If Michael Moore truly cared for America and really wanted to see change, I would indeed expect him to look towards a protest candidate. Think of what Moore and his great ability to generate press could do to bring light to viable third party candidates. But he doesn't want real change, he just wants Bush gone at any cost.
I understand what you're trying to say...but give me a break. Let's keep it in the real world. "Protest" vote? Yeah, maybe if 40% of the electorate voted for a third party. People want to protest(vote)? Get a bumper sticker or something.
I am not going to defend anyone I don't much care for(I have only seen parts of B for C)...but at least Moore is not hiding the fact that he wants Bush gone. It's the Bush fanatics who just have to jump into the discussion without doing a little research first.
I was going to use shetline instead of pfflam too. Hehe.
Damn does anyone else know what song that is in the trailer at the end? The rock one? It's a really fitting tune, it's rockin and angry. It starts right after Ashcroft "sings."
Wow the trailer looks even better in high quality. Notice the subtle change in font color of the Fahrenheit 9/11 title from cloudy blue sky white to a fiery white and orange. Very slick. That's one of my favorite parts. Also the "sit down, my son" line from Conyers-- the trailer music just stops and the congressman drops the bomb. Or the look the one Michael Moore employee gives when told to ask congressional leaders to enlist their sons. Or anything Bush does in that trailer-- the "elite/base joke," the "now watch my drive line." Oh i hope the movie is full of good stuff like that.
Wow the trailer looks even better in high quality. Notice the subtle change in font color of the Fahrenheit 9/11 title from cloudy blue sky white to a fiery white and orange. Very slick. That's one of my favorite parts. Also the "sit down, my son" line from Conyers-- the trailer music just stops and the congressman drops the bomb. Or the look the one Michael Moore employee gives when told to ask congressional leaders to enlist their sons. Or anything Bush does in that trailer-- the "elite/base joke," the "now watch my drive line." Oh i hope the movie is full of good stuff like that.
I'm sure it will be as good as any other fictional movie out this summer.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Rep. Mark Kennedy has unhappy memories of his filmed encounter with leftist moviemaker Michael Moore, an encounter featured Thursday in a trailer for the upcoming U.S. release of the film "Fahrenheit 9/11."
"I was walking back to my office after casting a vote, and all of a sudden some oversized guy puts a mike in my face and a camera in my face," said the Minnesota Republican. "He starts asking if I can help him recruit more people from families of members of Congress to participate in the war on terror."
Kennedy said he told Moore that he has two nephews in the military, one who has just been deployed in the Army National Guard.
But to Kennedy's annoyance, his response to Moore was cut from the trailer (and from the film, according to a spokeswoman for the movie).
"The interesting thing is that they used my image, but not my words," Kennedy said. "It's representative of the fact that Michael Moore doesn't always give the whole story, and he's a master of the misleading."
A spokeswoman for the film, which has found a U.S. distributor after the Walt Disney Co. refused to release it, said she had no comment.
A transcript released by the film's producers shows Moore telling Kennedy that "there is only one member [of Congress] who has a kid over there in Iraq." He asks Kennedy to help him pass out literature encouraging others "to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq."
Kennedy replies, "I'd be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war. [As Kennedy did.] I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan."
To which Moore replies: "I appreciate it."
This guy is actually seen in the trailer. But of course his reply is not seen in either the trailer or the movie.
Michael Moore obviously has the ability to stitch together a compelling presentation of his viewpoint via film. He also, as you mentioned, has a great style to his film making. Why does he have to constantly misrepresent things though to put that across?
Nick, it's not immediately clear exactly *what* Michael Moore supposedly misrepresents. I think his "image" conveys something that's largely true. The incredulous look the congressman gives Moore is priceless and probably indicates how most people feel (including congressional leaders) about "Senator's sons," who have historically enjoyed deferments to domestic guard duties, deenlistment, and otherwise. I think the use of his image leaves open the question of whether he would encourage his own kids to enlist, but clearly conveys skepticism in doing so and in encouraging other members of congress to do so. There's no misrepresentation either way, from what I can gather from the trailer and from what we now know from the newspaper article.
My wife went out and rented it and gave me the option; either go waste time on AO or watch Bowling For Columbine:
You know what? it was MUCH MUCH better than I thought it would be.
He acually got to deep structural root causes . . and those causes were not simply too many guns . . . in fact Moore is a member of the NRA and won regional medals for marksmenship etc as a youth.
also, I have been aware of the so called lies and mistakes etc that people have been on about in order to dismiss Moore entirely, and, I could even see them in the film --they were NOTHING . . . they had nothing to do with the message of that movie, nor its power, and also nothing to detract from the enjoyable watch that it was.
So,
To all of you who haven't seen it yet, I recommend it . . . besides I know some of the musicians in the title song . . . and they could use re-exposure and income . . . .
It reconfirms many of my ideas about what we, as a culture need to place in higher priority . . .
Nick, it's not immediately clear exactly *what* Michael Moore supposedly misrepresents. I think his "image" conveys something that's largely true. The incredulous look the congressman gives Moore is priceless and probably indicates how most people feel (including congressional leaders) about "Senator's sons," who have historically enjoyed deferments to domestic guard duties, deenlistment, and otherwise. I think the use of his image leaves open the question of whether he would encourage his own kids to enlist, but clearly conveys skepticism in doing so and in encouraging other members of congress to do so. There's no misrepresentation either way, from what I can gather from the trailer and from what we now know from the newspaper article.
The misrepresentation occurs because we are not allowed to see to what that look is related. I mean how would you look if someone off the street just came and stuck a microphone and camera in your face. Raising your eyebrows would likely indicate in both your and the congressman's instance, nothing more than increased awareness. (A sort of who the heck is this?) The fact that he wouldn't use the words or conversation spoken during the exchange is the height of disinformation.
The reason Moore used the look is because it can be, just as you showed, a bit neutral and as a result can have the beliefs of Moore, or someone like yourself read into it. You can take the beliefs you have and read them into that look. You couldn't do so with his actual words. That is why it is a misrepresentation.
Existence I meant the song after Ashcroft sings. But I'm surprised! LOL that is probably the singing Attorney General we've had. Maybe he should change his day job?? Go in to some Italian opera or something? He could play the swashbuckling bad guy!
Quote:
Also the "sit down, my son" line from Conyers-- the trailer music just stops and the congressman drops the bomb. Or the look the one Michael Moore employee gives when told to ask congressional leaders to enlist their sons. Or anything Bush does in that trailer-- the "elite/base joke," the "now watch my drive line." Oh i hope the movie is full of good stuff like that.
I know. That Conyers quote, just the way he says it, floors me. I watch it over and over. And how the music stops. I like that guy and I don't even know what party he is or his views...He's just funny. He reminds me of me, working at Sears. every day someone comes in and asks where the car audio stuff is. We got rid of it and filled the aisle with boxes of crap. On one side vacuums are encroaching, on the other, hardware. Our department is going to shit especially since Best Buy moved in. I give them the same answer Conyers appears to be giving, like "Yeah I know. That is stupid huh?" Sigh. That was really funny. And the music right after it is so good I want to know what that song is!
I also like Bush's "joke" and his golfin'. Almost as good as the 'no WMD here' "joke" Good guy. That's my Gee Dub. Maybe he should be in the PGA instead of leading the most powerful nation in the world.
hey Nick it's really annoying when the other side makes up stuff isn't it! I'll admit, that is pretty shady. Just like when he stitched Heston together. So why don't you get indignant about the recent Bush ad?
The misrepresentation occurs because we are not allowed to see to what that look is related. I mean how would you look if someone off the street just came and stuck a microphone and camera in your face. Raising your eyebrows would likely indicate in both your and the congressman's instance, nothing more than increased awareness. (A sort of who the heck is this?) The fact that he wouldn't use the words or conversation spoken during the exchange is the height of disinformation.
The reason Moore used the look is because it can be, just as you showed, a bit neutral and as a result can have the beliefs of Moore, or someone like yourself read into it. You can take the beliefs you have and read them into that look. You couldn't do so with his actual words. That is why it is a misrepresentation.
Nick
This is Moore's famous tactic . . . and it works much like a push-poll . . .
it is more about the IDEA of the question and the questioned than it is the answer . . . unless the answer is really telling . . . which it sometimes is. . . .
This Senator has a 'nephew' . . . from who? his wife's black-sheep poor artist brother, or what? We don't know . . . it still isn't his son or daughter, and, though it would seem on the surface, if I were looking to dismiss before-hand, that it is an indictment, it really isn't a worhty criticism of Moore at all . . . only for the choir
This is Moore's famous tactic . . . and it works much like a push-poll . . .
it is more about the IDEA of the question and the questioned than it is the answer . . . unless the answer is really telling . . . which it sometimes is. . . .
This Senator has a 'nephew' . . . from who? his wife's black-sheep poor artist brother, or what? We don't know . . . it still isn't his son or daughter, and, though it would seem on the surface, if I were looking to dismiss before-hand, that it is an indictment, it really isn't a worhty criticism of Moore at all . . . only for the choir
But that too is a critique of Moore
Nonsense. You award honesty to Moore for no other reason than having his politics in the right(or left as it were) place.
He leaves off the reply. You concede it is basically push polling, and on top of that question the integrity of the congressman for no other reason than he raised an eyebrow.
Mr. McCarthy, I don't think he is a communist. You can leave him off your list.
The reality of it is that he attempted to make this member of congress look like a hypocrite. Since he couldn't achieve it via his words or even his actions, he had to edit it down to just his eyebrows. It is more than just creative editing. It wasn't even satire or anything of that nature where the expression is being used or repeated for comedic purposes. It is outright misrepresentation.
This is Moore's famous tactic . . . and it works much like a push-poll . . .
it is more about the IDEA of the question and the questioned than it is the answer . . . unless the answer is really telling . . . which it sometimes is. . . .
This Senator has a 'nephew' . . . from who? his wife's black-sheep poor artist brother, or what? We don't know . . . it still isn't his son or daughter, and, though it would seem on the surface, if I were looking to dismiss before-hand, that it is an indictment, it really isn't a worhty criticism of Moore at all . . . only for the choir
But that too is a critique of Moore
Nicely put, pfflam. Thank you for articulating my unarticulated thoughts! The idea of the question (would you encourage your son/daughter to enlist in Iraq) and the questioned (members of congress) could be that members of congress have traditionally found ways of getting around doing that-- or maybe whether people responsible for sending other kids to war would potentially sacrifice their own children for the country. Moore doesn't misrepresent Kennedy . In fact, he uses the representative to convey exactly the IDEA of the question and the questioned-- and there's no doubt he looks initially incredulous or skeptical at the purported task. Kennedy, in his interview in that newspaper article, seems to miss the point entirely.
Nonsense. You award honesty to Moore for no other reason than having his politics in the right(or left as it were) place.
He leaves off the reply. You concede it is basically push polling, and on top of that question the integrity of the congressman for no other reason than he raised an eyebrow.
Mr. McCarthy, I don't think he is a communist. You can leave him off your list.
The reality of it is that he attempted to make this member of congress look like a hypocrite. Since he couldn't achieve it via his words or even his actions, he had to edit it down to just his eyebrows. It is more than just creative editing. It wasn't even satire or anything of that nature where the expression is being used or repeated for comedic purposes. It is outright misrepresentation.
Nick
Boy, you sure are outraged!!!
what injustice!!!
besides, I did say that it was like a push-poll . . . but far more entertaining . . . I think it is a shortcoming of his style: basically badgering people, and using the discomfort of the camera as a tool.
But there is more to it than simple lying: it really is about the idea of that specific question being asked of a specific person . . . it just so happens that the eyebrows also look hillarious.
I'lll wait to see the film, maybe there is mre of the dialogue in there . . .
besides, I did say that it was like a push-poll . . . but far more entertaining . . . I think it is a shortcoming of his style: basically badgering people, and using the discomfort of the camera as a tool.
But there is more to it than simple lying: it really is about the idea of that specific question being asked of a specific person . . . it just so happens that the eyebrows also look hillarious.
I'lll wait to see the film, maybe there is mre of the dialogue in there . . .
They already confirmed via a transcript of the film that the dialog is not there.
I'm glad that the depth of Michael Moore's investigative journalism questioning falls along of the lines of "Does your mother know you pick your nose?" (Yes, eww gross.. .No, well then you better tell her)
I'm so glad Moore is raising the level of discussion.
They already confirmed via a transcript of the film that the dialog is not there.
I'm glad that the depth of Michael Moore's investigative journalism questioning falls along of the lines of "Does your mother know you pick your nose?" (Yes, eww gross.. .No, well then you better tell her)
I'm so glad Moore is raising the level of discussion.
Nick
Before I actually saw Columbine I would have agreed with you. However it is clear that he does what few, if any, do: and that is take a pwerspective down to the roots of deep sociological problems.
peppered with a few snide little schtick tricks, but notheless its there (deep journalism) and is a good. breath of fresh air.
I commend him on his willingness to make connections on big social trends and not merely stop at something like: "guns are the problem"
Comments
Originally posted by shetline
In fact, PFFLAM is really an acronym: People Frequently Faking Location And Moniker
LOL.
Originally posted by rageous
If Michael Moore truly cared for America and really wanted to see change, I would indeed expect him to look towards a protest candidate. Think of what Moore and his great ability to generate press could do to bring light to viable third party candidates. But he doesn't want real change, he just wants Bush gone at any cost.
I am not going to defend anyone I don't much care for(I have only seen parts of B for C)...but at least Moore is not hiding the fact that he wants Bush gone. It's the Bush fanatics who just have to jump into the discussion without doing a little research first.
Damn does anyone else know what song that is in the trailer at the end? The rock one? It's a really fitting tune, it's rockin and angry. It starts right after Ashcroft "sings."
http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_...ahrenheit_911/
Also, here's a full link to Ascroft singing used in the trailer.
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2002/02/....wbtv.med.html
Wow the trailer looks even better in high quality. Notice the subtle change in font color of the Fahrenheit 9/11 title from cloudy blue sky white to a fiery white and orange. Very slick. That's one of my favorite parts. Also the "sit down, my son" line from Conyers-- the trailer music just stops and the congressman drops the bomb.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Thanks, Existence!
Wow the trailer looks even better in high quality. Notice the subtle change in font color of the Fahrenheit 9/11 title from cloudy blue sky white to a fiery white and orange. Very slick. That's one of my favorite parts. Also the "sit down, my son" line from Conyers-- the trailer music just stops and the congressman drops the bomb.
I'm sure it will be as good as any other fictional movie out this summer.
Congressman's answer cut
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Rep. Mark Kennedy has unhappy memories of his filmed encounter with leftist moviemaker Michael Moore, an encounter featured Thursday in a trailer for the upcoming U.S. release of the film "Fahrenheit 9/11."
"I was walking back to my office after casting a vote, and all of a sudden some oversized guy puts a mike in my face and a camera in my face," said the Minnesota Republican. "He starts asking if I can help him recruit more people from families of members of Congress to participate in the war on terror."
Kennedy said he told Moore that he has two nephews in the military, one who has just been deployed in the Army National Guard.
But to Kennedy's annoyance, his response to Moore was cut from the trailer (and from the film, according to a spokeswoman for the movie).
"The interesting thing is that they used my image, but not my words," Kennedy said. "It's representative of the fact that Michael Moore doesn't always give the whole story, and he's a master of the misleading."
A spokeswoman for the film, which has found a U.S. distributor after the Walt Disney Co. refused to release it, said she had no comment.
A transcript released by the film's producers shows Moore telling Kennedy that "there is only one member [of Congress] who has a kid over there in Iraq." He asks Kennedy to help him pass out literature encouraging others "to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq."
Kennedy replies, "I'd be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war. [As Kennedy did.] I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan."
To which Moore replies: "I appreciate it."
This guy is actually seen in the trailer. But of course his reply is not seen in either the trailer or the movie.
Michael Moore obviously has the ability to stitch together a compelling presentation of his viewpoint via film. He also, as you mentioned, has a great style to his film making. Why does he have to constantly misrepresent things though to put that across?
Nick
OK,
My wife went out and rented it and gave me the option; either go waste time on AO or watch Bowling For Columbine:
You know what? it was MUCH MUCH better than I thought it would be.
He acually got to deep structural root causes . . and those causes were not simply too many guns . . . in fact Moore is a member of the NRA and won regional medals for marksmenship etc as a youth.
also, I have been aware of the so called lies and mistakes etc that people have been on about in order to dismiss Moore entirely, and, I could even see them in the film --they were NOTHING . . . they had nothing to do with the message of that movie, nor its power, and also nothing to detract from the enjoyable watch that it was.
So,
To all of you who haven't seen it yet, I recommend it . . . besides I know some of the musicians in the title song . . . and they could use re-exposure and income . . . .
It reconfirms many of my ideas about what we, as a culture need to place in higher priority . . .
Can't wait to see the new movie!!
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Nick, it's not immediately clear exactly *what* Michael Moore supposedly misrepresents. I think his "image" conveys something that's largely true. The incredulous look the congressman gives Moore is priceless and probably indicates how most people feel (including congressional leaders) about "Senator's sons," who have historically enjoyed deferments to domestic guard duties, deenlistment, and otherwise. I think the use of his image leaves open the question of whether he would encourage his own kids to enlist, but clearly conveys skepticism in doing so and in encouraging other members of congress to do so. There's no misrepresentation either way, from what I can gather from the trailer and from what we now know from the newspaper article.
The misrepresentation occurs because we are not allowed to see to what that look is related. I mean how would you look if someone off the street just came and stuck a microphone and camera in your face. Raising your eyebrows would likely indicate in both your and the congressman's instance, nothing more than increased awareness. (A sort of who the heck is this?) The fact that he wouldn't use the words or conversation spoken during the exchange is the height of disinformation.
The reason Moore used the look is because it can be, just as you showed, a bit neutral and as a result can have the beliefs of Moore, or someone like yourself read into it. You can take the beliefs you have and read them into that look. You couldn't do so with his actual words. That is why it is a misrepresentation.
Nick
Also the "sit down, my son" line from Conyers-- the trailer music just stops and the congressman drops the bomb. Or the look the one Michael Moore employee gives when told to ask congressional leaders to enlist their sons. Or anything Bush does in that trailer-- the "elite/base joke," the "now watch my drive line." Oh i hope the movie is full of good stuff like that.
I know. That Conyers quote, just the way he says it, floors me. I watch it over and over. And how the music stops. I like that guy and I don't even know what party he is or his views...He's just funny.
I also like Bush's "joke" and his golfin'. Almost as good as the 'no WMD here' "joke" Good guy. That's my Gee Dub. Maybe he should be in the PGA instead of leading the most powerful nation in the world.
hey Nick it's really annoying when the other side makes up stuff isn't it! I'll admit, that is pretty shady. Just like when he stitched Heston together. So why don't you get indignant about the recent Bush ad?
Originally posted by trumptman
The misrepresentation occurs because we are not allowed to see to what that look is related. I mean how would you look if someone off the street just came and stuck a microphone and camera in your face. Raising your eyebrows would likely indicate in both your and the congressman's instance, nothing more than increased awareness. (A sort of who the heck is this?) The fact that he wouldn't use the words or conversation spoken during the exchange is the height of disinformation.
The reason Moore used the look is because it can be, just as you showed, a bit neutral and as a result can have the beliefs of Moore, or someone like yourself read into it. You can take the beliefs you have and read them into that look. You couldn't do so with his actual words. That is why it is a misrepresentation.
Nick
This is Moore's famous tactic . . . and it works much like a push-poll . . .
it is more about the IDEA of the question and the questioned than it is the answer . . . unless the answer is really telling . . . which it sometimes is. . . .
This Senator has a 'nephew' . . . from who? his wife's black-sheep poor artist brother, or what? We don't know . . . it still isn't his son or daughter, and, though it would seem on the surface, if I were looking to dismiss before-hand, that it is an indictment, it really isn't a worhty criticism of Moore at all . . . only for the choir
But that too is a critique of Moore
Originally posted by pfflam
This is Moore's famous tactic . . . and it works much like a push-poll . . .
it is more about the IDEA of the question and the questioned than it is the answer . . . unless the answer is really telling . . . which it sometimes is. . . .
This Senator has a 'nephew' . . . from who? his wife's black-sheep poor artist brother, or what? We don't know . . . it still isn't his son or daughter, and, though it would seem on the surface, if I were looking to dismiss before-hand, that it is an indictment, it really isn't a worhty criticism of Moore at all . . . only for the choir
But that too is a critique of Moore
Nonsense. You award honesty to Moore for no other reason than having his politics in the right(or left as it were) place.
He leaves off the reply. You concede it is basically push polling, and on top of that question the integrity of the congressman for no other reason than he raised an eyebrow.
Mr. McCarthy, I don't think he is a communist. You can leave him off your list.
The reality of it is that he attempted to make this member of congress look like a hypocrite. Since he couldn't achieve it via his words or even his actions, he had to edit it down to just his eyebrows. It is more than just creative editing. It wasn't even satire or anything of that nature where the expression is being used or repeated for comedic purposes. It is outright misrepresentation.
Nick
Originally posted by pfflam
This is Moore's famous tactic . . . and it works much like a push-poll . . .
it is more about the IDEA of the question and the questioned than it is the answer . . . unless the answer is really telling . . . which it sometimes is. . . .
This Senator has a 'nephew' . . . from who? his wife's black-sheep poor artist brother, or what? We don't know . . . it still isn't his son or daughter, and, though it would seem on the surface, if I were looking to dismiss before-hand, that it is an indictment, it really isn't a worhty criticism of Moore at all . . . only for the choir
But that too is a critique of Moore
Nicely put, pfflam. Thank you for articulating my unarticulated thoughts! The idea of the question (would you encourage your son/daughter to enlist in Iraq) and the questioned (members of congress) could be that members of congress have traditionally found ways of getting around doing that-- or maybe whether people responsible for sending other kids to war would potentially sacrifice their own children for the country. Moore doesn't misrepresent Kennedy . In fact, he uses the representative to convey exactly the IDEA of the question and the questioned-- and there's no doubt he looks initially incredulous or skeptical at the purported task. Kennedy, in his interview in that newspaper article, seems to miss the point entirely.
Originally posted by trumptman
Nonsense. You award honesty to Moore for no other reason than having his politics in the right(or left as it were) place.
He leaves off the reply. You concede it is basically push polling, and on top of that question the integrity of the congressman for no other reason than he raised an eyebrow.
Mr. McCarthy, I don't think he is a communist. You can leave him off your list.
The reality of it is that he attempted to make this member of congress look like a hypocrite. Since he couldn't achieve it via his words or even his actions, he had to edit it down to just his eyebrows. It is more than just creative editing. It wasn't even satire or anything of that nature where the expression is being used or repeated for comedic purposes. It is outright misrepresentation.
Nick
Boy, you sure are outraged!!!
what injustice!!!
besides, I did say that it was like a push-poll . . . but far more entertaining . . . I think it is a shortcoming of his style: basically badgering people, and using the discomfort of the camera as a tool.
But there is more to it than simple lying: it really is about the idea of that specific question being asked of a specific person . . . it just so happens that the eyebrows also look hillarious.
I'lll wait to see the film, maybe there is mre of the dialogue in there . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
Boy, you sure are outraged!!!
what injustice!!!
besides, I did say that it was like a push-poll . . . but far more entertaining . . . I think it is a shortcoming of his style: basically badgering people, and using the discomfort of the camera as a tool.
But there is more to it than simple lying: it really is about the idea of that specific question being asked of a specific person . . . it just so happens that the eyebrows also look hillarious.
I'lll wait to see the film, maybe there is mre of the dialogue in there . . .
They already confirmed via a transcript of the film that the dialog is not there.
I'm glad that the depth of Michael Moore's investigative journalism questioning falls along of the lines of "Does your mother know you pick your nose?" (Yes, eww gross.. .No, well then you better tell her)
I'm so glad Moore is raising the level of discussion.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
They already confirmed via a transcript of the film that the dialog is not there.
I'm glad that the depth of Michael Moore's investigative journalism questioning falls along of the lines of "Does your mother know you pick your nose?" (Yes, eww gross.. .No, well then you better tell her)
I'm so glad Moore is raising the level of discussion.
Nick
Before I actually saw Columbine I would have agreed with you. However it is clear that he does what few, if any, do: and that is take a pwerspective down to the roots of deep sociological problems.
peppered with a few snide little schtick tricks, but notheless its there (deep journalism) and is a good. breath of fresh air.
I commend him on his willingness to make connections on big social trends and not merely stop at something like: "guns are the problem"
But history has been written, and if lies are repeated time after time, they become the established truth.