Michael Moore, Oscar
April 10, 2003 11:02 PM Subscribe
Michael Moore update. Judging from this column he is still alive. and is thriving after his Oscar rant.
Bowling for Columbine and his book Stupid White Men continue to break new records.
"Is anyone else alive that I might not know about?"
Maybe. Just maybe.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:23 PM on April 10, 2003
Maybe. Just maybe.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:23 PM on April 10, 2003
Yeah, it took a while to get a locksmith on a Sunday night in Hollywood, but he was still breathing when they pulled him from the trunk.
posted by wendell at 12:11 AM on April 11, 2003
posted by wendell at 12:11 AM on April 11, 2003
BTW, he's already fallen out of #1 at the NYTBS, knocked out by "Leap of Faith" by Queen Noor (any relation to Queen Latifah?)
And the #1 paperback best seller is Bill "Sit N Spin" O'Reilly, so make any conclusions you want. Just remember both Rush Limbaugh and "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar" are former #1's, and the bookstore that tried to put those two together as a 'gift bundle' is now out of business.
At least there's some undeniable good news on the Best Seller list: "Trading Spaces Behind the Scenes" is threatening to overtake Dr. Atkins in the "Paperback Non-Fiction" category.
posted by wendell at 12:34 AM on April 11, 2003
And the #1 paperback best seller is Bill "Sit N Spin" O'Reilly, so make any conclusions you want. Just remember both Rush Limbaugh and "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar" are former #1's, and the bookstore that tried to put those two together as a 'gift bundle' is now out of business.
At least there's some undeniable good news on the Best Seller list: "Trading Spaces Behind the Scenes" is threatening to overtake Dr. Atkins in the "Paperback Non-Fiction" category.
posted by wendell at 12:34 AM on April 11, 2003
Michael Moore was bumped by the Queen of Jordan? Bowling for baklava??? That just ain't funny.
posted by jabo at 1:23 AM on April 11, 2003
posted by jabo at 1:23 AM on April 11, 2003
I had hear a lot of criticism about Bowling for Columbine so I finally went and saw it last week and I thought it was pretty damn good. A bit overblown now and again, but I though his analysis of the homicidal gun tendencies of Americans was pretty astute. Living in fear is no way to live. I think it is time for Americans to turn of their TVs and Terror Alert pagers and try to enjoy life a little.
The Charleton Heston interview at the end is an all-time classic. What possessed that zombie retard to let Moore into his home? I can't remember the last time I saw a supposedly "respectable" public figure (the NRA nuts think he is great) be so completely destroyed in front of a camera. I actually felt sorry for him for a moment!
I highly recommend the documentary, go see it now!
posted by sic at 1:35 AM on April 11, 2003
The Charleton Heston interview at the end is an all-time classic. What possessed that zombie retard to let Moore into his home? I can't remember the last time I saw a supposedly "respectable" public figure (the NRA nuts think he is great) be so completely destroyed in front of a camera. I actually felt sorry for him for a moment!
I highly recommend the documentary, go see it now!
posted by sic at 1:35 AM on April 11, 2003
I get Moore's updates by email, but for some reason, they get flagged as junk mail.
No, seriously.
posted by sillygwailo at 1:56 AM on April 11, 2003
No, seriously.
posted by sillygwailo at 1:56 AM on April 11, 2003
I like Michael Moore, but he needs to slobber a bit less, is all I'm sayin'.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:00 AM on April 11, 2003
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:00 AM on April 11, 2003
Gee... if Mike baby was a conservative there would be a whole lot of conspiracy folks thinkign he maybe made such a fuss at the awards specificaly to work on his PR so he'd sell some books.
This post by him seems to confirm that it worked :)
Some links FYI
Moore's Epiphany
Moore's factual issues
MooreWatch specifically discusses this here
"Moore's Fictitious Life"
posted by soulhuntre at 2:27 AM on April 11, 2003
This post by him seems to confirm that it worked :)
Some links FYI
Moore's Epiphany
Moore's factual issues
MooreWatch specifically discusses this here
"Moore's Fictitious Life"
posted by soulhuntre at 2:27 AM on April 11, 2003
If Michael Moore looked like Colin Farrell, would the Michael Moore phenomenon exist?
posted by Opus Dark at 2:45 AM on April 11, 2003
posted by Opus Dark at 2:45 AM on April 11, 2003
Moore stands on his own. More Americans should do the same. I don't care what the issue. Stand away from those who you most align. Be yourself. Be an individual. Stand for what is right.
posted by crasspastor at 3:36 AM on April 11, 2003
posted by crasspastor at 3:36 AM on April 11, 2003
That factual issues link is interesting, however it nitpicks heavily on what amounts to less than 5 minutes of the film.
If those 5 minutes were removed the general point of the film would clearly remain intact, and the author of the link would have nothing to complain about.
Oh, and that webpage is dishonest and fraudulent itself. If anything Moore inflated the statistics for gun murders.
And for all his searching he never came across pages like this, which while a poor source of information, is certainly a far better source than quoting a USENET publishing from a hotmail account? What's next? "Joe" off the "street" has "information"?
[both of those were within the first few results googling for "japan shootings statistics"]
But no, don't let that stop me from calling his page incorrect.
And to suggest that Heston has reason to forget all about Flint is pathetic. We all know Heston's memory was suffering and that's a reasonable excuse, but suggesting it is failing under the weight of so many rallies is beyond silly.
posted by shepd at 4:09 AM on April 11, 2003
If those 5 minutes were removed the general point of the film would clearly remain intact, and the author of the link would have nothing to complain about.
Oh, and that webpage is dishonest and fraudulent itself. If anything Moore inflated the statistics for gun murders.
And for all his searching he never came across pages like this, which while a poor source of information, is certainly a far better source than quoting a USENET publishing from a hotmail account? What's next? "Joe" off the "street" has "information"?
[both of those were within the first few results googling for "japan shootings statistics"]
But no, don't let that stop me from calling his page incorrect.
And to suggest that Heston has reason to forget all about Flint is pathetic. We all know Heston's memory was suffering and that's a reasonable excuse, but suggesting it is failing under the weight of so many rallies is beyond silly.
posted by shepd at 4:09 AM on April 11, 2003
Roger Ebert discusses Moore in this Answer Man piece.
posted by sillygwailo at 4:16 AM on April 11, 2003
posted by sillygwailo at 4:16 AM on April 11, 2003
I have to giv eMoore credit that he finally did admit that there is a VERY BIG DIFERENCE between Gore and Bush. One gets you a G rating and the other an X rating at the movies.
posted by nofundy at 4:53 AM on April 11, 2003
posted by nofundy at 4:53 AM on April 11, 2003
This has been posted here before - and has also been available from a certain MeFi's blog, but this critique of BFC is worth reading.
It's a bit of a rant, but it does contain some points that undermine both the arguments the film puts forward, and the credibility of Moore as a documentary filmmaker.
Having said that, I was well aware of Moore's biases when I saw the movie, and really enjoyed it despite it's flaws.
posted by backOfYourMind at 5:13 AM on April 11, 2003
It's a bit of a rant, but it does contain some points that undermine both the arguments the film puts forward, and the credibility of Moore as a documentary filmmaker.
Having said that, I was well aware of Moore's biases when I saw the movie, and really enjoyed it despite it's flaws.
posted by backOfYourMind at 5:13 AM on April 11, 2003
...Trading Spaces Behind the Scenes" is threatening to overtake Dr. Atkins in the "Paperback Non-Fiction" category.
Not to derail, but Dr. Atkins may not be too concerned about such matters right now.
posted by luser at 5:16 AM on April 11, 2003
Not to derail, but Dr. Atkins may not be too concerned about such matters right now.
posted by luser at 5:16 AM on April 11, 2003
Moore stands on his own. More Americans should do the same. I don't care what the issue. Stand away from those who you most align. Be yourself. Be an individual. Stand for what is right.
*puts fist in the air*
One Tin Soldier rides away......
posted by jonmc at 5:21 AM on April 11, 2003
*puts fist in the air*
One Tin Soldier rides away......
posted by jonmc at 5:21 AM on April 11, 2003
Stand for what is right.
No one can do any more. If you don't at least do this, you're worthless as a human being. The complication comes in, of course, when disagreement crops up about what is right.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:26 AM on April 11, 2003
No one can do any more. If you don't at least do this, you're worthless as a human being. The complication comes in, of course, when disagreement crops up about what is right.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:26 AM on April 11, 2003
What I am most concerned about right now is that all of you -- the majority of Americans who did not support this war in the first place -- not go silent or be intimidated by what will be touted as some great military victory.
This is at least the third time I've heard/read him state that a majority of Americans do/did not support this war.
Every pre-war poll showed significant (~ 2/3) support for military action. Currently, it's up in the 80% range. Moore is either a liar or delusional.
posted by probablysteve at 5:58 AM on April 11, 2003
This is at least the third time I've heard/read him state that a majority of Americans do/did not support this war.
Every pre-war poll showed significant (~ 2/3) support for military action. Currently, it's up in the 80% range. Moore is either a liar or delusional.
posted by probablysteve at 5:58 AM on April 11, 2003
Every pre-war poll showed significant (~ 2/3) support for military action. Currently, it's up in the 80% range.
Yes, but apparently around the same percentage believes that Saddam's Iraq had something to do with the September 11th attacks, which is purest bollocks, as we all know.
The natural conclusion is, I am forced to admit, that either a) The American public is dirt, stick, stone stupid or b) The American public is dirt, stick, stone stupid.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:03 AM on April 11, 2003
Yes, but apparently around the same percentage believes that Saddam's Iraq had something to do with the September 11th attacks, which is purest bollocks, as we all know.
The natural conclusion is, I am forced to admit, that either a) The American public is dirt, stick, stone stupid or b) The American public is dirt, stick, stone stupid.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:03 AM on April 11, 2003
stavrosthewonderchicken: apparently? I've heard this, but only here. you have a link?
posted by probablysteve at 6:12 AM on April 11, 2003
posted by probablysteve at 6:12 AM on April 11, 2003
The natural conclusion is, I am forced to admit, that either a) The American public is dirt, stick, stone stupid or b) The American public is dirt, stick, stone stupid.
Well, with respectful persuasive arguments like that it's a wonder more people haven't joined the anti-war side huh?
posted by jonmc at 6:14 AM on April 11, 2003
Well, with respectful persuasive arguments like that it's a wonder more people haven't joined the anti-war side huh?
posted by jonmc at 6:14 AM on April 11, 2003
What a useless man.
He goes ahead and attributes all of his success the day after the Oscars to his "speech" and not the fact that he, oh, I don't know, won an Oscar.
posted by jon_kill at 6:16 AM on April 11, 2003
He goes ahead and attributes all of his success the day after the Oscars to his "speech" and not the fact that he, oh, I don't know, won an Oscar.
posted by jon_kill at 6:16 AM on April 11, 2003
thanks for the great link. but i actually found it myself. about 45% thought there was a link. not quite 66%, but not also particularly comforting.
posted by probablysteve at 6:20 AM on April 11, 2003
posted by probablysteve at 6:20 AM on April 11, 2003
-- On the day after I criticized Bush and the war at the Academy Awards, attendance at "Bowling for Columbine" in theaters around the country went up 110%
-- Yesterday (April 6), "Stupid White Men" shot back to #1 on the New York Times bestseller list.
-- In the week after the Oscars, my website was getting 10-20 million hits A DAY
-- In the past week, I have obtained funding for my next documentary...
How exactly does this counter the popular impression that Moore's Oscar antics were nothing but self-promotion?
BTW, anyone who hasn't seen Roger and Me should. Immediately. What a funny, touching, and important work that is.
posted by PrinceValium at 6:22 AM on April 11, 2003
-- Yesterday (April 6), "Stupid White Men" shot back to #1 on the New York Times bestseller list.
-- In the week after the Oscars, my website was getting 10-20 million hits A DAY
-- In the past week, I have obtained funding for my next documentary...
How exactly does this counter the popular impression that Moore's Oscar antics were nothing but self-promotion?
BTW, anyone who hasn't seen Roger and Me should. Immediately. What a funny, touching, and important work that is.
posted by PrinceValium at 6:22 AM on April 11, 2003
jonmc, hamhanded as you are with your 'antiwar and prowar are the same darn thing and I want no part of either' pronouncements of late, the truth is that you are right in essence that being 'anti-war' and 'pro-war' are equally cretinous positions to take.
One says that 'humans must never kill,' which is clearly foolishly idealistic and unrealistic, and one says that 'war is good,' which, although if we look at it through the narrow utilitarian lens sometimes almost seems true (see also Socialists, National), but is at the end of the day a stance that is deeply unethical.
My problem with you, my friend, and with those who sophomorically hover and feign some sort of detachment, is that unless you think about what is right, decide for yourself, you are a worthless piece of vocalizing flesh, and you should just shut the fuck up. Decide what you believe, and defend that belief until someone teaches you a better one, damn it. Don't make a career out of picking apart others who have actually thought about and decided what they think to be right and good.
I have much more respect for the idiots (not to name names) who believe that America is doing the right thing at the moment, as long as they believe that it is right, twisted and benighted as their analysis may be, than I do for those, like you of late, who denigrate everyone who takes a stand, on either side.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:29 AM on April 11, 2003
One says that 'humans must never kill,' which is clearly foolishly idealistic and unrealistic, and one says that 'war is good,' which, although if we look at it through the narrow utilitarian lens sometimes almost seems true (see also Socialists, National), but is at the end of the day a stance that is deeply unethical.
My problem with you, my friend, and with those who sophomorically hover and feign some sort of detachment, is that unless you think about what is right, decide for yourself, you are a worthless piece of vocalizing flesh, and you should just shut the fuck up. Decide what you believe, and defend that belief until someone teaches you a better one, damn it. Don't make a career out of picking apart others who have actually thought about and decided what they think to be right and good.
I have much more respect for the idiots (not to name names) who believe that America is doing the right thing at the moment, as long as they believe that it is right, twisted and benighted as their analysis may be, than I do for those, like you of late, who denigrate everyone who takes a stand, on either side.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:29 AM on April 11, 2003
stavros: In a sense, Iraq did have 'something to do' with the 9-11 attacks. Al Qaeda has three major grudges against the US. One is the presence of US troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia (because of the Gulf War); another is the excess deaths in Iraq because of the post-war sanctions. The third is US support for Israel. Two of these three are the direct result of Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait in 1990.
One side-effect of the current attack on Iraq is that it may allow the US to pull troops out of Saudi Arabia, and there will be no more sanctions. This is very good as far as it goes. Al Qaeda won't suddenly love us, of course, but it does remove two of their major gripes. It doesn't do anything about our support for Israel, but that wasn't going to change anyway.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 6:34 AM on April 11, 2003
One side-effect of the current attack on Iraq is that it may allow the US to pull troops out of Saudi Arabia, and there will be no more sanctions. This is very good as far as it goes. Al Qaeda won't suddenly love us, of course, but it does remove two of their major gripes. It doesn't do anything about our support for Israel, but that wasn't going to change anyway.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 6:34 AM on April 11, 2003
And that, my friends, is the real point of this film that I just got an Oscar for -- how those in charge use FEAR to manipulate the public into doing whatever they are told.
Wasn't the the main point of the article the fact that the general public wasn't be manipulated by those in charge? That despite what They are trying to do, Moore is having even more sucess (and the Dixie Chicks haven't really lost any sales, etc...). If they're trying it, it doesn't seem to be working that much...
And my main 2 issues with BFC (which I liked alot):
1) the show "Cops" shows way more goofy poor white trash on the show then they do scary black folk. I'm willing to testify to this in court.
2) The fact that people in Canada don't lock their doors isn't an example of US Citizens living in fear (imo), it's an example of Canadian folks being dopey. At least if the economy ever does finally go belly-up, I know I can make an easy transition into becoming a professional thief up in Canada, aye?
posted by stifford at 6:37 AM on April 11, 2003
Wasn't the the main point of the article the fact that the general public wasn't be manipulated by those in charge? That despite what They are trying to do, Moore is having even more sucess (and the Dixie Chicks haven't really lost any sales, etc...). If they're trying it, it doesn't seem to be working that much...
And my main 2 issues with BFC (which I liked alot):
1) the show "Cops" shows way more goofy poor white trash on the show then they do scary black folk. I'm willing to testify to this in court.
2) The fact that people in Canada don't lock their doors isn't an example of US Citizens living in fear (imo), it's an example of Canadian folks being dopey. At least if the economy ever does finally go belly-up, I know I can make an easy transition into becoming a professional thief up in Canada, aye?
posted by stifford at 6:37 AM on April 11, 2003
Slithy_Tove : Yes, I'll certainly grant that. But I don't think that that nuanced kind of argument is the one that sways popular sentiment in America at the moment. Perhaps I am mistaken, but my understanding is that the equation in most peoples' minds in America today is : Iraq+Saddam+Airplanes=911 and this invasion is the zeroing out of that sum, which is what drives popular support of the war.
And it's just not true.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:39 AM on April 11, 2003
And it's just not true.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:39 AM on April 11, 2003
I'm very attached to the situation as this is my country we're talking about here and despite everything, I still care what happens.
I have publicly said that I am against the war in numerous venues at numerous times. At the same time most of the anti-war movement makes me wanna puke with their smugness and beligerence. Detachment has nothing to do with it, it has to wanting to find a place to "attach"(for lack of a better word) and realizing there is none where you truly feel right being.
That said, generally speaking if you are trying to woo people over to your side of the fence, calling them "dirt, stick, stone stupid" usually dosen't really wanna make them listen further.
You know, when I was everyones pet retard talking in agreeable tones about trivial stuff, people couldn't get enough of me. Now, that I have a controversial opinion or two, I'm the whipping boy again.
posted by jonmc at 6:48 AM on April 11, 2003
I have publicly said that I am against the war in numerous venues at numerous times. At the same time most of the anti-war movement makes me wanna puke with their smugness and beligerence. Detachment has nothing to do with it, it has to wanting to find a place to "attach"(for lack of a better word) and realizing there is none where you truly feel right being.
That said, generally speaking if you are trying to woo people over to your side of the fence, calling them "dirt, stick, stone stupid" usually dosen't really wanna make them listen further.
You know, when I was everyones pet retard talking in agreeable tones about trivial stuff, people couldn't get enough of me. Now, that I have a controversial opinion or two, I'm the whipping boy again.
posted by jonmc at 6:48 AM on April 11, 2003
You know, when I was everyones pet retard talking in agreeable tones about trivial stuff, people couldn't get enough of me. Now, that I have a controversial opinion or two, I'm the whipping boy again.
Wallow in it, amigo! Pushback means you've said something that made someone think, and in asciiworld, that's the best you can do!
if you are trying to woo people over to your side of the fence
I never ever do this (or try not to, at least). Everyone is welcome to think what they will : I will in turn think what I do, and talk about it. If they are woo'd, hooray! If I am, equally hooray! At least some communication has happened.
[/dialogue]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:55 AM on April 11, 2003
Wallow in it, amigo! Pushback means you've said something that made someone think, and in asciiworld, that's the best you can do!
if you are trying to woo people over to your side of the fence
I never ever do this (or try not to, at least). Everyone is welcome to think what they will : I will in turn think what I do, and talk about it. If they are woo'd, hooray! If I am, equally hooray! At least some communication has happened.
[/dialogue]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:55 AM on April 11, 2003
Every pre-war poll showed significant (~ 2/3) support for military action.
Who exactly was polled?? Has anyone here ever been polled? I haven't.
"The polls show" is a completely meaningless phrase. The only poll I have ever been asked to join is "Coke or Pepsi?" at the supermarket.
posted by archimago at 7:05 AM on April 11, 2003
Who exactly was polled?? Has anyone here ever been polled? I haven't.
"The polls show" is a completely meaningless phrase. The only poll I have ever been asked to join is "Coke or Pepsi?" at the supermarket.
posted by archimago at 7:05 AM on April 11, 2003
sic: The Charleton Heston interview at the end is an all-time classic. What possessed that zombie retard to let Moore into his home? I can't remember the last time I saw a supposedly "respectable" public figure (the NRA nuts think he is great) be so completely destroyed in front of a camera. I actually felt sorry for him for a moment!
As well you should have, sic.
For may part, I prefer to believe that you are unaware that Mr. Heston is in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's and has limited his public appearances accordingly. I've no idea when Moore filmed Heston, but Alzheimer's doesn't just pop up overnight, so it's not out of the question to assume he's been ill for some period of time. I, too, disagree with Heston's politics and his position on guns in particular, but let's cut Mr. Moses just the teeniest bit of slack instead of resorting to "zombie" and "retard," shall we?
posted by JollyWanker at 7:08 AM on April 11, 2003
As well you should have, sic.
For may part, I prefer to believe that you are unaware that Mr. Heston is in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's and has limited his public appearances accordingly. I've no idea when Moore filmed Heston, but Alzheimer's doesn't just pop up overnight, so it's not out of the question to assume he's been ill for some period of time. I, too, disagree with Heston's politics and his position on guns in particular, but let's cut Mr. Moses just the teeniest bit of slack instead of resorting to "zombie" and "retard," shall we?
posted by JollyWanker at 7:08 AM on April 11, 2003
from the article...
This is a blunder of such magnitude -- and we will pay for it for years to come. It was not worth the life of one single American kid in uniform, let alone the thousands of Iraqis who have died, and my condolences and prayers go out to all of them.
Mike, wanna expand on the Blunder part?
Without his fish-eye-lens, if Moore where to say that to a group of solders and families, he would be beaten to a pulp. He apes that Iraq is not worth one "KIDS" life and then slathers out a condolence and prayer in the same breath?
well i pray mike finishes his film but cuts back on the fatty foods, he is prime candadite for a heart attack.
Moore and Saddam do or will share one fact...
both of their hometowns have nothing public to mark that they ever even lived.
Al Qaeda won't suddenly love us, of course, but it does remove two of their major gripes.
my kung fu grip G.I. Joe says that he don't give two shiny pennies for Al Qaeda love and the removal of gripes is to kill or capture all Al Qaeda.
posted by clavdivs at 7:45 AM on April 11, 2003
This is a blunder of such magnitude -- and we will pay for it for years to come. It was not worth the life of one single American kid in uniform, let alone the thousands of Iraqis who have died, and my condolences and prayers go out to all of them.
Mike, wanna expand on the Blunder part?
Without his fish-eye-lens, if Moore where to say that to a group of solders and families, he would be beaten to a pulp. He apes that Iraq is not worth one "KIDS" life and then slathers out a condolence and prayer in the same breath?
well i pray mike finishes his film but cuts back on the fatty foods, he is prime candadite for a heart attack.
Moore and Saddam do or will share one fact...
both of their hometowns have nothing public to mark that they ever even lived.
Al Qaeda won't suddenly love us, of course, but it does remove two of their major gripes.
my kung fu grip G.I. Joe says that he don't give two shiny pennies for Al Qaeda love and the removal of gripes is to kill or capture all Al Qaeda.
posted by clavdivs at 7:45 AM on April 11, 2003
Michael Moore's work functions primarily as a way for lefties to pat themselves on the back for being lefties. He is Rush Limbaugh's opposite number. The tragedy is that his good and relevant points, and he does have a few, get drowned out by the smug agitprop.
Moore and Saddam do or will share one fact...
both of their hometowns have nothing public to mark that they ever even lived.
Wow. Profound.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:32 AM on April 11, 2003
Moore and Saddam do or will share one fact...
both of their hometowns have nothing public to mark that they ever even lived.
Wow. Profound.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:32 AM on April 11, 2003
clavdivs -- if Moore where to say that to a group of solders and families, he would be beaten to a pulp.
Well, then clearly Moore is wrong.
Remember, what you're saying is wrong if somebody's military doesn't like hearing it.
posted by NortonDC at 9:37 AM on April 11, 2003
Well, then clearly Moore is wrong.
Remember, what you're saying is wrong if somebody's military doesn't like hearing it.
posted by NortonDC at 9:37 AM on April 11, 2003
NortonDC, you misunderstand. Somebody's military not liking what you say doesn't make you wrong; it's their beating the crap out of you that makes you wrong.
(e.g. Iraq.)
posted by soyjoy at 10:06 AM on April 11, 2003
(e.g. Iraq.)
posted by soyjoy at 10:06 AM on April 11, 2003
Who exactly was polled?? Has anyone here ever been polled? I haven't.
"The polls show" is a completely meaningless phrase. The only poll I have ever been asked to join is "Coke or Pepsi?" at the supermarket.
So just because you haven't been polled, the entire technique is invalid? Statistically accurate samples can be surprisingly small, if I remember my Research Methods class correctly.
but it was so long ago, and there was math involved...
posted by Vidiot at 11:14 AM on April 11, 2003
"The polls show" is a completely meaningless phrase. The only poll I have ever been asked to join is "Coke or Pepsi?" at the supermarket.
So just because you haven't been polled, the entire technique is invalid? Statistically accurate samples can be surprisingly small, if I remember my Research Methods class correctly.
but it was so long ago, and there was math involved...
posted by Vidiot at 11:14 AM on April 11, 2003
BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE: Documentary or Fiction?
The Michael Moore production "Bowling for Columbine" won the Oscar for best documentary. Unfortunately, it is not a documentary, by the Academy's own definition.
The injustice here is not so much to the viewer, as to the independent producers of real documentaries. These struggle in a field which receives but a fraction of the recognition and financing of the "entertainment industry." The award of the documentary Oscar to a $4 million entertainment piece is unjust to the legitimate competitors, and sets a precedent which will encourage others to play loose with the truth.
Bowling makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore leads the reader to draw inferences which he must have known were wrong. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which he never uttered. Bowling uses deliberate deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect.
A film which does this may be a commercial success. It may be amusing. But it is not a documentary. One need only consult Rule 12 of the rules for the Academy Award: a documentary is a non-fictional movie.
The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or incorrect. No, the point is that Bowling is deliberately, seriously, and consistently deceptive. A viewer cannot count upon any aspect of it, even when the viewer believes he is seeing video of an event occurring or a person speaking. Let's look at the evidence.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:32 AM on April 11, 2003
The Michael Moore production "Bowling for Columbine" won the Oscar for best documentary. Unfortunately, it is not a documentary, by the Academy's own definition.
The injustice here is not so much to the viewer, as to the independent producers of real documentaries. These struggle in a field which receives but a fraction of the recognition and financing of the "entertainment industry." The award of the documentary Oscar to a $4 million entertainment piece is unjust to the legitimate competitors, and sets a precedent which will encourage others to play loose with the truth.
Bowling makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore leads the reader to draw inferences which he must have known were wrong. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which he never uttered. Bowling uses deliberate deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect.
A film which does this may be a commercial success. It may be amusing. But it is not a documentary. One need only consult Rule 12 of the rules for the Academy Award: a documentary is a non-fictional movie.
The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or incorrect. No, the point is that Bowling is deliberately, seriously, and consistently deceptive. A viewer cannot count upon any aspect of it, even when the viewer believes he is seeing video of an event occurring or a person speaking. Let's look at the evidence.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:32 AM on April 11, 2003
"What a funny, touching, and important work that is."
Roger and Me? No, actually the film pissed me off.
So M. Moore shows up at the offices of a huge company with a camera crew, looking like a student filmmaker and trailing a bad attitude and *gasp* doesn't get in to see the person who runs the company?
And you can base a career on this crap?
*sigh*
"Be yourself. Be an individual. Stand for what is right."
I agree - and thats why I supported the war :)
posted by soulhuntre at 12:32 PM on April 11, 2003
Roger and Me? No, actually the film pissed me off.
So M. Moore shows up at the offices of a huge company with a camera crew, looking like a student filmmaker and trailing a bad attitude and *gasp* doesn't get in to see the person who runs the company?
And you can base a career on this crap?
*sigh*
"Be yourself. Be an individual. Stand for what is right."
I agree - and thats why I supported the war :)
posted by soulhuntre at 12:32 PM on April 11, 2003
I prefer to believe that you are unaware that Mr. Heston is in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's and has limited his public appearances accordingly.
Well you believe right, I had no idea that Heston was suffering from anything but gun fever. But does having a disease then excuse you from being a reprehensible person? If Saddam Hussein had Alzheimer's do you think that that those that hate him should no longer hate him? If Heston had Alzheimers why in the hell were the NRA nut jobs dragging him to all of these rallies, especially the controversial and scummy ones they they held in the vecinity of Columbine right after the Columbine massacre and the other one in Flint?
Look, I detest Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston for many reasons and for me their diseases are a non-issue because it changes absolutely nothing about what they did to make me despise them. I do feel bad for their loved ones who have to suffer through taking care of a person with Alzheimers. My wife's family went through some terrible times with her grandfather before he died because of that disease. But shouldn't Heston's family should be protecting him from the NRA, and Moore for that matter, if he is sick?
When I said I felt sorry for Heston, I said it ironically, I don't feel sorry for that gun freak at all about anything.
posted by sic at 1:19 PM on April 11, 2003
Well you believe right, I had no idea that Heston was suffering from anything but gun fever. But does having a disease then excuse you from being a reprehensible person? If Saddam Hussein had Alzheimer's do you think that that those that hate him should no longer hate him? If Heston had Alzheimers why in the hell were the NRA nut jobs dragging him to all of these rallies, especially the controversial and scummy ones they they held in the vecinity of Columbine right after the Columbine massacre and the other one in Flint?
Look, I detest Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston for many reasons and for me their diseases are a non-issue because it changes absolutely nothing about what they did to make me despise them. I do feel bad for their loved ones who have to suffer through taking care of a person with Alzheimers. My wife's family went through some terrible times with her grandfather before he died because of that disease. But shouldn't Heston's family should be protecting him from the NRA, and Moore for that matter, if he is sick?
When I said I felt sorry for Heston, I said it ironically, I don't feel sorry for that gun freak at all about anything.
posted by sic at 1:19 PM on April 11, 2003
As to the link to the Truth about Bowling, I haven't got past the part where the author denies that Lockheed Martin makes weapons. Here is one refutation of that silly lie (I'm posting it in it's entirety to annoy the Lockheed Martin apolgists in this thread):
----------------------------------------
June 26, 2000
To: Friends and Colleagues of the Arms Trade Resource Center
From: Frida Berrigan, Michelle Ciarrocca, and Bill Hartung
Re: ATRC UPDATE, PART III
IN THIS ISSUE . . .
This issue is devoted in its entirety to a profile of the Lockheed Martin Corporation. This is the first in a series of profiles of major weapons makers that ATRC will be producing over the next six to eight months. We decided to do this series of profiles after discussions with Steve Staples of the International Network on Globalization and Disarmament and Alice Slater of the Global Research and Action Center on the Environment (GRACE) about the best ways to inject the issues of disarmament and military
spending into the growing movement against corporate-dominated trade arrangements like the World Trade Organization. Other companies in the series will include Raytheon, Boeing, BAE Systems, Bechtel, and Alliant Tech Systems. We also found there is a growing demand among grassroots activists, citizen's organizations, and journalists for detailed information on the operations of major weapons producing companies. We hope this series will help fill part of that need, both by providing
information and by sparking discussion on the best ways to deal with military mega-companies, in the realms of both research AND action. Your suggestions are welcome, on what companies to profile, on the most useful formats in which to disseminate this information, and on any specifics with respect to the subject of our first profile, Lockheed Martin.
LOCKHEED MARTIN: ALL-PURPOSE MERCHANT OF DEATH
LOCKHEED MARTIN IS THE WORLD'S LARGEST WEAPONS MAKER
Lockheed Martin is the nation's (and the world's) largest weapons manufacturer. The company received over $18 billion in U.S. government contracts in F.Y. 1999, including $12.6 billion from the Pentagon and more than $2 billion from the Department of Energy for nuclear weapons-related activities. To put this in some perspective, it should be noted that ONE COMPANY -- Lockheed Martin-- receives more federal funding each year than the ENTIRE BUDGET for the nation's largest welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which is meant to help tens of millions of Americans living in poverty.
LOCKHEED MARTIN HAS A BIG "POLITICAL FOOTPRINT"
Lockheed Martin is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, but the firm's promotional literature brags of its "facilities in all 50 states." This is a bit of a stretch, since many of these "facilities" are nothing more than small administrative offices. But the company does have
impressive geographic reach, giving it what John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists describes as a big "political footprint." Lockheed Martin has major military research and production operations in Moorestown,
New Jersey; Marietta, Georgia; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Orlando, Florida; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Fort Worth, Texas; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Vandenberg Air Force Base, California; Sunnyvale, California and the Nevada
Test Site. Also, for its major production systems, like the F-22 "stealth" fighter plane, Lockheed Martin makes sure to spread its subcontracts around to as many Congressional Districts as possible, as a way to curry favor with key legislators.
LOCKHEED MARTIN WAS CREATED THROUGH A SERIES OF GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED MERGERS
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, there were 10 to 15 major weapons producing firms in the United States. In the 1990s, that number has shrunk to just three major producers --Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon-- plus a few smaller niche players like Northrop Grumman, United
Defense, TRW, and Northrop Grumman. The consolidation of the weapons industry was strongly pushed by Norman Augustine, then CEO of Martin Marietta, and was shepherded through the bureaucracy by William Perry and
John Deutch, major policy makers in the Pentagon during the early years of the Clinton Administration who also happened to be paid consultants to Martin Marietta before joining the administration.
In the summer of 1993, Augustine appealed to Perry and Deutch to change the Pentagon's contracting rules so that weapons companies engaging in mergers could charge the costs of moving factories, paying executive
bonuses, legal fees, and other costs generated as a result of there mergers to the U.S. government. Since Perry and Deutch had recent business dealings with Augustine, they had to get waivers of the conflict of interest regulations to rule on Augustine's request. They got the waivers and changed the rules, paving the way for Lockheed to merge with Martin Marietta and reap a windfall of over $1.2 billion in taxpayer funds for merger-related costs, including $2.9 million of the $8.2 million in special compensation that Norman Augustine received as a result of the merger, and
roughly $250,000 in payments to former Tennessee governor and two-time presidential contender Lamar Alexander for the "hardship" he endured when he was asked to step down from the board of directors of the newly merged company. In addition to Lockheed and Martin Marietta, Lockheed Martin includes the former defense unit of the Loral Corporation, the aerospace
unit of General Electric, and the space division of General Dynamics. Each of these companies in turn had been built up by various mergers before they were absorbed by Lockheed Martin.
LOCKHEED MARTIN SPENDS MORE ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS THAN ANY OTHER WEAPONS MAKER
Lockheed Martin has made over $1.6 million in Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions since 1997, plus another $500,000 in soft money contributions to Democratic and Republican party committees. Not
surprisingly, the company's political spending has favored Republican candidates by almost a two-to-one margin, 66% to 34%. The company also spent $10.2 million on lobbying during 1997 and 1998, second only to Boeing among military/aerospace firms (Boeing spent $18.4 million on lobbying in 1997/98).
Lockheed Martin has the additional advantage of having key company associates involved at the top levels of the Republican and Democratic presidential campaigns. Company Vice President Bruce Jackson, whose most recent claim to fame was his role as the director of the U.S.
Committee to Expand NATO during the battle over ratifying the inclusion of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into the alliance during 1997 and 1998, served as a vice chair for fund-raising in the Dole for President Campaign in 1996, and is doing the same for the George W. Bush campaign in the run up to the November 2000 elections. At a conference in Europe last year, Jackson was overheard bragging to his colleagues from European
weapons companies that if George W. Bush wins the election, the arms industry will be in great shape because he, Bruce Jackson, will essentially write the Republican platform on defense. Meanwhile, Bernard Schwartz, a former Lockheed Martin board member who sold the defense unit of his company, Loral, to Lockheed Martin in 1996, was to top soft money donor to the Democratic Party during the 1996 election cycle, with $601,000 in
donations, and he has already nearly doubled that amount in the year 2000 cycle, with more than $1.1 million in contributions to Democratic Party committees. That's one of the reasons that when Lockheed Martin talks, the
President and the Congress listen.
LOCKHEED MARTIN IS THE WORLD LARGEST ARMS MERCHANT
Lockheed Martin exports $2 to $3 billion in arms per year, to customers that have included Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Greece, Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore. The firm also has investments in place
or under way in the arms/aerospace industries of Poland, Argentina, and the United Kingdom. The company's most lucrative export is the F-16 combat aircraft, which has been used by the Turkish government to bomb and burn
Kurdish villages in southeastern Turkey and to bomb alleged members of the Turkish-based Kurdish Worker's Party (PKK) in Northern Iraq. The F-16 has also been a staple of Israel's decades-long air war against Lebanon, which may finally be coming to an end as part of ongoing peace talks between Israel and Syria.
Lockheed Martin has pushed aggressively for changes in U.S. arms export policies that make it easier to sell U.S. weaponry in all corners of the globe, including the Defense Export Loan Guarantee fund (DELG), a $15 billion taxpayer-backed fund designed to help foreign purchasers finance arms deals with U.S. companies; the lifting of the ban on sales of U.S. fighter aircraft to Latin America; and the expansion of NATO, which in theory will make Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic increases their weapons purchases from Western arms manufacturers as part of their drive to meet NATO standards for "interoperability." Lockheed Martin has also been actively involved in efforts to defeat and/or water down the Code of Conduct on arms transfers, legislation that would make it much more difficult to supply U.S.-origin weapons to dictatorships and human rights abusers. Former Lockheed Martin CEO and current Chairman of the Board Norman Augustine has been instrumental in pushing through a number of these changes through his position as chairman of the Defense
Policy Advisory Committee on Trade (DPACT), a confidential panel which gives advice on U.S. arms export policy to the Secretary of Defense and the U.S. Trade Representative.
LOCKHEED MARTIN'S DOUBLE DIP: DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND PROMOTING A NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE
Lockheed Martin is in the unique position of deriving a double benefit from the current push to deploy a National Missile Defense system. For 1998/1999, Lockheed Martin ranks second to Boeing in total missile defense contracts with a total of $617 million in contracts.
Lockheed Martin's major missile defense contracts include the Payload Launch Vehicle for the National Missile Defense interceptor system; the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) "High" component, which is supposed
to improve the tracking of incoming ballistic missiles; the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, a medium range ballistic missile defense system which recently yielded Lockheed Martin a $4 billion long-term contract from the Pentagon; the Airborne Laser (ABL) --in a
partnership with Raytheon and Boeing-- an aircraft-based laser system that is designed to achieve the capability for destroying medium-range missiles as they leave their silos; the Navy Theater Wide system, which is based in part on Lockheed Martin's Aegis anti-tactical missile system,
which is produced at the company's Moorestown, New Jersey facility; and the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), the major U.S.-European missile
defense system which is being produced by Lockheed Martin in partnership with Alenia of Italy and Daimler Chrysler Aerospace of Germany.
On the nuclear weapons front, Lockheed Martin's Sunnyvale, California missiles and space unit is responsible for the production of the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile, the last major nuclear weapons delivery vehicle still being purchased by the Pentagon. Lockheed
Martin receives roughly $2 billion per year to run the Department of Energy's Sandia Nuclear Weapons Laboratory in New Mexico, which is involved in the costly "Stockpile Stewardship program," an effort to gauge the "reliability" of U.S. nuclear stockpiles AND design new nuclear weapons. Lockheed Martin also has a subcontract to Becthel to help develop the capability to conduct simulated nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site.
REVOLVING DOOR, ONGOING SCANDALS, AND MORE . . .
As you can see, Lockheed Martin is involved in so many different aspects of the military industrial complex that it is difficult to provide a short summary of their activities.
Other aspects of the company's behavior to bear in mind are its hiring of former members of Congress (like former Democratic Senator Mack Mattingly of Georgia, former Rep. Sonny Montgomery of Mississippi, and
former Georgia Rep. Buddy Darden) and former Pentagon officials to lobby on its behalf on issues like fate of the F-22 fighter aircraft; it's involvement in ongoing scandals like its supply of information that could have been used to improve the accuracy of China's ballistic missiles, for
which it received the largest fine in the history of the Arms Export Control Act; its faulty launch vehicles which have contributed to the loss of billions of dollars worth of intelligence satellites; its involvement in bribery and bid-rigging in overseas arms sales; and its role in rigging
missile defense tests in the 1980s and (possibly) the 1990s and beyond.
posted by sic at 1:32 PM on April 11, 2003
----------------------------------------
June 26, 2000
To: Friends and Colleagues of the Arms Trade Resource Center
From: Frida Berrigan, Michelle Ciarrocca, and Bill Hartung
Re: ATRC UPDATE, PART III
IN THIS ISSUE . . .
This issue is devoted in its entirety to a profile of the Lockheed Martin Corporation. This is the first in a series of profiles of major weapons makers that ATRC will be producing over the next six to eight months. We decided to do this series of profiles after discussions with Steve Staples of the International Network on Globalization and Disarmament and Alice Slater of the Global Research and Action Center on the Environment (GRACE) about the best ways to inject the issues of disarmament and military
spending into the growing movement against corporate-dominated trade arrangements like the World Trade Organization. Other companies in the series will include Raytheon, Boeing, BAE Systems, Bechtel, and Alliant Tech Systems. We also found there is a growing demand among grassroots activists, citizen's organizations, and journalists for detailed information on the operations of major weapons producing companies. We hope this series will help fill part of that need, both by providing
information and by sparking discussion on the best ways to deal with military mega-companies, in the realms of both research AND action. Your suggestions are welcome, on what companies to profile, on the most useful formats in which to disseminate this information, and on any specifics with respect to the subject of our first profile, Lockheed Martin.
LOCKHEED MARTIN: ALL-PURPOSE MERCHANT OF DEATH
LOCKHEED MARTIN IS THE WORLD'S LARGEST WEAPONS MAKER
Lockheed Martin is the nation's (and the world's) largest weapons manufacturer. The company received over $18 billion in U.S. government contracts in F.Y. 1999, including $12.6 billion from the Pentagon and more than $2 billion from the Department of Energy for nuclear weapons-related activities. To put this in some perspective, it should be noted that ONE COMPANY -- Lockheed Martin-- receives more federal funding each year than the ENTIRE BUDGET for the nation's largest welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which is meant to help tens of millions of Americans living in poverty.
LOCKHEED MARTIN HAS A BIG "POLITICAL FOOTPRINT"
Lockheed Martin is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, but the firm's promotional literature brags of its "facilities in all 50 states." This is a bit of a stretch, since many of these "facilities" are nothing more than small administrative offices. But the company does have
impressive geographic reach, giving it what John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists describes as a big "political footprint." Lockheed Martin has major military research and production operations in Moorestown,
New Jersey; Marietta, Georgia; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Orlando, Florida; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Fort Worth, Texas; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Vandenberg Air Force Base, California; Sunnyvale, California and the Nevada
Test Site. Also, for its major production systems, like the F-22 "stealth" fighter plane, Lockheed Martin makes sure to spread its subcontracts around to as many Congressional Districts as possible, as a way to curry favor with key legislators.
LOCKHEED MARTIN WAS CREATED THROUGH A SERIES OF GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED MERGERS
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, there were 10 to 15 major weapons producing firms in the United States. In the 1990s, that number has shrunk to just three major producers --Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon-- plus a few smaller niche players like Northrop Grumman, United
Defense, TRW, and Northrop Grumman. The consolidation of the weapons industry was strongly pushed by Norman Augustine, then CEO of Martin Marietta, and was shepherded through the bureaucracy by William Perry and
John Deutch, major policy makers in the Pentagon during the early years of the Clinton Administration who also happened to be paid consultants to Martin Marietta before joining the administration.
In the summer of 1993, Augustine appealed to Perry and Deutch to change the Pentagon's contracting rules so that weapons companies engaging in mergers could charge the costs of moving factories, paying executive
bonuses, legal fees, and other costs generated as a result of there mergers to the U.S. government. Since Perry and Deutch had recent business dealings with Augustine, they had to get waivers of the conflict of interest regulations to rule on Augustine's request. They got the waivers and changed the rules, paving the way for Lockheed to merge with Martin Marietta and reap a windfall of over $1.2 billion in taxpayer funds for merger-related costs, including $2.9 million of the $8.2 million in special compensation that Norman Augustine received as a result of the merger, and
roughly $250,000 in payments to former Tennessee governor and two-time presidential contender Lamar Alexander for the "hardship" he endured when he was asked to step down from the board of directors of the newly merged company. In addition to Lockheed and Martin Marietta, Lockheed Martin includes the former defense unit of the Loral Corporation, the aerospace
unit of General Electric, and the space division of General Dynamics. Each of these companies in turn had been built up by various mergers before they were absorbed by Lockheed Martin.
LOCKHEED MARTIN SPENDS MORE ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS THAN ANY OTHER WEAPONS MAKER
Lockheed Martin has made over $1.6 million in Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions since 1997, plus another $500,000 in soft money contributions to Democratic and Republican party committees. Not
surprisingly, the company's political spending has favored Republican candidates by almost a two-to-one margin, 66% to 34%. The company also spent $10.2 million on lobbying during 1997 and 1998, second only to Boeing among military/aerospace firms (Boeing spent $18.4 million on lobbying in 1997/98).
Lockheed Martin has the additional advantage of having key company associates involved at the top levels of the Republican and Democratic presidential campaigns. Company Vice President Bruce Jackson, whose most recent claim to fame was his role as the director of the U.S.
Committee to Expand NATO during the battle over ratifying the inclusion of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into the alliance during 1997 and 1998, served as a vice chair for fund-raising in the Dole for President Campaign in 1996, and is doing the same for the George W. Bush campaign in the run up to the November 2000 elections. At a conference in Europe last year, Jackson was overheard bragging to his colleagues from European
weapons companies that if George W. Bush wins the election, the arms industry will be in great shape because he, Bruce Jackson, will essentially write the Republican platform on defense. Meanwhile, Bernard Schwartz, a former Lockheed Martin board member who sold the defense unit of his company, Loral, to Lockheed Martin in 1996, was to top soft money donor to the Democratic Party during the 1996 election cycle, with $601,000 in
donations, and he has already nearly doubled that amount in the year 2000 cycle, with more than $1.1 million in contributions to Democratic Party committees. That's one of the reasons that when Lockheed Martin talks, the
President and the Congress listen.
LOCKHEED MARTIN IS THE WORLD LARGEST ARMS MERCHANT
Lockheed Martin exports $2 to $3 billion in arms per year, to customers that have included Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Greece, Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore. The firm also has investments in place
or under way in the arms/aerospace industries of Poland, Argentina, and the United Kingdom. The company's most lucrative export is the F-16 combat aircraft, which has been used by the Turkish government to bomb and burn
Kurdish villages in southeastern Turkey and to bomb alleged members of the Turkish-based Kurdish Worker's Party (PKK) in Northern Iraq. The F-16 has also been a staple of Israel's decades-long air war against Lebanon, which may finally be coming to an end as part of ongoing peace talks between Israel and Syria.
Lockheed Martin has pushed aggressively for changes in U.S. arms export policies that make it easier to sell U.S. weaponry in all corners of the globe, including the Defense Export Loan Guarantee fund (DELG), a $15 billion taxpayer-backed fund designed to help foreign purchasers finance arms deals with U.S. companies; the lifting of the ban on sales of U.S. fighter aircraft to Latin America; and the expansion of NATO, which in theory will make Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic increases their weapons purchases from Western arms manufacturers as part of their drive to meet NATO standards for "interoperability." Lockheed Martin has also been actively involved in efforts to defeat and/or water down the Code of Conduct on arms transfers, legislation that would make it much more difficult to supply U.S.-origin weapons to dictatorships and human rights abusers. Former Lockheed Martin CEO and current Chairman of the Board Norman Augustine has been instrumental in pushing through a number of these changes through his position as chairman of the Defense
Policy Advisory Committee on Trade (DPACT), a confidential panel which gives advice on U.S. arms export policy to the Secretary of Defense and the U.S. Trade Representative.
LOCKHEED MARTIN'S DOUBLE DIP: DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND PROMOTING A NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE
Lockheed Martin is in the unique position of deriving a double benefit from the current push to deploy a National Missile Defense system. For 1998/1999, Lockheed Martin ranks second to Boeing in total missile defense contracts with a total of $617 million in contracts.
Lockheed Martin's major missile defense contracts include the Payload Launch Vehicle for the National Missile Defense interceptor system; the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) "High" component, which is supposed
to improve the tracking of incoming ballistic missiles; the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, a medium range ballistic missile defense system which recently yielded Lockheed Martin a $4 billion long-term contract from the Pentagon; the Airborne Laser (ABL) --in a
partnership with Raytheon and Boeing-- an aircraft-based laser system that is designed to achieve the capability for destroying medium-range missiles as they leave their silos; the Navy Theater Wide system, which is based in part on Lockheed Martin's Aegis anti-tactical missile system,
which is produced at the company's Moorestown, New Jersey facility; and the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), the major U.S.-European missile
defense system which is being produced by Lockheed Martin in partnership with Alenia of Italy and Daimler Chrysler Aerospace of Germany.
On the nuclear weapons front, Lockheed Martin's Sunnyvale, California missiles and space unit is responsible for the production of the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile, the last major nuclear weapons delivery vehicle still being purchased by the Pentagon. Lockheed
Martin receives roughly $2 billion per year to run the Department of Energy's Sandia Nuclear Weapons Laboratory in New Mexico, which is involved in the costly "Stockpile Stewardship program," an effort to gauge the "reliability" of U.S. nuclear stockpiles AND design new nuclear weapons. Lockheed Martin also has a subcontract to Becthel to help develop the capability to conduct simulated nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site.
REVOLVING DOOR, ONGOING SCANDALS, AND MORE . . .
As you can see, Lockheed Martin is involved in so many different aspects of the military industrial complex that it is difficult to provide a short summary of their activities.
Other aspects of the company's behavior to bear in mind are its hiring of former members of Congress (like former Democratic Senator Mack Mattingly of Georgia, former Rep. Sonny Montgomery of Mississippi, and
former Georgia Rep. Buddy Darden) and former Pentagon officials to lobby on its behalf on issues like fate of the F-22 fighter aircraft; it's involvement in ongoing scandals like its supply of information that could have been used to improve the accuracy of China's ballistic missiles, for
which it received the largest fine in the history of the Arms Export Control Act; its faulty launch vehicles which have contributed to the loss of billions of dollars worth of intelligence satellites; its involvement in bribery and bid-rigging in overseas arms sales; and its role in rigging
missile defense tests in the 1980s and (possibly) the 1990s and beyond.
posted by sic at 1:32 PM on April 11, 2003
sic, maybe you should learn to read more carefully. No where on that site does the "author deny that Lockheed Martin makes weapons" but that the particular Lockheed Martin plant near Columbine does not build weapons-type missiles, as Moore claimed. The point is not whether or not Lockheed Martin makes weapons or not, but that viewer is lied to by Moore.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:26 PM on April 11, 2003
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:26 PM on April 11, 2003
Are we trying to set a record for number of times a single link can be posted in one thread? We're up to 4 times for the "truth_about_bowling" link.
Or is this one of those things where the more you repeat something the more authoritative it seems?
posted by pitchblende at 5:28 PM on April 11, 2003
Or is this one of those things where the more you repeat something the more authoritative it seems?
posted by pitchblende at 5:28 PM on April 11, 2003
this one of those things where the more you repeat something the more authoritative it seems
Well this is the Nth time some has made a FPP about BFC, I guess....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:25 PM on April 11, 2003
Well this is the Nth time some has made a FPP about BFC, I guess....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:25 PM on April 11, 2003
"...maybe you should learn to read more carefully"
Who has time to check the facts; this is about defending M. Moore and getting to slam the "Military Industrial Complex"!
Besides, if you check facts then your sort of a traitor to everything M. Moore stands for :)
posted by soulhuntre at 10:48 PM on April 11, 2003
Who has time to check the facts; this is about defending M. Moore and getting to slam the "Military Industrial Complex"!
Besides, if you check facts then your sort of a traitor to everything M. Moore stands for :)
posted by soulhuntre at 10:48 PM on April 11, 2003
Oh, I guess then if that factory has retooled then Lockheed Martin no longer carries any kind of "death factory" stigma....?
So when did that plant stop making those weapons (if in fact that is true, which I don't believe considering this flimsy source)? 1 year ago? 2? 3? 4? 10? And what did it create before the switch over, if in fact the plant has retooled itself to make "peaceful" tools? And what does this corporation continue to create in many, if not all, of its other factories?
A thin coat of paint (it's called a whitewash) won't cover up every blood stain, that's for sure.
The author of that article is using a weak, circumstantial argument to criticize Moore's general idea, which is this: Lockheed Martin, the corporation, makes weapons of mass destruction, weapons meant not only to kill huge numbers of people from comfortable distances , but to "shock" and "awe" them as they shred their bodies like so much bloody confetti.
Many of the parents of the students at Columbine work(ed) in this totally amoral business for Lockheed Martin, it is in fact one of the largest employers of the area. Is it then possible that there exists a direct or indirect connection between this sad fact and the even sadder massacre? Nobody can tell for sure, but it is not an unimportant point and I applaud Moore for bringing it up. The important idea here, one which I know you won't ever understand, because I think you don't care to, is that it is extremely hypocritical (in that oh so American way) for people who work for, support and or laud the arms industry to complain about violence in schools, rock and roll, video games, movies or anywhere else, because they, without much fanfare, are churning out the most obscene product of all.
.
posted by sic at 8:18 AM on April 12, 2003
So when did that plant stop making those weapons (if in fact that is true, which I don't believe considering this flimsy source)? 1 year ago? 2? 3? 4? 10? And what did it create before the switch over, if in fact the plant has retooled itself to make "peaceful" tools? And what does this corporation continue to create in many, if not all, of its other factories?
A thin coat of paint (it's called a whitewash) won't cover up every blood stain, that's for sure.
The author of that article is using a weak, circumstantial argument to criticize Moore's general idea, which is this: Lockheed Martin, the corporation, makes weapons of mass destruction, weapons meant not only to kill huge numbers of people from comfortable distances , but to "shock" and "awe" them as they shred their bodies like so much bloody confetti.
Many of the parents of the students at Columbine work(ed) in this totally amoral business for Lockheed Martin, it is in fact one of the largest employers of the area. Is it then possible that there exists a direct or indirect connection between this sad fact and the even sadder massacre? Nobody can tell for sure, but it is not an unimportant point and I applaud Moore for bringing it up. The important idea here, one which I know you won't ever understand, because I think you don't care to, is that it is extremely hypocritical (in that oh so American way) for people who work for, support and or laud the arms industry to complain about violence in schools, rock and roll, video games, movies or anywhere else, because they, without much fanfare, are churning out the most obscene product of all.
.
posted by sic at 8:18 AM on April 12, 2003
Flimsy source? Moore admits himself that:
[T]he Lockheed rockets now take satellites into outer space. Some of them are weather satellites, some are telecommunications satellites, and some are top secret Pentagon projects (like the ones that are launched as spy satellites and others which are used to direct the launching of the nuclear missiles should the USA ever decide to use them).
His whole premise was that some how the weapons being built at the plant had an effect on the shooters, when in fact it is satellites that are being build there, and not weapons. The only flimsy source is Moore.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:29 PM on April 12, 2003
[T]he Lockheed rockets now take satellites into outer space. Some of them are weather satellites, some are telecommunications satellites, and some are top secret Pentagon projects (like the ones that are launched as spy satellites and others which are used to direct the launching of the nuclear missiles should the USA ever decide to use them).
His whole premise was that some how the weapons being built at the plant had an effect on the shooters, when in fact it is satellites that are being build there, and not weapons. The only flimsy source is Moore.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:29 PM on April 12, 2003
The author of that article is using a weak, circumstantial argument to criticize Moore's general idea, which is this: Lockheed Martin, the corporation, makes weapons of mass destruction, weapons meant not only to kill huge numbers of people from comfortable distances , but to "shock" and "awe" them as they shred their bodies like so much bloody confetti.
----------------
since you skipped this part of my post
posted by sic at 3:59 PM on April 12, 2003
----------------
since you skipped this part of my post
posted by sic at 3:59 PM on April 12, 2003
Many of the parents of the students at Columbine work(ed) in this totally amoral business for Lockheed Martin, it is in fact one of the largest employers of the area. Is it then possible that there exists a direct or indirect connection between this sad fact and the even sadder massacre? Nobody can tell for sure, but it is not an unimportant point and I applaud Moore for bringing it up. The important idea here, one which I know you won't ever understand, because I think you don't care to, is that it is extremely hypocritical (in that oh so American way) for people who work for, support and or laud the arms industry to complain about violence in schools, rock and roll, video games, movies or anywhere else, because they, without much fanfare, are churning out the most obscene product of all.
-----------------
and of course this part, where you would have seen that, in my opinion, if the factory retooled in recent years it makes no difference to the relevant point. Which is an important point to make.
But you are a selective reader, aren't you?
posted by sic at 4:03 PM on April 12, 2003
-----------------
and of course this part, where you would have seen that, in my opinion, if the factory retooled in recent years it makes no difference to the relevant point. Which is an important point to make.
But you are a selective reader, aren't you?
posted by sic at 4:03 PM on April 12, 2003
You are also a selective editor.
ALL of what Moore said:
Q. How did you convince Lockheed to let you in their missile factory in Littleton?
A. Well, first of all, the Lockheed PR people would disagree with your use of the term, "missile." They now call their Titan and Atlas missiles on which nuclear warheads were once (and still are but in less numbers) attached, "rockets." That’s because the Lockheed rockets now take satellites into outer space. Some of them are weather satellites, some are telecommunications satellites, and some are top secret Pentagon projects (like the ones that are launched as spy satellites and others which are used to direct the launching of the nuclear missiles should the USA ever decide to use them).
Lockheed Martin is the largest defense contractor in the United States. They gave us the MX missile and are now heavily involved in developing the nutty Star Wars missile defense shield. They have five facilities in and around the Littleton and Denver area and they are the #1 private employer in the school district that contains Columbine High School.
How did I get their permission to film there? I threatened them with bombing, of course.
my emphasis, naturally.
posted by sic at 4:13 PM on April 12, 2003
ALL of what Moore said:
Q. How did you convince Lockheed to let you in their missile factory in Littleton?
A. Well, first of all, the Lockheed PR people would disagree with your use of the term, "missile." They now call their Titan and Atlas missiles on which nuclear warheads were once (and still are but in less numbers) attached, "rockets." That’s because the Lockheed rockets now take satellites into outer space. Some of them are weather satellites, some are telecommunications satellites, and some are top secret Pentagon projects (like the ones that are launched as spy satellites and others which are used to direct the launching of the nuclear missiles should the USA ever decide to use them).
Lockheed Martin is the largest defense contractor in the United States. They gave us the MX missile and are now heavily involved in developing the nutty Star Wars missile defense shield. They have five facilities in and around the Littleton and Denver area and they are the #1 private employer in the school district that contains Columbine High School.
How did I get their permission to film there? I threatened them with bombing, of course.
my emphasis, naturally.
posted by sic at 4:13 PM on April 12, 2003
« Older Shoe slapping in Iraq. | Sawadee Pee Mai Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by The God Complex at 11:05 PM on April 10, 2003