[extropy-chat] Fahrenheit 911 - objective review?

[Brett Paatsch]

> > Brett Paatsch
> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fahrenheit 911 - objective review?
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > I've got a friend here who is looking for objective information
> > > > regarding Fahrenheit 911...
> > > > 
> > 
> > Did anyone see anything in it that was factually inaccurate? If so,
> > what? Brett
> 
> Brett, its all in the editing.  I don't know of anything in
> these presentations that is factually inaccurate.  Rather
> it is in what the editor chooses to include and what not
> to include.  Our news sources on this planet are telling
> stories that are factually accurate and simultaneously
> extremely biased.  Our entertainment does the same.  
> Eventually the two media merge into indistinguishable 
> unity.  spike

Politicians of all persuasions also use selective editting. The truth
but not the whole truth is part of the game. A lie or factual error
is almost too sloppy because it can get caught - or that once seems
to me to be the case  anyway - maybe voters are getting sloppier 
and more gullible (or maybe I am getting more intolerant of damn
fools). 

I'm beginning to suspect the populace is getting so cynical and
disinterested that now even blatant lying by politicians can be
gotten away with. Because anything is to be preferred by believers
than the exercise of critical faculties. 

George W Bush is the encumbent president of the US. Either
he or Kerry will have the power of that role for four years. 
Michael Moore has fired a propaganda salvo at Bush only.
Everybody has an agenda. 

I don't care about Michael Moore either way. I am interested
in the critical faculties of the US voter though because the US
voter will vote for a President that will have the power to stuff
up a lot more than just the US.  If the only choices were
Calligula and Nero and I couldn't vote I'd still want to see those
that could vote to do so for the least damaging option. US voters
will vote for their own interests - I accept that - but it would be
good if they'd vote in an enlightened way as having a moron in 
charge in Rome can make an even bigger mess for those of us
that live in the provinces. 

How can the US voter be enlightened - he or she can at least 
try to think.

On September 11 a lot of arguable innocent people got killed.
That's not new in the world. Its just new on the US homeland.

But now there is an election about to happen and anyone who 
has the opportunity to vote with their wits after engaging with the
issues and doesn't take the trouble will not in my opinion be able
to claim they are completely innocent next time. Not all the 
terrorists are in the other countries. Domestic politicians can use
terror for their purposes too.  

To some extent democracies do get the governments they
deserve.  American's seems likely to deserve either Bush or
Kerry. (And Australian's Howard or Latham).  But which? What 
could be more sensible than considering *reasons* for voting for
one over the other and articulating those reasons?

This is a rant, maybe, but I think I'll post it anyway. 

Brett