Well, groon,
when one sees a man who can't coherently speak, who believes in aboslute evil and aboslute good (ie, the "axis of evil" paranoia), who struggles hard to destabilize the arab world (and the western world for that matter), who proclaimes that pre-emptive strikes are now in effect (right after branding N Korea an enemy nation - I wonder how nervous can good old Kim get before he does a bit of pre-emptiveness against the pre-emptivenss himself), who attacks defencless nations on trumped-up charges, who, in a word, is about to blow whatever sanity there is to pieces, one can't really keep quiet, can one? There is a trick to being a leader, and that is to make moves smartly. I may agree that some of the criticism is unwarranted, but, well, having one madman in power nearly wiped one-fourth of the world not 60 years ago. That was before nukes. I'd rather err on the side of caution. So do vote for Bush if you wish, it's your call. Such is democracy. But that is a different topic.

Cheers, Translator

Spin, spin, spin . . .

So I just reread F451 so I could make educated opinion about the relation to the the F911 movie. Mr. Dark, I agree with your assessment on the theme of censorship. However, I think it is a bit deeper than that. F451 seems to be more about conditioning than censorship. A part of the book talks about how the people want censorship. The people were the ones who called for it, and even if they were given the opportunity to bring the books back, they wouldn't. They have been conditioned to be content with the information they are given. I think this is what M. Moore was attempting to allude to in his movie. I think, and remember this is only MY opinion, that most of our people are content to believe whatever mass media tells them. Every day we are told what to believe and how to be a "good" person, and heaven forbid anyone deviate from the common consenus. While I know that there are independent thinkers out there, and many on this discussion board, we must admit they are few and far between. Most of us believe what we are told without investigating it and making an opinion for ourselves. In this manner we are conditioned and controlled. Same as in the book, the people are conditioned and controlled. Now I am not saying that Bush is the only one who uses this form of conditioning to his advantage. If you think about it this is a historical tactic. While M. Moore's movie concentrated on what the Bush administration was capable of doing with this conditioning, the power of his movie, and the deepest relation to the book, lies in the revelation of the conditioning itself.

I agree with your main idea (assuming I understand it correctly). I think the censorship in F451 is twofold: (1) That of government officials restricting the assimilation and sharing of ideas, (2) And the self-censorship brought on by laziness and cowardice.

I do think there is also the element of conditioning, but I tend to lump that under the first (above), although it may very well be worth a separate category.

Interestingly, Kant (in an essay called "What is Enlightenment?") argues that we refuse to become adults when we abdicate decision-making to others, and he cites two reasons: (1) Sloth/laziness, and (2) Fear.

Also, it's interesting that Alexandr Solzhenitzyn, in an address one of the Harvard graduating classes castigated both the west and the east for their ungodliness (but I think he's also lumping in freedom of expression) and says the east has become godless and the west has become too materialistic. His view is that the major cultures seemed to lack the moral capability for free and reasoned thought.

Mr Dark,
we all spin on this spaceship earth.
Solzhenitsyn is no longer the writer he was, and many people believe he simply burned out. I agree with Kant as well; it's interesting how the same man can be quoted to support two radically different views.
Cheers, Translator

Havenly 007 and Mr. Dark,

Here are some of the problems I have with both of your posts:

I recently picked up the 50th anniversary edition of F-451. Not only were the Coda and Afterword included, in which Bradbury further explains his themes, there�s a fine, contemporary interview with Bradbury himself. More than once, Bradbury puts the interviewer back in his place when the interviewer attempts to take the �Michael Moore� view of the 9/11 and the subsequent events. To be more specific, the interviewer insists the United States today is just like the society depicted in F-451. Bradbury begs to differ and flatly states the censorship does not occur in the United States. I think the interview provides valuable insight to anyone who thinks Bradbury over-reacted to Moore hijacking his title. The interview underscored for me that Moore and Bradbury are poles apart in their views and, quite possibly, could be the real reason why Bradbury didn�t want his work to be associated with Moore�s in any way.

I don�t recall at all the society in F-451 being conditioned to be content with the information they were given. Yes, they were content. Yes, they would not bring books if given the opportunity. But this state of affairs wasn�t the direct result of government action. Rather, the opposite was true: the government took action because the society preferred to remain content. Society conditioned the government, as it were.

Havenly007, your implication is that Moore believes that�s happening in the United States. We�re a content, ignorant mass, spoon-fed lies by the corporate controlled media. Thankfully, Moore would have us believe, Moore who comes to our rescue and offers us a dose of truth. The power of his movie, you say, is the revelation of this conditioning that�s going on today. Specifically how does the movie achieve this revelation?

Am I saying that people AREN�T content to believe what the mass media tells them? Of course not! And this is nothing new, either. People are content with the media, for the most part, because the media do a pretty good job delivering information, the best in the world. (Translator, I can feel you stirring in the background there.) On any given day, a person may access, through cable television or the library or the Internet, a wide variety of sources that will bring many versions of the truth. In fact, little, if any, of Moore�s movie is new. (If not an outright lie or misleading.) All of the facts he purports to present have already been disclosed.

Besides, it�s no awful thing to told by the media what to believe or how to be a good person. That�s only part of how we manage to define ourselves as a society. (And it�s not as if the media are sending radical signals about what it takes to be a good person: Yep, it�s bad to murder people. Bad to steal, too. And bad to deprive others of their rights without due process. There�s good reason for people to think it�s terrible to deviate from these beliefs: it IS terrible!)

I�ve admitted repeatedly, and will do so again, that I have not seen F-9/11 and will not see it. Moore may have thought he was producing a movie that had a connection to the society depicted in F-451 but I�ve yet to read a post on this board, or review from other sources, that show exactly where this connection is to be made. Instead, Moore seems to have made a diatribe against Bush that has no connection whatsoever with F-451. No wonder Bradbury was angry with Moore.

Best,

Pete

Pete: We may not disagree by too much. I do think that when Bradbury claims there's NO censorhip in the US, he has a pretty narrow definition of censorship. But my definition of censorship is much narrower than that of others. So the question is, what does one mean by censorship. I tend to tie censorship to governmental actions, as other forms of censorship can be gotten around in a free marketplace of ideas. When the government censors and enforces an orthodoxy, it is tough to escape without exile or violence. When a corporation censors an idea, there are other avenues of discovery and expression. Not that I like either form of censorhip, but I do see government-rooted censorship as being more powerful and hence more dangerous.

I think Bradbury has every reason to be angered with Moore about the hijacking of his title to promote a specific political agenda (to get Bush out of office, in Moore's own words). Bradbury has refused to allow himself to become a puppet of any political arm, and Moore has attemped to tie Bradbury's philosophy, book and ideas to this movie. While Moore's followers seem to think Moore's motives ("to honor Bradbury") were noble, I find that, in my opinion, Moore's past abuse of his bully-pulpit to make that a difficult position for me to believe.

Translator: Your previous post is the one I was responding to with the spin comment. I'm not sure there's a single sentence in that post that does not editorialize a "factual" claim. It is not true that everyone spins. And it is not true that all "spinning" is the same.

Mr. Dark,

I agree that we don't, er, disagree, by much, about censorship. Except for a law or two about pornography, it's pretty much a wide open field here in the United States. I don't consider corporate censorship as censorship as all. Just a business decision, that will be repaid, or not, in the free marketplace of ideas. (The example of Disney declining to distribute F-9/11 is a good example. They made the decision not to distribute; another company chose to distribute. Which company will benefit the most by these decisions will be told in the future. Meanwhile, Moore's message gets out.)

As always, it's a pleasure to talk with you.

Best,

Pete

Well, Mr Dark,
I'm pretty sure everyone spins, be it consciously or not (usually consciously). I put what I see and hear in my own way - I editorialize, in other words - but so do youand everyone else. Can't seem to escape that, being only human and all. Finally, I do agree that all spinning is not the same. Some is more destructive than other.

Cheers, Translator

The only people who watch MM movies are ones who already know what is coming. He preaches to the choir and pretends its some new idea.

-Jesse

sorry I agree with Mr. Bradbury... Michael Moore has not a fricking idea what the impact of 9/11 was and I am offended GREATLY that this a**hole would disrespect those 3000+ people who died that day.

Mr. Bradbury: I stand with you. What my political orientation is too is not the issue. I think we the American People were LIED to and they knew about 9/11...

GO get that SOB, I hope you make his life a living hell. In memory of those who died: It is a rip off and a disrespect to what America lost that horrible day. I lost three friends in that myself that is a disrespect to them and what their friendship was to me...

For America:
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather.

Jack Burton & Wang Chi

(Kurt Russell and David Fong)

Movie: Big Trouble in Little China

Fine Words...

Nathaniel A. Miller

One of the films which makes me the saddest to watch is of American schoolchildren when the U. S. joined the First World War. A long line of schoolchildren about 12-14 years of age were marching to a burn barrel with German books. They ALL seemed to have a few. Most of them simply HURLED them into the barrel with glee. Can't help thinking...with all the people looking for antique books and what they go for these days...and wondering...what was in those books, who nowadays might appreciate them, and what would they go for now?

Not to mention the dachsund breed was practically wiped out in America. I have no use for people who would burn a book or torture a poor little harmless lovable animal.

"Burnin' books, that's like burnin' people!"
John-Boy Walton

Quoting Kurt Russel movies? Have people sank that low?

Agreed with Dandelion about book burning.

Cheers, Translator

Hey, I like Kurt Russel! "Big Trouble in Little China" is one of my favorite movies, just for it's camp-value!

quote:

Originally posted by namiller:
sorry I agree with Mr. Bradbury... Michael Moore has not a fricking idea what the impact of 9/11 was and I am offended GREATLY that this a**hole would disrespect those 3000+ people who died that day.

Mr. Bradbury: I stand with you. What my political orientation is too is not the issue. I think we the American People were LIED to and they knew about 9/11...

GO get that SOB, I hope you make his life a living hell. In memory of those who died: It is a rip off and a disrespect to what America lost that horrible day. I lost three friends in that myself that is a disrespect to them and what their friendship was to me...

For America:
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather.

Jack Burton & Wang Chi

(Kurt Russell and David Fong)

Movie: Big Trouble in Little China

Fine Words...

Nathaniel A. Miller

You keep shootin those guns and using tragedies as way to make your point invincible from critical and cognative dissention. It's the American way after all! You just keep salutin that flag til it becomes illegal not to and the whole world is a war zone in order to fight the war on terrorism.
www.newamericancentury.org

see what your wonderful homeland is becoming....