew Weiss opens the film, immediately commanding our attention. This song choice is subtle and effective in an antiwar film that salutes our troops. Other musical appearances include REM, Eddie Vedder, Steve Earl, Joan Baez, and Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine. Takin' My Country Back by Honky Tonkers for Truth provides background as Moore arrives in Nashville. Robert Ellis then performs Al Gore, a humorous foot tapper with a familiar tune. Joan Baez sings Finlandia a cappella, which she introduced as Finland's national anthem: This is my song Most of the tour stops host large crowds in filled arenas, with hundreds and often thousands of loud, cheering youth. But Moore is somber when visiting Kent State University. He pays tribute to the four students who opposed the Viet Nam war and were murdered by the Ohio National Guard, on orders of then-Governor Jim Rhodes. Back in 2004, Moore was promoting his film Fahrenheit 911 – a topic many are still trying to suppress. He shows how San Diego successfully prevented him from speaking on campus in a 1,500 seat auditorium. That speech-suppression effort became a boon for Michael, when the students moved his appearance to a sold-out 15,000 seat venue at the nearby Del Mar Fairgrounds.
Not much has changed since May 4, 1970. Free speech is still brutally, illegally, and unconstitutionally suppressed with force. Roseanne Barr satirizes the neocon ideology and actor Vigo Morgenson gives a deadly serious speech, along with soldiers and parents of fallen soldiers. A few military heavyweights also take the podium, including Colonel Ann Wright. Organized Republicans invade his speeches, chanting "Four more years!" Moore quips, "You say four more years, but I hear four more wars." His fans laugh the Bushites into submission. A creepy segment shows organized youths standing, holding hands, and loudly intoning Christian prayers, while Moore tries to speak. He effectively responds, "Hey, let me ask you a question. What would Jesus bomb?" Parodying a line from A League of Their Own at the end of the film, he laughs and says to a crowd, "There's no crying in politics!" Nor should we scapegoat voters for Bush remaining in the White House. Bush was never elected, Michael; not by Floridians in 2000 nor by Ohioans in 2004. Her blogs also address religious, gender, sexual and racial equality, as well as environmental issues; and are sprinkled with book and film reviews on various topics. She spent most of her working life as a legal investigator for private lawyers, and five years as an editor. She currently serves as a senior editor at OpEdNews.
All material offered here is the property of Rady Ananda, copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009. Permission is granted to repost, with proper attribution including the original link.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." Tell the truth anyway.
Well done, Rady. But if Michael Moore is now shilling for the Democrats, he is no longer on the left. The Democrats are not a party of the left and have never been an opposition party to the Republicans. In no European country would our Democratic Party be considered to be a party of the left or even a party of the political center. It is totally to the right of center. Moore has done an excellent job of focusing on the corruption of our system, but it appears that he still has faith in a totally corrupt system. That's a shame. You can't change a totally corrupt system by voting in its rigged elections. Obama is every bit as much a war criminal as McCain. When it comes to funding the Bush wars of aggression based on lies, which are genocides and crimes against humanity, McCain and Obama have identifical voting records. I think they may have voted differently once on a bill about desecrating the flag, but otherwise they are identical voting twins. I hope the youth of America have the good sense to look at the wars, look at the bailouts, look at the candidates' voting records, and then tell this fascist system to shove it. If they want to bring about change they should spend election day partying instead of voting. It is disgusting to realize that Michael Moore, for all his great documentary films, is a left gatekeeper trying to keep corporate capitalist crooks in power. He, of all people, should know better and be above decieving our youth that way. Thanks for a great review, Rady. by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 9:57:05 PM
keeping it real you know what's interesting about the film, Mark ~ Not once does he promo Democrats... it's interesting. But he doesn't diss them either. He handled it the same way he handled 911 - he presents a ton of info but never once does he accuse anyone in our government of collusion. He's very careful. I really do think he's a cinematic genius - and if his executive producers had any hand in the making of Slacker Uprising (Harvey Weinstein, in particular), then they are geniuses, too. It's probably not fair to compare someone's first work to their latest, but what a stark difference from Roger & Me. He may be outsmarting us cynics, too. The reason I can't get upset that so many people are actually mailing in their ballots (like, duh, have they never heard of chain of custody?), and that 100 million people will attempt to vote in November IS BECAUSE many will learn our election system is a total sham. The more who try to vote and can't, the more our numbers swell. The more our numbers swell, the closer we reach critical mass. the more of us who actively work toward positive change, the better it is for all of us, all the sooner. Thanks for the kudos, too. ;-) by
Rady Ananda (133 articles, 300 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 1229 comments)
on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 10:55:52 PM
missing the point I believe we are beyond the point of needing more people to understand that the electoral system is a total sham. We don't need to swell the numbers of people who see the fraud, we need to change our collective political behavior. Whatever Moore's strategy is (if he has one) behind his continuing efforts to urge people to vote, I think honesty is the better policy. What we need is more people to understand what a legitimate government is and how to de-legitimize a government we disapprove of. Judging from all the threads in which this subject has come up (as well as from private conversations), my feeling is that the legitimacy of our government is rarely questioned. Usually the presupposition is that our constitution is legitimate but that this particular administration is not. Efforts by this administration to void elements of the constitution simply sets up a false dilemma of constitutionalists versus this administration. It is a false dilemma because the constitution establishes a plutocracy and that's exactly what we've got, though now in the more extreme form of fascism. A legitimate government is one that is generally considered rightful and it supports its claims to rightfulness by showing that it enjoys the participation and the consent of the governed. It seems to elude many people's understanding that approval of our government is granted precisely by participation in its rituals, most notably elections. When this is understood it becomes clear why a population cannot make fundamental changes in its government by voting: There is no institutional means for showing disapproval of the basic form of government, only to show preferences for its various candidates; to vote for any candidate is to submit to the current form of government; you show approval by participation; you cannot send a message of disapproval (for a form of government) by sending a message of approval (for one of its candidates). But it's the form of government that's the problem and we need to de-legitimize it. As Mark E. Smith and others have stated over and over again, the only non-contradictory and non-self-sabotaging means available to show disapproval of a government is to consciously, steadfastly and publicly refuse to participate in its ritual of elections. It would be great to see Moore produce a sequel to "Slacker Uprising" which conveys this message. by
Jim Eldon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 184 comments)
on Sunday, September 28, 2008 at 3:07:17 PM
Michael Moore must hear this message Rady, Thanks for linking my recent speech challenging media not to report as fact what can't be proven and hasn't been independently verified (election results). I can now say I have taken several further steps to turn this into a campaign that will become louder and more visible soon. Meanwhile, though I haven't had a chance to view the film yet, your review makes me realize that Michael Moore should definitely be added to the list of media people we target with this message. We need to see people put on the spot answering for why they will accept elections with unprovable results. Also, thanks for hipping us to the word wimplicity. LOL! There aren't that many Google hits for it so I couldn't figure out its origin. Where did you get it? by
Dave Berman (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 48 comments)
on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 11:48:28 PM
For the campaign After posting the above comment I "dugg" this article. On the digg site I posted this comment, which I hope people will copy and paste elsewhere... Paperless electronic voting + by
Dave Berman (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 48 comments)
on Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 12:01:14 AM
Rigged elections Yes, they are rigged. But if they cheat, there's a slim chance the cheaters will get caught. If people don't vote, they have no reason to cheat and you will just give them the election. If you can win by a wide margin, they will have to cheat a lot more in order to steal it from you, which makes it more likely they will get caught. In any event, as long as you are voting with your morals and your conscience, it's best to vote. by
Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 133 comments)
on Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 1:34:56 AM
Questions for you How much more caught do you think they can get? We know more than enough, not only about the last elections, but how much alike the next will be. I'm not saying this to take Mark's side, but I would like to see you explain how a "rigged election," perpetuating a myth of democracy, and a myth that we are a Free People, is worth your support. Respectfully, is it possible you and millions of others are experiencing cognitive dissonance? by
Dave Berman (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 48 comments)
on Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 2:02:21 AM
If you don't vote you're just going to give it away Frankly, it shocks my conscience to vote for a corrupt two-party system that flies in the face of democracy. But if you feel whole-heartedly about the democratic party, I urge you to give them your support by voting for them. If you stop voting there will be no more need to cheat anymore because we will just have a one-party Republican system if people stop voting for one party and worse, it will all be fair and square (one day). I never said you should stop trying to hold those accountable for cheating, that would be ridiculous. I feel you should keep voting and do your best to catch the bastards. Please tell me what will change if Democrats all stop voting? by
Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 133 comments)
on Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 1:21:18 PM
Mark's side? I fully support Mark's side. I know that he's not voting, and why he's not voting. I also know that he's out there actively working to change the system. I can't say this about most people. If there's a choice between voting and actually doing something, go for the latter. by
Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 133 comments)
on Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 2:14:46 PM
Wide Margin talking point I've heard this before: "If you can win by a wide margin, they will have to cheat a lot more in order to steal it from you..." To me, this talking point attacks the problem of widespread election fraud from a loser standpoint. The premise of this talking point ACCEPTS that Democrat (or non Republican) votes don't count as much as Republican votes. Since when is my vote worth less than a Repub's vote? How is this acceptable? Instead of attacking the problem of widespread election fraud from the premise of accepting it, we need to be proactive. On the offense rather than defense. But we can't even get there till we get rid of voting computers that experts tell us can be hacked without detection. When the Democrats (and other parties) get behind the campaign to end computerized voting, then they will be fighting election fraud in a proactive instead of defensive posture. by
Rady Ananda (133 articles, 300 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 1229 comments)
on Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 8:15:26 AM
wide margin Your vote isn't worth less than a Republican vote, and I never said that. Basically, the more people who vote democrat, the more people that are scratching their heads when they don't win. If somebody starts researching the corruption, they may do polls to determine how people voted, which might lend more support to the fact that cheating's going on. True, it's ridiculous that some people still don't acknowledge how far this has gone, but those that do realize, and are working to bring this corruption to light, need all the help they can get. In effect, you are supporting those who are trying to stop the cheating by giving them more data to work with. by
Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 133 comments)
on Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 1:26:53 PM
Bravo! Excellent points - and creatively responds to my cynicism. I tend to agree with you that the more people who do "wake up" to widespread election fraud, the more chance we have of fully addressing it head on. I remain strongly ambivalent on whether or not to vote. I personally stopped voting in 2005 after learning about the unsecurability of software driven voting systems. I've been deeply involved in election investigations -my work is in three books now; I've testified in one case and have been involved in three. None of our work overturned clearly fraudulent elections. With this background, I believe that a vote on the machine is a vote for it. If 65% of the public simply refused to vote - and (here's the sticking point) if we could get that statistic out far and wide (meaning MSM will have to report it), we might effect immediate change in voting technology. (I say 65% because a third of the public will always vote, it seems.) Meanwhile, US voter turnout has declined steadily since 1960, with an upspike in 1992 and 2004. Those assassinations in the 1960s remarkably seemed to chill Americans on any belief in our electoral process; computerized elections should also have a chilling effect... yet, MSM is so damn effective at deceiving the public about their uselessness that we're stuck with a sham system and the Democratic party continually promising change while it continues to serve its corporate masters. I fight from the election integrity segment of the social justice movement - but I am beginning to believe Americans will finally do something when enough feel the economic pain wrought by this duopoly. However, I am woefully undereducated in the world of economics, so I'll probably stay here in the election world. by
Rady Ananda (133 articles, 300 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 1229 comments)
on Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 6:30:39 PM
Yeah I agree... If we're all going to stop voting until they get rid of the software-based voting, then we have to be sure we're LOUD and CLEAR that's why we're doing it. Everyone who does it has to be clear on why they're doing it too or I'm not sure it will make a difference. Personally, my reasons go beyond electronic voting and election fraud, but that won't stop me from protesting it right beside you! by
Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 133 comments)
on Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 8:59:22 PM
ok, I'll bite will you clarify some of your reasons? by
Rady Ananda (133 articles, 300 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 1229 comments)
on Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 9:09:17 PM
ok Well, I try to stay objective and not say anything I can't back up with facts. But I don't think a two-party system is really in anyone's best interests. In any event, it's not a democracy as most people are always voting against themselves, choosing one or the other based on a few hot issues that keeps everybody divided. I don't think all the problems in the country (or the world) can be divided up into two parties. It's just not logical. There's more than that, but then they are just opinions and observations and I don't want to sound like chicken little. by
Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 133 comments)
on Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 11:27:20 PM
totally agreed on all points. Nothing alarmist about a common sense observation that there are more than 2 viewpoints in a nation with more than two people. ;-) by
Rady Ananda (133 articles, 300 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 1229 comments)
on Friday, September 26, 2008 at 7:06:31 AM
I'm a 61year old white guy, Veteran of 66-68, operate my own business with my wife and love to travel. Built a big sailboat in the 70's and went sailing for a few years, which ruined me for real work. Now, I fly hot air balloons for a living. Have been initiated as an Andean Paq'o. Yes, I am a liberal.
They all Cheat! It may be true that Republicans have the upper hand in the voter fraud arena these days, but Democrats have a long history of promoting votor fraud as well. I like the idea of a mulit-party instant run-off system that other countries use..... Collapse, Ruin and rebuilding seem to be increasingly in our future. fine with me, what we got going on now just ain't working for enough of us. Veteran, '66-68 by
Roger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 404 comments)
on Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 1:32:55 PM |
1
1
1
