July 03, 2004


"Viewers may come away from Moore's movie believing some things that probably aren't true," writes Paul Krugman. But that doesn’t matter, because they’re essentially true:

Someday, when the crisis of American democracy is over, I'll probably find myself berating Moore, who supported Ralph Nader in 2000, for his simplistic antiglobalization views. But not now. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a tendentious, flawed movie, but it tells essential truths ...

Here’s another essential truth for you, Paully. And here, as an antidote to all these Krugman/Moore essential lies, is one of the finest photographs ever taken.

Posted by Tim Blair at July 3, 2004 05:34 PM

They're really coming out of the woodwork, aren't they? The it doesn't matter if it's not true, as long as it supports their worldview. We've known all along that the real crazies - like Noam Chomsky, for example - claim this, but it's interesting to watch it infect the mainstream left.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at July 3, 2004 at 07:02 PM

Ah, but film historians years from now will probably list him with Leni as brilliant film makers who served as propagandists for murderous regiemes...

Unless, of course, the Islamofascists win-- then we won't be watching films at all...

Posted by: tioedong at July 3, 2004 at 07:08 PM

This is essentially true: Krugman was an Enron advisor and Enron failed.
Therefore, Krugman caused Enron to fail – wiping out thousands of people's investments and retirements. Why do we listen to a proven failure?

Posted by: perfectsense at July 3, 2004 at 07:30 PM

Krugman's projecting: Readers may come away from Krugman's columns believing many things that definitely aren't true.

Posted by: Lynxx Pherrett at July 3, 2004 at 08:41 PM

What Krugman really means: I'm not going to subject to serious scrutiny a movie which promotes my ideology.

Posted by: Sean at July 3, 2004 at 10:05 PM

That's one of the lamest photoshop efforts I've seen in a while.

Posted by: Robert at July 3, 2004 at 10:06 PM

But maybe the letters on the carboard sign are all the same because someone's a really neat writer!

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be too hard to convince some of our brave troops in the field to hold up a real sign that says Michael Moore sucks.

Posted by: Sortelli at July 3, 2004 at 10:31 PM

I wish he'd stop using the term 'crisis of American democracy'. I've seen him use this in other articles. What crisis? Where?

Are people being grabbed from their homes in the dark of night and sent to prison? Have we suspended elections? People being censored?

He seems to have a very strange definition of crisis.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at July 3, 2004 at 10:39 PM


Posted by: Mike G at July 3, 2004 at 10:58 PM

Yeah, Robert. The sign should have said "Michael Moore can't sit down because of all the fans that live in his rectum."

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 4, 2004 at 12:14 AM


It's essentially true.

Posted by: tim at July 4, 2004 at 12:41 AM

Krugman got it backwards (no surprise there), There are bits of truth (or fact) scattered through the film, but taken as a whole, the film is a lie. Does Paulie really thing that pipeline was the motivation for invading Afghanistan? If he does he's an idiot - if not, his assessment of F/911 is dishonest.

Posted by: Daniel at July 4, 2004 at 01:36 AM

It's the Oliver Stone school of filmmaking: "We had to lie to tell a bigger truth"

Posted by: Ken Summers, Perversion Catalyst at July 4, 2004 at 01:40 AM

The guy on the left seems to be Mr. Spock. And the cutie on the right could be a very young Capt. Kirk. If you can't trust Kirk and Spock, who can you trust?

Posted by: Angie Schultz at July 4, 2004 at 01:45 AM

It's the socialist goldenrule: Appearances are more important than reality.

Posted by: aaron at July 4, 2004 at 01:55 AM

They're still living by that old Leninist rule: you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs (or telling lies). Only these days, it ought to say, you can't build a worldwide caliphate without cutting off heads. I say to Paul Krugman, and all his kind: you first.

Posted by: Rebecca at July 4, 2004 at 02:09 AM

Tim: yes, but while Krugman describes Moore's film as "a tendentious, flawed movie", you call an obvious fake picture "one of the finest photographs ever taken".

I can't believe you were taken in by that thing.

Posted by: Robert at July 4, 2004 at 04:00 AM

Robert, are you saying that a child in 1946 who just got a pair of new shoes would not have been delighted?

Posted by: ushie at July 4, 2004 at 04:18 AM

Hey Robert, try visiting the links before spouting off.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 4, 2004 at 04:20 AM

OT: One of our local radio stations is doing an "All-American Weekend" for the 4th--only American artists.

Well, as far as I can tell, if you take out the Canadians, the Australians, and the British (Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh--Joe Cocker's from Wales, right? I'm so indescribably lazy I can't be bothered to Google to check that), you got...nothing.

Sure, the Scorpions are German--from pre-Wall-Came-Down Germany, and um, there was a Swiss group called Krokus, and if they had a hit, I can't remember it, not even if you put a gun to my head.

But I can't think of any other rock 'n' rollers from anywhere else.

Maybe that's the problem. If you can't rock, no democracy for you!

Are there any other rockers from other places?

Posted by: ushie at July 4, 2004 at 04:21 AM

Can't wait to read Robert's next post...

Posted by: PW at July 4, 2004 at 04:46 AM

Hey Robert? Where are you? Rob? (Now stay tuned for a "GOSH I HAVE A LIFE WTF LEAVE ME ALONE LOSERS SHUT UUUUPPP!" post from Mr. Corr.)

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 4, 2004 at 04:50 AM

Are there any other rockers from other places?

Depends. If you're thinking of what one would consider "rock" in the Anglo tradition (as you seem to do, judging from the examples you mentioned), then probably no (with the rare exception). If we're talking about "music that is loud and rocks" in the wider sense, then there's plenty. Even in socialist utopias like Sweden and Germany.

Much of this stuff never makes it to the U.S. though, so I guess I can't fault you for not knowing about it. ;)

Posted by: PW at July 4, 2004 at 04:57 AM

Are there any other rockers from other places?

Arguably, some the best rock comes from the UK. The Stones, Def Leppard, The Police, The Sex Pistols - all brilliant UK bands, right? (not a rock encyclopedia).

Posted by: birdwoman at July 4, 2004 at 05:23 AM

Well, yeah, I thought I'd mentioned the UK. I mean, The Who and all.

I was just thinking, when the dj was talking, "Well, buddy, it's not like you're going to have to be careful not to play any songs from some French rock band!"

Posted by: ushie at July 4, 2004 at 06:02 AM

I highly doubt Photoshop is being used.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 4, 2004 at 07:33 AM

Putting Def Leppard and the Police in the same sentence with the Sex Pistols or the Stones seems ridiculous. The Police are a band for people who think they take music seriously (let the rocks fly). And the French will NEVER understand Rock-n-Roll let alone produce it. To paraphrase the Mafia, this is "Our Thing" (the Anglophone world).

Posted by: Sean at July 4, 2004 at 07:36 AM

Gimme three steps
Sweet home Alabama
Standing next to a mountain
Little pink houses
Dig In
Running with the Devil
Sweet November Rain
Sound of Silence
Jail House Rock
Riders on the Storm
you can still rock in America

I can't think of any Yanks making good music or even paving the road that lesser lights from foreign countries walked /


Posted by: Papertiger at July 4, 2004 at 08:33 AM

Yeah, it's not like we invented rock 'n' roll or anything. That's the indigenous music of Celtic tribesmen in East Anglia, isn't it?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 4, 2004 at 09:10 AM

It was Angus McPresley who really put it on the map, though.

Posted by: Donnah at July 4, 2004 at 09:30 AM

Canada's been putting out a lot of popular stuff. Incubus is good if you can get passed their being treehugging hippie/commies.

Posted by: aaron at July 4, 2004 at 11:14 AM

I will never forgive Canada for Nickelback. Oh hell, I'll never forgive Canada for Lover Boy.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 4, 2004 at 12:23 PM

Canada/Bryan Adams

'Nuff said.

Posted by: Carl in N.H. at July 4, 2004 at 12:39 PM

At what point did I say kids don't like shoes?

Posted by: Robert at July 4, 2004 at 12:55 PM

The "finest photograph ever taken" was of an orphan hugging the new pair of shoes he got.

Posted by: Sortelli at July 4, 2004 at 01:11 PM

Ah, so it was. That'll teach me to open all the links at once...

Sorry Tim.

Posted by: Robert at July 4, 2004 at 01:21 PM

Helloooo April Wine! Shit, even Neil Young and Joni Mitchell live in the US. Talk to Norm McDonald. Canada sucks off our extra teats.

Posted by: Sean at July 4, 2004 at 04:15 PM

Krugman's "critique" of Fahrenheit 911 encapsulates everything that's wrong with the popular left today. They are more than willing to condemn right-wing writers for inaccuracies (eg Al Franken v Ann Coulter), but when one of their own creates a piece with a "flaw", it's not rejected out of hand (like Franken does Coulter). Instead, it is looked at in "the bigger picture". What a farce, I say. If Tim Blair were to defend the inaccuracies in Slander, he would be chastised as an apologist for "lies".

How can something be "tendentious" and "flawed" yet still emit "truths"?

At least we know he's not a postmodernist.

Posted by: jaems at July 4, 2004 at 04:55 PM

Bah, Robert, I still think you're cool from when you took Tim up on his bet to hold up a Vote Howard sign and get drinks dumped on you for charity.

Posted by: Sortelli at July 4, 2004 at 05:17 PM



Posted by: Robin Goodfellow at July 4, 2004 at 05:18 PM

I agree with Sortelli. That was cool. No need for apology, Rob.

Posted by: tim at July 4, 2004 at 06:04 PM

Interesting Article

Now this article does not fit this thread - I apologise - but I think it is a really good article and it should be read because it is important to real people to see how certain groups are trying to throw dust in our eyes about some dangerous situations and that we must think for ourselves to protect our future

Posted by: Rick at July 4, 2004 at 07:57 PM

"How can something be "tendentious" and "flawed" yet still emit "truths"?"

Colin Powell's speech at the UN before the Iraqi invasion?

Powell's lies are evidence of his moral clarity.

For example, the American people know that lying about outing an undercover CIA agent is morally insignificant when compared to lying about a consensual sexual affair. I mean, if it was in any way important wouldn't the media or the administration be talking about it?

I'd be proud to lie to my fellow Americans for my country, and let fellow Americans die for that lie, because this is the greatest country in the history of the world, and anything is justifiable to keep the Democrats out of power. It makes me sick to think of Bill Clinton's eight years of peace and prosperity.

Posted by: Adam at July 4, 2004 at 08:25 PM

"It makes me sick to think of Bill Clinton's eight years of peace and prosperity"

Sarcasm ? And all the while Al-Qaeda were plotting....hitting in Kenya, preparing for the WTC.....and in a flick of the wrist Clinton ordered a Sundanese pharmaceutical factory destroyed; lobbed a few Cruise missiles at Afghanistan.......and back to Monica and the BJ......oh and Congress spent 1998 passing resolutions calling for removal of Saddam Hussein.......meanwhile Bill and Hillary........but no matter Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Ken Fastow, Bernie Ebbers, Dennis Kozlowski were busy gorging in a huge feeding frenzy of self-satisfied complacent GREED

Posted by: Rick at July 4, 2004 at 09:12 PM

When the Clintons' murdering past in Whitewater was about to be uncovered, Slick Willie arranged for Congress and the public to be duped by the Kenneth Starr whitewash, enabled by the liberal media who said nothing bad about Clinton or Gore for eight years.

The Starr investigation took four years and seventy million dollars? That's not enough time or money to investigate the Clinton crime family.

And we all know about Clinton's SEC chair Arthur Levitt, who tried time and time again to soften auditing and accounting standards for his lefty corporate comrades (like his buddy 'Kenny Boy' Lay). But was frustrated by a Congress bent on strengthinig them, and corporate lobbyists like Harvey Pitt whose heartfelt desire was to protect American investors and workers from looting by corporate insiders.

We know about Clinton's history as a corporate thief. He sold stock in the energy company Harken when he was on the board and knew of a big loss coming, and then didn't tell the SEC for 9 months! And then got his fellow travellers in the SEC to close the file without prosecuting. They even acknowledged he'd broken the law, but the liberal media don't even mention it.

Clinton is far more responsible for Enron than Dubya was for September 11, or disregarding the Geneva Convention and then being shocked that prisoners were being tortured. A true Christian like Dubya could never knowingly condone torture, it would disturb him as much as knowing that a traitor in the White House outed an undercover CIA agent (as his Dad said these people are the most insidious of traitors).

If only Clinton had had the vision to invade the country with the strongest links to Al-Qaeda: Saudi Arabia, where America would be greeted as democratic liberator - just like it has been in Iraq.

Posted by: Adam at July 4, 2004 at 11:08 PM

"Someday, when the crisis of American democracy is over..."

I didn't know that America being a democracy was a crisis, to Krugman. He does seem awfully aristocratic, now that I think of it. But I think he's wrong: the so-called "crisis" of American democracy will never be over.

Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative at July 5, 2004 at 12:46 AM

Adam, you're dreaming if you think we'll be greeted as "democratic liberators" if we invade Saudi Arabia. You've obviously never met anyone from Saudi Arabia, or any non-Arab who ever lived there. Infidels touch the holy soil that contains Mecca, especially as an invading force? Please. Go to a library and read some books.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 5, 2004 at 01:02 AM

Ignore him, Andrea. He's a lefty troll who thinks he's being clever. They have no rational arguments, so they just fling various bits of feces like monkeys hoping something will stick. I think "Well what about Saudi Arabia, huh?" is the #4 turd (after "It's all about ooooiiillll!", "Halliburton!", and "We supported Saddam in the '80s!")

Posted by: Dave S. at July 5, 2004 at 01:14 AM

Ban him, Andrea, ban him!

Posted by: Robert at July 5, 2004 at 03:01 AM

Never! We must keep free speech uncrushed!

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 5, 2004 at 04:15 AM

Yes! The freedom to make a silly fool of oneself on the Innernut must remain untrammelled!

Posted by: Spiny Norman at July 5, 2004 at 07:03 AM

And while 95% of the trolls are good only for flinging feces, 5% do attempt to engage in meaningful and intelligent dialoge. It's like sorting gold dust from gravel, though, but there are intelligent members of the Left Wing.

And please note that I said "....5% do attempt to engage....". I do not certify that minority as successful.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at July 5, 2004 at 11:04 AM

"He's a lefty troll who thinks he's being clever."

Whe I think about the Dubya's Iraq war, I remember what the Gipper said about the landings at Normandy "It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest."

You don't need heaps of book learning to know that is historical truth, and something the left is desperate to ignore.

"I know we all agree that George W. Bush is the best war president the US has had since Roosevelt, that his courage is comparable to that of Lincoln, his intellect to Jefferson, and that his place in history may rival even that of Washington. He's clever, well-spoken and trustworthy." - Bjorn Staerk

Posted by: Adam at July 5, 2004 at 11:35 AM

Oh come on what the hell is wrong with April Wine and Loverboy? Better than excrement peddled by the likes Avril "I can't actually sing" Lange and the screecher from Quebec, Celine Dion.

Bryan Adams at least used to write some decent music. And Canada produced the mighty Rush, after that it would obviously be all down hill.

I believe the Krokus hits you might be refering to might be 'Long Stick Goes Boom', 'Screaming in the Night' or 'Ballroom Blitz'.

Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at July 5, 2004 at 08:46 PM

Oh, thanks a helluva lot, Andrew. Now Ballroom Blitz is echoing in my empty head.

Posted by: ushie at July 6, 2004 at 01:19 AM

And the man in the back said "Everyone attack!"

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 6, 2004 at 01:52 AM

I think avril might be hot once she ditches who ever has her doing that Quasi-Punk thing (maybe the Canadian government?).

Posted by: aaron at July 6, 2004 at 01:57 AM

Dammit, Andrea! I just got that stupid song out of my head, and now it's back! ARGH!

Posted by: ushie at July 6, 2004 at 02:45 AM