Brevity is the soul of wit. It takes a great journalist to be concise. Stephen Pollard summed up in six little words. No, wait...

Christopher Hitchens, on the other hand, is a fat, drunken, greedy, ambitious, deserter from his native land who spent years dining out at the tables of the smart leftist intelligentsia before switching to the neocons' troughs after fitting up a friend.

I smell the green-eyed monster.

I found it somewhat ironic that Quentin Tarantino, the head of this years' Cannes Festival jury and Hollywood film director, famous for his sensationalistic and graphically violent gangster/kung-fu bloody gore-fest movies, was openly praising the work of St. Michael Moore. The very same Michael Moore who recently made a documentary entitled 'Bowling for Columbine' about a couple of youngsters, (Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris) who are beleived to have taken some inspiration for their murderous actions by watching the type of very same violent movies that Tarantino makes a very good living out of. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris even went as far as dressing like the gun-toting, black trenchcoat wearing characters in the Matrix movies, right down to the ever-so-cool shades and pump action shotgun.

I fear Comrade Samsung has misunderstood contemporary culture. I don't believe that the Matrix movies (in fact, Klebold and Harris could only have seen the first) played any part in the Comulbine atrocity. I have my own problems with Tarantino. but his movies have morals. Mr Orange kills Nice Guy Eddie because the former is a cop and a good guy, while the latter is a criminal and a sadistic torturer. Something similar applies to Bruce Willis and Zed and friends.
Perhaps Mr Samsung is calling for a universal ban on violence in films. No more Chuck Norris, Seagal and the rest of 'em. I might go for that. I like those French relationship-heavy films. Middle America might shiver.

Aaaagh! Captain Typo strikes again. Comulbine == Columbine; while "Taranino." = "Tarantino,",

Firstly, Samsung is not advocating the banning or censorship of violence in movies. Regardless of the morals or ethics found in Reservoir Dogs, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy and irony in a director of graghically violent movies like Tarantino praising a guy who made a documentary about a couple of mass-murdering school kids who dressed EXACTLY like the cool gun-toting characters in a slick violent Hollywood movie. Remember Keanu Reeves dressed in a black trench coat, firing two automatic pistols and shotgun. Are you telling me they didn't see the Matrix or were influenced by its looks, its romanticization of gun-fights, its mystesism and explicit violence filmed with the lushness of a porno flick?

In the movie, Keanu takes on a bunch of bad guys in a black trench coat with blazing guns and duffel bag full of bombs. The boys from Columbine went on a killing-spree, wearing black trench coats with blazing guns and duffel bags full of bombs. Dejavo? Even the Colorado shooters' favorite music was Rammstein. HELLO... Rammstein, the very band who are part of the Matrix's movie soundtrack. Were they partly influenced by a Hollywood movie? Do bears sh!t in the woods?

All I'm doing is pointing out the irony and hypocrisy in a guy like Tarantino who makes stomach-churningly explicit violence for entertainment in Hollywood movies, hailing another fella who made a documentary about a couple of kids who were probably influenced in some small part by explicit violence for entertainment in a Hollywood movie. How crazy is that?

It's just Hollywood hypocracy. Just like Tarantino's Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill star and hippy peacenik, Uma Thurman forever banging on about the Dalai Lama, peace, love and Buddhism while appearing in films that treat the most explicit depictions of violence as a sexy, groovy giggle.

Hollywood is full of two-faced wankers like Sean Penn (the boozing Hellraizer who allegedly induldged in domestic physical violence with his then wife Madonna) who jetted off to Baghdad before the war to preach peace and love and how to turn the other cheek. When one of his cars was stolen shortly after he returned from Iraq, it contained two guns.

Well, after searching the imdb and the mrqe, I've found that the Matrix was reviewed in the New York Times (reg required) on March 31, 1999, while the massacre occurred on April 20 (Hitler's birthday) of that year, so yes, they may have seen it. However, I doubt that it infuenced them in the way that you suggest.
'School shooters tend to act impulsively and attack the targets of their rage: students and faculty. But Harris and Klebold planned for a year and dreamed much bigger. The school served as means to a grander end, to terrorize the entire nation by attacking a symbol of American life. Their slaughter was aimed at students and teachers, but it was not motivated by resentment of them in particular. Students and teachers were just convenient quarry, what Timothy McVeigh described as "collateral damage."'
Dave Cullen, Slate, 2004. Slate has another page on myths about Columbine: "Klebold and Harris hated Marilyn Manson", Manson is on the Matrix soundtrack as is the techno they liked, like Rammstein, on the CD
Like you, i don't care for these films, but we've had enough violence from the siege of Troy to WWI without popular film to give the combatants ideas. Blaming the media is not the answer. And why stop at the Matrix? Why not blame Roadrunner cartoons? I understand your point about hypocrisy, but I don't think it obtains. Martin Scorcese has made some staggeringly violent films (Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Gangs of New York), but it's quite clear that he's against violence -- in his cameo in Gangs, his house is attacked by a mob, and he's against the war in Iraq.
As for Sean Penn, whereever you stand on the constitution (whether you believe the right to bear arms is self-evident or only for the purpose of maintaining a militia), guns are legal in the US, and many Americans believe that widespread gun-ownership is a defence against dictators. I think they're wrong, but it's a widely held an consistent view, so I see no problem with keeping weapons and opposing war, especially a war we take to them.

Here's something new on Moore:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp

Moore has made a career from lying. Today, he can only fool people who want to be fooled.

Dom

BTW -- what is an "anti-spambot Turing code? How does it work?

Dom, you obviously did the right thing with the "anti-spambot Turing code." Ah, look at a site like Blogdex, which lists popular sites (judged by links). One or two, you'll note are porn or dodgy sites (they're easy to spot; don't click through). Put simply, Google rank sites by several criteria, one of which is how many pages link to you. It's become a trick for spammers (which here means anyone peddling intrusive crap over the net) to write programmes which visit sites and leave comments along with a link to their page. TheTuring thing refuses attempts to do this unless a password is entered. This password is an image (1s and 0s in code) of a randomly-generated number, which is obvious to a person, but has to be decoded by a script. Entering it should be easy for you, but sufficiently hard and time consuming for a computer (which has lots of softer sites to pick on) to deter it (strictly, its programmers) from trying. I hope that's clear.
As for Moore, he is a liar sometimes (he's not my favourite leftist, but I have fond memories of "Roger and Me" in a Manhattan fleapit, and I think I'm doomed to receive "Stupid White Men" every Christmas until Doomsday, so I have a certain affinity), but he's right sometimes. The right have my support in picking apart his weaker arguments (that's how debate ought to be conducted). He wound up Charlton Heston though, which is pretty admirable.

Moore does not fit the Freepers' "evil leftist subversive" script. He revels in his ownership of a luxury flat in New York, is a practising Catholic, says he isn't ashamed to send his children to the best fee-paying schools he can find, and endorsed Gen. Wesley Clark rather than Ralph Nader for the presidency.

If you're from the working class you can enjoy your wealth and success more than guilt-stricken liberal bourgeois Democrats. If you're a high-school dropout who wasn't conditioned to the dreary US journalistic reflex of "balance" (even the chat show hosts are called "moderators") you can unearth facts and images that make respectable pundits look lazy. And if you do it with humour, you can undermine the stereotype of the po-faced radical.

Moore has a lot in common with the muckrakers and trustbusters of the late 19/early 20C in America. He comes from the populist Mid West which produced the Progressives. Theodore Roosevelt would probably have cheered "Roger and Me" for flaying "the malefactors of great wealth". Those who primly sniff that journalists and documentary film-makers have no business being biased have forgotten that the Fourth Estate was born in flagrant partisanship and corruption, not out of a determination to be "objective". Let Moore's critics come up with something as stimulating.

'Whenever a writer replies to an argument with an attack on his opponent's character, calling him "immoral" or "unscrupulous" or "full of pride," you are in the presence of propaganda. The reasoned response to an argument is a counter-argument.' Juan Cole. Moore does make some points, and while I think it's legitimate to undermine him by pointing out how often he's wrong, muddled, or mendacious, I haven't seen anything by Hitchens which addresses what ungainsayable facts Moore has. I think we're entitled to read something into Mr Kamm's and Mr Pollard's interest in the name-calling, but not in the arguments.

Moore's attacks on Heston are not admirable. He took one speach out of context, and edited into it a second speach to give it a completely different meaning. What I liked least about Columbine was the way Moore treated Heston, who (its easy to forget this) was active in the civil rights movement long before it became popular to do so, even putting his career on the line, which others didn't. Heston wants the right to hold guns. That's not unthinkably wrong. In debates he's always a gentlemen with intelligent arguments.

If Moore is right about his topics, then he shouldn't need to lie as deviously as he does. He isn't an old-school muckraker. He's talentless and unintelligent, and he has coarsened public debate, as has others on the right.

Thanks for the info on the anti-spambot code.

Dom

Thanks for the info on the anti-spambot code.

性交裸体图少女裸体女性裸体美女视频录像激情自拍录像三级片免费成人电影免费黄色电影免费激情电影免费色情电影免费性交电影免费性爱电影三级片美女视频录像人体艺术图辑黄色网站色情色情网站成人网站三级片三级片三级片三级片三级片三级片黄色网站激情小电影激情小电影艺术激情享受激情小电影日本强奸电影郎裸体图库林心如拍黄的图片性生活片电影在线性感丝袜美女图片玉蒲团之玉女心经十八淫书色兔妹妹图片全球十大禁片bt下载性交裸体图亚洲成人淫民网妹妹厕所走光图片视频聊天成人电影黄色电影激情电影色情电影性交电影性爱电影日本av电影情色电影同志电影下载激情视频下载明星露点图片写真电影阴部图片乳房图片明星裸照性爱视频偷拍图片台湾成人视频聊天网美女做爱图 美女裸体图片美女美穴清晰大图性感美女视频性爱处女的图片 图女人成人手淫免
免费电影网免费在线电影看免费电影免费电影网站最新韩国电影两性生活性教育片免费电影神话最新电影无极免费激情电影免费黄色电影最新电影下载成人性爱电影美女图片美女走光美腿图片三级片强奸电影美女祼体图片黄色电影下载免费色情电影性感美女图片漂亮妹妹图片做爱图片美少女幼女图片舒淇写真集舒淇全裸照偷窥电影偷窥小说偷窥图片美女被强歼小说巨乳小电影免费下载美女厕所偷窥视频mm自拍艳舞仙人洞美女一个馒头引发的血案神雕侠侣少妇美女 美女图明星露点写真裸体写真 明星裸体写真人体艺术写真美臀女人图片 性感美女图片女性乳房 女性乳房写真女人屁股 女性屁股 偷拍三级片性感美女床上自拍三级片免费成人电影免费黄色电影免费色情电影免费成人电影免费色情电影免费黄色电影免费成人电影免费黄色电影免费黄色电影免费色情电影免费色情电影偷拍女人的图片18 贴 图 台湾 成人男同性恋写真图片午夜天堂成人小说-午夜天堂成人电影台湾网络小说 台湾网络电影小龙女与尹志平图片性闻美女洗澡小游戏 美女洗澡偷拍电影艳舞成人图库女明星图片丁字裤免费电影在线看免费电视连续剧收看美臀 翘臀 图片少妇展穴 色影无忌 床第间的正点自拍露点图片女性最易献身时刻自拍DV偷拍录象美女诱惑写真自拍短片人体艺术另类成人小说黄色网站成人论坛成人图片走光三级片视频录像激情视频18dy-脱轨电影,tuogui性感美女床上自拍色情影音-激情写真media情色激动电影-18dy 18dy-激动电影免费小电影性电影免费成人电影下载免费电影在线观看宽带电影经典电影下载免费恐怖电影免费影片下载免费影院最新大片十八电影网美女写真人体艺术人体写真美国大片免费成人影片在线看电影成人网站乳房 图 奸淫极品嫩穴图片美女插穴黄色小说在线激情电影性教育电影两性电影看电影的网站免费看电影免费在线电影免费电影下载