Readers ride to defense of Ackerman over film
I missed (Publisher Jeff) Ackerman’s commentary on “Fahrenheit 9/11” (June 29). Throughout the rest of the week, my e-mail friends to the left let me know how outrageous it was.
Before reading Ackerman’s “documentary,” I waded through all the opinion letters throughout the week. Most came in from Moore-worshippers espousing Ackerman’s lack of an open mind.
As critics from all sides weigh in on the “Second Coming,” the film is proving itself to be more of a piece of fiction with gross distortions of fact than an insightful documentary that so many to the left want it to be. The movie itself is so weighted in self-serving bias that it’s laughable to accuse Jeff Ackerman of being closed-minded. I found Jeff’s piece to stimulate discussion as much as Moore’s attempt to do the same.
For all of those in the choir that need preaching to, go see the movie; it was made for you. I’m sure you’ll lavish in the deep intellectual insight. Go, get your Bush-hating fix.
For those of us who recognize the shallow pool that Michael Moore swims in, it’s a why-bother. We couldn’t sit through the movie with an open mind if we tried.
Boy, those letters Saturday were brutal. I believe Ackerman was right on the money, and the howls from the left should have been expected.
I am no longer surprised at the way the left form their opinions on emotion or how they feel, rather than on actual facts. Moore outright lied and misrepresented the facts. This is an easy one to research to verify the fact that I just stated. Moore calls his film a documentary; I call it indoctrination.
Please understand, Mr. Ackerman, that there is in this community a large population of polite and considerate people that you do not ordinarily hear from but are so appreciative of your voice in our community.
These folks do not write letters in the “letters to the editor” portion of The Union, so you must put up with the onslaught of the unhappy group whose names appear over and over again with their complaints.
So now they are indignant about your column regarding the M. Moore film. They think you should see it before you talk about it. But they probably have seen it and will never admit to its falsehoods, which every reputable reviewer who has seen it, does.
I, for one, do not wish to see it or add to Moore’s bankroll. I’ve read enough about it by many reviewers to know it is not worth my time. (Sorry if I have offended any of you that consider Mr. Moore your hero and the film a great classic. You really should practice what you preach – tolerance for others’ opinions, and less anger, more humor.)
Thank you, Mr. Ackerman, for all your enjoyable columns.
Congratulations to Jeff Ackerman for his recent (column) on Michael Moore. As usual, Jeff demonstrated his clear-thinking ability and was right on the mark. Moore is a disgusting example of socialistic thinking and seems to be an upfront contender for tar and feathers of the 21st century.
His “Bowling for Columbine” was laden with lies and distortions, and I have no doubt the same applies to “Fahrenheit 9/11”, so why should anyone waste time watching it?
It’s interesting that Nevada County is preponderantly Republican, while The Union’s letters to the editor are preponderantly leftist. One can only conclude that the left is so insecure in their moth-eaten socialistic beliefs that they constantly have to speak out in an attempt to bolster their position.
Stick around, Jeff Ð we appreciate you and we need you.
A. F. Knepper
According to Michael Moore, “Americans are stupid.” I discounted this claim as the blather of an idiotic filmmaker on the hustle in France, speaking to a nation of American haters. Well, that is until I discovered how many Americans were being taken in by Moore’s intellectually dishonest “documentary” “Fahrenheit 9/11”.
Both the left and the right, Democrat and Republican, have pointed out the dishonesty and distortions in Moore’s propaganda epic. Even main sources, like Richard Clark, have repudiated Moore’s facts.
Now letter-writers are attacking the publisher of this newspaper for daring to point out Moore’s distortions and dishonesty. Again proving Moore’s point, there are a lot of stupid Americans who are willing to accept propaganda, the big lie, supported by smaller lies, without asking: Why am I being lied to?
Bravo to Mr. Ackerman, for taking the time and energy to try and help these intellectually deficient folks. But I fear it is a waste of paper and ink, as ignorant people taken in by propagandists are the last to recognize their condition.
This is for those who don’t confuse facts with fiction:
1. Richard Clark, in front of the 9/11 Commission, testified that he and no one higher authorized release of the Saudi plane departure (this is also stated in his book).
2. When the president was first notified of the initial attack on the World Trade Center, no one knew that it was an actual attack and many of the initial reports claimed that it was a small aircraft.
3. We did not go to Afghanistan so Unocal could win a pipeline project. Unocal has not pursued this project since 1999, and to date there is no pipeline on the drawing board.
4. One must always consider the source and attempt to understand their goals. In Michael Moore’s case, his film project only covers the time period beginning 9/11/01. To have a complete coverage on this war, it is imperative that terrorists’ events from 1993 at the WTC and after be included. The period from 1993 to 9/1l/01 would detail the total incompetence of the Clinton era.
5. Remember, it took Clinton and Reno 51 days to kill those families at the Branch Davidian, so you can see why they never wanted to face the likes of al-Qaida.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User