Fw: Mark Morford: Fahrenheit On The Brain

[Guest guest]

===== Mark Morford's Notes & Errata =====

SFGate.com - July 7, 2004

 

 

 

" Fahrenheit " On The Brain

Who cares if Moore's flick is flawed, shameless propaganda? At least it

makes America think

By Mark Morford

Oh my God but Michael Moore is infuriating.

He has made a massively flawed quasi-documentary that treads dangerously

close to excessive propaganda, a movie that never lets BushCo have the

slightest hint of breathing space (not that they really deserve it) and he

zooms his camera in on the distraught faces of weeping mothers and tormented

soldiers and holds the lens there far too long, making you go, OK OK, enough

already with the misery porn and the emo-manipulation.

Moore takes numerous cheap shots and finds far too many easy targets among

the political elite, and he cleverly edits his footage to make the various

politicians he skewers appear even more vacuous and slithery and alien and

sad than they normally might, which is already quite a lot, I mean would you

just look at Dick Cheney because wow the man is sinister subterfuge

incarnate. Shudder.

" Fahrenheit 9/11 " is packed with missed opportunities. It argues obvious

points far too weakly and never really digs very deeply, or very coherently,

into the sinister underbelly of How It All Really Works ....

(click here to read the rest)

(Full URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article

cgi?f=/g/a/2004/07/07/notes070704.DTL & nl=fix)

 

 

 

-- Subscribe/Un here --

-- Mark's column archives are here --

-- Mark's email address is here --

-- You are here --

 

 

 

All contents © 2004 SF Gate

Have a lovely day

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Why Morford's insistence that F9/11 is " shameless propaganda? " Where does

Morford get this notion/ The film is propagandistic, in the sense that it

is anti-Bush. But everything that anti-Bush people say about Bush is

propaganda, and everthing pro-Bush people say is propaganda. It's absurd to

suggest that you can talk politics without propagandizing; so why does

Morford make a point of calling this film " shameless, " propaganda. It's no

more shameless than the things Republicans say.

On the other hand, the film makes numerous disclosures of fact, concerning

the actions of the Bush administration. Either these disclosures are

factual or they aren't. Is Morford charging that these disclosures are not

factual. He should make clear, which of the statements made by Moore, are

not factual. He doesn't. He just calls the film " shameless propaganda. "

JP

 

-

" MaryKaye " <mk2967

 

Wednesday, July 07, 2004 8:51 AM

Fw: Mark Morford: " Fahrenheit " On The

Brain

 

>

> ===== Mark Morford's Notes & Errata =====

> SFGate.com - July 7, 2004

>

>

>

> " Fahrenheit " On The Brain

> Who cares if Moore's flick is flawed, shameless propaganda? At least it

> makes America think

> By Mark Morford

> Oh my God but Michael Moore is infuriating.

> He has made a massively flawed quasi-documentary that treads dangerously

> close to excessive propaganda, a movie that never lets BushCo have the

> slightest hint of breathing space (not that they really deserve it) and he

> zooms his camera in on the distraught faces of weeping mothers and

tormented

> soldiers and holds the lens there far too long, making you go, OK OK,

enough

> already with the misery porn and the emo-manipulation.

> Moore takes numerous cheap shots and finds far too many easy targets among

> the political elite, and he cleverly edits his footage to make the various

> politicians he skewers appear even more vacuous and slithery and alien and

> sad than they normally might, which is already quite a lot, I mean would

you

> just look at Dick Cheney because wow the man is sinister subterfuge

> incarnate. Shudder.

> " Fahrenheit 9/11 " is packed with missed opportunities. It argues obvious

> points far too weakly and never really digs very deeply, or very

coherently,

> into the sinister underbelly of How It All Really Works ....

> (click here to read the rest)

> (Full URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article

> cgi?f=/g/a/2004/07/07/notes070704.DTL & nl=fix)

>

>

>

> -- Subscribe/Un here --

> -- Mark's column archives are here --

> -- Mark's email address is here --

> -- You are here --

>

>

>

> All contents © 2004 SF Gate

> Have a lovely day

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mark Morford is decidedly left wing.

He is a satirist.

Did you read the whole article, or just what was in the email??

Full URL:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articlecgi?f=/g/a/2004/07/07/notes070704

DTL & nl=fix

 

~mk

 

 

 

 

----

 

 

07/07/04 15:49:38

 

Re: Fw: Mark Morford: " Fahrenheit " On

The Brain

 

Why Morford's insistence that F9/11 is " shameless propaganda? " Where does

Morford get this notion/ The film is propagandistic, in the sense that it

is anti-Bush. But everything that anti-Bush people say about Bush is

propaganda, and everthing pro-Bush people say is propaganda. It's absurd to

suggest that you can talk politics without propagandizing; so why does

Morford make a point of calling this film " shameless, " propaganda. It's no

more shameless than the things Republicans say.

On the other hand, the film makes numerous disclosures of fact, concerning

the actions of the Bush administration. Either these disclosures are

factual or they aren't. Is Morford charging that these disclosures are not

factual. He should make clear, which of the statements made by Moore, are

not factual. He doesn't. He just calls the film " shameless propaganda. "

JP

 

-

" MaryKaye " <mk2967

 

Wednesday, July 07, 2004 8:51 AM

Fw: Mark Morford: " Fahrenheit " On The

Brain

 

>

> ===== Mark Morford's Notes & Errata =====

> SFGate.com - July 7, 2004

>

>

>

> " Fahrenheit " On The Brain

> Who cares if Moore's flick is flawed, shameless propaganda? At least it

> makes America think

> By Mark Morford

> Oh my God but Michael Moore is infuriating.

> He has made a massively flawed quasi-documentary that treads dangerously

> close to excessive propaganda, a movie that never lets BushCo have the

> slightest hint of breathing space (not that they really deserve it) and he

> zooms his camera in on the distraught faces of weeping mothers and

tormented

> soldiers and holds the lens there far too long, making you go, OK OK,

enough

> already with the misery porn and the emo-manipulation.

> Moore takes numerous cheap shots and finds far too many easy targets among

> the political elite, and he cleverly edits his footage to make the various

> politicians he skewers appear even more vacuous and slithery and alien and

> sad than they normally might, which is already quite a lot, I mean would

you

> just look at Dick Cheney because wow the man is sinister subterfuge

> incarnate. Shudder.

> " Fahrenheit 9/11 " is packed with missed opportunities. It argues obvious

> points far too weakly and never really digs very deeply, or very

coherently,

> into the sinister underbelly of How It All Really Works ....

> (click here to read the rest)

> (Full URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article

> cgi?f=/g/a/2004/07/07/notes070704.DTL & nl=fix)

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Morford also calls the movie " flawed, " without telling us how it's flawed.

Morford may be on our side, but I don't see that it gives him the right to

call F9/11 flawed, especially since he doesn't tell us precisely how the

film is flawed.

JP

-

" John Polifronio " <counterpnt

 

Wednesday, July 07, 2004 3:16 PM

Re: Fw: Mark Morford: " Fahrenheit " On

The Brain

 

 

> Why Morford's insistence that F9/11 is " shameless propaganda? " Where does

> Morford get this notion/ The film is propagandistic, in the sense that it

> is anti-Bush. But everything that anti-Bush people say about Bush is

> propaganda, and everthing pro-Bush people say is propaganda. It's absurd

to

> suggest that you can talk politics without propagandizing; so why does

> Morford make a point of calling this film " shameless, " propaganda. It's

no

> more shameless than the things Republicans say.

> On the other hand, the film makes numerous disclosures of fact, concerning

> the actions of the Bush administration. Either these disclosures are

> factual or they aren't. Is Morford charging that these disclosures are

not

> factual. He should make clear, which of the statements made by Moore, are

> not factual. He doesn't. He just calls the film " shameless propaganda. "

> JP

>

> -

> " MaryKaye " <mk2967

>

> Wednesday, July 07, 2004 8:51 AM

> Fw: Mark Morford: " Fahrenheit " On

The

> Brain

>

> >

> > ===== Mark Morford's Notes & Errata =====

> > SFGate.com - July 7, 2004

> >

> >

> >

> > " Fahrenheit " On The Brain

> > Who cares if Moore's flick is flawed, shameless propaganda? At least it

> > makes America think

> > By Mark Morford

> > Oh my God but Michael Moore is infuriating.

> > He has made a massively flawed quasi-documentary that treads dangerously

> > close to excessive propaganda, a movie that never lets BushCo have the

> > slightest hint of breathing space (not that they really deserve it) and

he

> > zooms his camera in on the distraught faces of weeping mothers and

> tormented

> > soldiers and holds the lens there far too long, making you go, OK OK,

> enough

> > already with the misery porn and the emo-manipulation.

> > Moore takes numerous cheap shots and finds far too many easy targets

among

> > the political elite, and he cleverly edits his footage to make the

various

> > politicians he skewers appear even more vacuous and slithery and alien

and

> > sad than they normally might, which is already quite a lot, I mean would

> you

> > just look at Dick Cheney because wow the man is sinister subterfuge

> > incarnate. Shudder.

> > " Fahrenheit 9/11 " is packed with missed opportunities. It argues obvious

> > points far too weakly and never really digs very deeply, or very

> coherently,

> > into the sinister underbelly of How It All Really Works ....

> > (click here to read the rest)

> > (Full URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article

> > cgi?f=/g/a/2004/07/07/notes070704.DTL & nl=fix)

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I understand what you're saying. But it doesn't help explain why he

described F9/11 as " shameless propaganda, " and " flawed? " That sounds like

the sort of thing you'd hear said by the RNC. He says that the Bush crowd

doesn't " really " deserve any breathing space. Meaning they do, but Morford

reluctantly concedes that they don't. He says we are exposed to scenes that

make us go " enough, enough. " Who is Morford speaking for? " Enough with the

misery porn, emo-manipulation. "

Listen to the tone and clear intent of the bites from the following

paragraph. " Moore takes numerous cheap shots. " " Fahrenheit is packed with

numerous missed opportunities..., " " ...argues obvious points for too

weakly... " It sounds like Morford is literally searching for things to say

" against " the movie.

Is Morford joking?

 

You ask why I don't read the " rest of the piece. " I don't need to, to know

that what I've seen so far is a slam, and attack on the movie. I'll accept

the notion that he's " decidedly left wing, " but I'd keep an eye on him.

 

JP

-

" MaryKaye " <mk2967

 

Wednesday, July 07, 2004 4:06 PM

Re: Fw: Mark Morford: " Fahrenheit " On

The Brain

 

 

> Mark Morford is decidedly left wing.

> He is a satirist.

> Did you read the whole article, or just what was in the email??

> Full URL:

> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articlecgi?f=/g/a/2004/07/07/notes070704

> DTL & nl=fix

>

> ~mk

>

>

>

>

> ----

>

>

> 07/07/04 15:49:38

>

> Re: Fw: Mark Morford: " Fahrenheit "

On

> The Brain

>

> Why Morford's insistence that F9/11 is " shameless propaganda? " Where does

> Morford get this notion/ The film is propagandistic, in the sense that it

> is anti-Bush. But everything that anti-Bush people say about Bush is

> propaganda, and everthing pro-Bush people say is propaganda. It's absurd

to

> suggest that you can talk politics without propagandizing; so why does

> Morford make a point of calling this film " shameless, " propaganda. It's

no

> more shameless than the things Republicans say.

> On the other hand, the film makes numerous disclosures of fact, concerning

> the actions of the Bush administration. Either these disclosures are

> factual or they aren't. Is Morford charging that these disclosures are

not

> factual. He should make clear, which of the statements made by Moore, are

> not factual. He doesn't. He just calls the film " shameless propaganda. "

> JP

>

> -

> " MaryKaye " <mk2967

>

> Wednesday, July 07, 2004 8:51 AM

> Fw: Mark Morford: " Fahrenheit " On

The

> Brain

>

> >

> > ===== Mark Morford's Notes & Errata =====

> > SFGate.com - July 7, 2004

> >

> >

> >

> > " Fahrenheit " On The Brain

> > Who cares if Moore's flick is flawed, shameless propaganda? At least it

> > makes America think

> > By Mark Morford

> > Oh my God but Michael Moore is infuriating.

> > He has made a massively flawed quasi-documentary that treads dangerously

> > close to excessive propaganda, a movie that never lets BushCo have the

> > slightest hint of breathing space (not that they really deserve it) and

he

> > zooms his camera in on the distraught faces of weeping mothers and

> tormented

> > soldiers and holds the lens there far too long, making you go, OK OK,

> enough

> > already with the misery porn and the emo-manipulation.

> > Moore takes numerous cheap shots and finds far too many easy targets

among

> > the political elite, and he cleverly edits his footage to make the

various

> > politicians he skewers appear even more vacuous and slithery and alien

and

> > sad than they normally might, which is already quite a lot, I mean would

> you

> > just look at Dick Cheney because wow the man is sinister subterfuge

> > incarnate. Shudder.

> > " Fahrenheit 9/11 " is packed with missed opportunities. It argues obvious

> > points far too weakly and never really digs very deeply, or very

> coherently,

> > into the sinister underbelly of How It All Really Works ....

> > (click here to read the rest)

> > (Full URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article

> > cgi?f=/g/a/2004/07/07/notes070704.DTL & nl=fix)

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

<snip>

v

v

v

However. " Fahrenheit 9/11 " is also shockingly stirring and thought provoking

the first major film of its kind to ever smack down a sitting president and

his heartless, hawk-filled administration so successfully, so clearly, so

shamelessly. It is propaganda made fresh, inspired, explosive, irrefutable.

And you know it's working. After all, when's the last time a documentary

filmmaker became the target of the full force of the GOP spin machine? When

s the last time anyone made any sort of attempt to seriously question, in

public, fearlessly, unapologetically, in a mass-media format, the blatantly

oily warmongering of a current administration?

When's the last time a documentary -- not to mention one seriously calling

into doubt the snide motives of our government's call to war -- was the No.

1 movie in the nation while the war was still under way? Never, that's when.

 

This, then, is the fabulous thing about Moore's flick. Sure, most of what

the movie reveals might seem painfully obvious to anyone who follows the

news with any sort of intellectual dexterity. And, yes, most of what Moore

uncovers about everything from BushCo's appalling Saudi oil connections and

his administration's whorelike corporate favoritism and the stealing of the

00 election you've heard a thousand times before.

But no one has yet strung these facts and events together in any substantive

way in the popular media. No one has had the casual nerve to show how deep

and far back BushCo's Saudi ties actually run (hint: way, way back), letting

us know who it is who really signs Bush's paycheck (hint: it ain't the

taxpayers).

No one has so successfully put a package together that can actually be

successfully digested by the " average " American citizen, the vast majority

of whom, it must be noted, blithely believe the major media spin and Fox

News' alarmism and never really question their government, never get to hear

any sort of smart, anarchic message, never see the dank underbelly revealed

in any substantive, comprehensible, entertaining, humorous, intelligent way.

And, for this, you have to fall down in front of Moore's film in abject

thanks.

After all, we're Americans. We tend to forget very quickly how it was just

after BushCo was elected, or just after 9/11, or just after the war on Iraq

was declared. We forget how thoroughly the GOP-fueled fear saturated the

country's air like a rank perfume, how rabid patriotism was our national

drug, how violent warmongering was forced upon us like some sort of

mandatory, painful surgery, the only option for a heartbroken, exhausted

nation. Take a moment. Try to remember.

Remember how timid and appallingly pro-war the media was during the launch

of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Remember Ashcroft's vicious USA Patriot Act.

Remember the orgasmic glee of the " embedded " reporters who were allowed to

ride on big scary tanks and speed across the desert in big impressive

convoys of U.S. killing machines, as meanwhile, just outside the camera's

range, thousands of mutilated corpses of babies and women and other innocent

civilians lay in the rubble as the " real " war raged on, just out of the

American public's view.

And remember how you thought, oh my God, something is so not right about

this. Something is terribly unsound about our thinking and methodology and

macho gun-totin' kill-'em-all isolationist Texas swaggerin' approach to the

world. This is not a war for freedom. This is not a war for the safety of

American soil. Bush is marching us straight into a hellish quagmire, and no

one seems to be asking why.

" Fahrenheit 9/11 " then, isn't just a movie. It's a breakthrough. A reminder

that a nation not only can, but should, ask why. Moore has taken the most

successful initiative to date to rip away the veil of fear the GOP had laid

over the nation like a stifling blanket, one that had, until recently, kept

everyone from pundits to politicians from speaking out and disagreeing with

BushCo's rancid stew of lies and misdirects and fearmongerings, lest they be

instantly branded an America-hating liberal tree hugger communist who sleeps

with Osama.

Which is, of course, exactly what the GOP is trying to do with Moore, right

now, calling him an enemy of the state, a traitor, an America hater, a liar

and a cheater and sodomite and pedophile and fat slobbish hypocritical pig

and goddammit how dare you use that footage of Bush sitting there like a

stunned blank-faced monkey at that preschool for seven full minutes after he

was informed that a second plane had rammed into the WTC and that the nation

was under terrorist attack?

I mean, no wonder the GOP is all frothy. Not only does the film make Bush

appear even more of a bumbling, inarticulate dolt than usual (which required

admittedly, nearly zero effort on Moore's part), but it reveals him to be

so appallingly disconnected, so politically spoon fed, so completely and

frighteningly lost, you can't help but realize who the real threat to

America's health and safety really is.

It's also easy to disagree with Moore's own implied politics, a truly

annoying mishmash stance that seems to support more troops and more

aggression in Afghanistan on the one hand, while at the same time decrying

attacking Iraq and painting Baghdad as some sort of gentle happy harmless

utopia before the U.S. stomped in and tore apart Saddam's blissful Eden.

Moore has been attacked, often rightfully so, for his scattershot politics,

his implied hypocrisy, perhaps no better and more pointedly than by prolific

political wonkhead and rabid gin aficionado Christopher Hitchens, who

decimates Moore and his movie on every level (Hitchens makes no apologies:

he just really, really hates MM) in his mostly excellent, if mostly

hysterical, Slate editorial.

But, in the end, Moore's own politics, and his film's unapologetic

propagandist bent, don't really matter. What matters is how the movie has

helped make radical dissent a healthy part of American discourse again. How

Moore has reopened the gates of independent thought and proved that the GOP

s famous lightning bolts of spin and hate did not strike him dead as he did

so. Helluva gift to the nation, that.

And when you combine " Fahrenheit 9/11 " with another, less polemical, more

straightforwardly frightening must-see documentary that's out now called

The Hunting of the President, " which delineates the GOP's shockingly savage,

calculated, historic attempt to destroy Bill Clinton, you've got a portrait

of a Republican Party that makes the frayed ragtag fundamentalist nutballs

of the Taliban look like the participants at some sort of Tupperware party.

Look. You can disagree with Moore's opinions and his often patronizing

conclusions all you want. But you can't, after all, refute his facts. Moore

s movie has done more than merely free up the pundits and the disgruntled

military generals to speak out, or make timid reporters actually dig for

truth again. He has done more than help put surprising words of dissent and

criticism back into the mouths of members of Congress and the major media.

He has, in short, made Middle America think again. He has cracked the GOP's

frozen ideological sea, showed us all one thing we have so desperately

forgotten: America does not, after all, have to be this way, and its

citizens do, in fact, have a choice.

And, for that reason, " Fahrenheit 9/11 " is perhaps the most wonderfully

patriotic film ever made.

 

----

 

 

07/07/04 21:21:35

 

Re: Fw: Mark Morford: " Fahrenheit " On

The Brain

 

I understand what you're saying. But it doesn't help explain why he

described F9/11 as " shameless propaganda, " and " flawed? " That sounds like

the sort of thing you'd hear said by the RNC. He says that the Bush crowd

doesn't " really " deserve any breathing space. Meaning they do, but Morford

reluctantly concedes that they don't. He says we are exposed to scenes that

make us go " enough, enough. " Who is Morford speaking for? " Enough with the

misery porn, emo-manipulation. "

Listen to the tone and clear intent of the bites from the following

paragraph. " Moore takes numerous cheap shots. " " Fahrenheit is packed with

numerous missed opportunities..., " " ...argues obvious points for too

weakly... " It sounds like Morford is literally searching for things to say

" against " the movie.

Is Morford joking?

 

You ask why I don't read the " rest of the piece. " I don't need to, to know

that what I've seen so far is a slam, and attack on the movie. I'll accept

the notion that he's " decidedly left wing, " but I'd keep an eye on him.

 

JP

-

" MaryKaye " <mk2967

 

Wednesday, July 07, 2004 4:06 PM

Re: Fw: Mark Morford: " Fahrenheit " On

The Brain

 

 

> Mark Morford is decidedly left wing.

> He is a satirist.

> Did you read the whole article, or just what was in the email??

> Full URL:

> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articlecgi?f=/g/a/2004/07/07/notes070704

> DTL & nl=fix

>

> ~mk

>

>

>

>

> ----

>

>

> 07/07/04 15:49:38

>

> Re: Fw: Mark Morford: " Fahrenheit "

On

> The Brain

>

> Why Morford's insistence that F9/11 is " shameless propaganda? " Where does

> Morford get this notion/ The film is propagandistic, in the sense that it

> is anti-Bush. But everything that anti-Bush people say about Bush is

> propaganda, and everthing pro-Bush people say is propaganda. It's absurd

to

> suggest that you can talk politics without propagandizing; so why does

> Morford make a point of calling this film " shameless, " propaganda. It's

no

> more shameless than the things Republicans say.

> On the other hand, the film makes numerous disclosures of fact, concerning

> the actions of the Bush administration. Either these disclosures are

> factual or they aren't. Is Morford charging that these disclosures are

not

> factual. He should make clear, which of the statements made by Moore, are

> not factual. He doesn't. He just calls the film " shameless propaganda. "

> JP

>

> -

> " MaryKaye " <mk2967

>

> Wednesday, July 07, 2004 8:51 AM

> Fw: Mark Morford: " Fahrenheit " On

The

> Brain

>

> >

> > ===== Mark Morford's Notes & Errata =====

> > SFGate.com - July 7, 2004

> >

> >

> >

> > " Fahrenheit " On The Brain

> > Who cares if Moore's flick is flawed, shameless propaganda? At least it

> > makes America think

> > By Mark Morford

> > Oh my God but Michael Moore is infuriating.

> > He has made a massively flawed quasi-documentary that treads dangerously

> > close to excessive propaganda, a movie that never lets BushCo have the

> > slightest hint of breathing space (not that they really deserve it) and

he

> > zooms his camera in on the distraught faces of weeping mothers and

> tormented

> > soldiers and holds the lens there far too long, making you go, OK OK,

> enough

> > already with the misery porn and the emo-manipulation.

> > Moore takes numerous cheap shots and finds far too many easy targets

among

> > the political elite, and he cleverly edits his footage to make the

various

> > politicians he skewers appear even more vacuous and slithery and alien

and

> > sad than they normally might, which is already quite a lot, I mean would

> you

> > just look at Dick Cheney because wow the man is sinister subterfuge

> > incarnate. Shudder.

> > " Fahrenheit 9/11 " is packed with missed opportunities. It argues obvious

> > points far too weakly and never really digs very deeply, or very

> coherently,

> > into the sinister underbelly of How It All Really Works ....

> > (click here to read the rest)

> > (Full URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article

> > cgi?f=/g/a/2004/07/07/notes070704.DTL & nl=fix)

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

What do you mean...you don't have to read it!!!

If you are going to voice an opinion on the article, then yes. You do have

to read it.

I have right wing acquaintances with a similar response.

You sound curiously pro administration. Perhaps this discussion has gone on

long enough.

~mk

 

----

 

 

07/07/04 21:21:35

 

Re: Fw: Mark Morford: " Fahrenheit " On

The Brain

 

<snip>

V

V

V

 

You ask why I don't read the " rest of the piece. " I don't need to, to know

that what I've seen so far is a slam, and attack on the movie. I'll accept

the notion that he's " decidedly left wing, " but I'd keep an eye on him.

 

JP

-

" MaryKaye " <mk2967

 

Wednesday, July 07, 2004 4:06 PM

Re: Fw: Mark Morford: " Fahrenheit " On

The Brain

 

 

> Mark Morford is decidedly left wing.

> He is a satirist.

> Did you read the whole article, or just what was in the email??

> Full URL:

> http://sfgate

com/cgi-bin/articlecgi?f=/g/a/2004/07/07/notes070704DTL & nl=fix

 

 

>

> ~mk

>

>

 

 

[Guest guest]

How amusing, that you fail to address any of the concerns I mentioned in my

post. Insteaed you impugn my Democratic credentials. I only suggested,

that Morford didn't sound like a Dem, in his persistent negative attacks on

the film. What has this to do with my being " pro-administration, " if my

post was specifically concerned with remarks made by Morford, that could be

interpreted as pro-administration? If I was pro-administration, I'd agree

with Morford's remarks.

JP

 

-

" MaryKaye " <mk2967

 

Wednesday, July 07, 2004 11:08 PM

Re: Fw: Mark Morford: " Fahrenheit " On

The Brain

 

 

> What do you mean...you don't have to read it!!!

> If you are going to voice an opinion on the article, then yes. You do have

> to read it.

> I have right wing acquaintances with a similar response.

> You sound curiously pro administration. Perhaps this discussion has gone

on

> long enough.

> ~mk

>

> ----

>

>

> 07/07/04 21:21:35

>

> Re: Fw: Mark Morford: " Fahrenheit "

On

> The Brain

>

> <snip>

> V

> V

> V

>

> You ask why I don't read the " rest of the piece. " I don't need to, to

know

> that what I've seen so far is a slam, and attack on the movie. I'll

accept

> the notion that he's " decidedly left wing, " but I'd keep an eye on him.

>

> JP

> -

> " MaryKaye " <mk2967

>

> Wednesday, July 07, 2004 4:06 PM

> Re: Fw: Mark Morford: " Fahrenheit "

On

> The Brain

>

>

> > Mark Morford is decidedly left wing.

> > He is a satirist.

> > Did you read the whole article, or just what was in the email??

> > Full URL:

> > http://sfgate

> com/cgi-bin/articlecgi?f=/g/a/2004/07/07/notes070704DTL & nl=fix

>

>

> >

> > ~mk

> >

> >

>

>