Well, I feel like I should apologize for rudeness in dropping the
discussion, even though my participation was quite brief. You (Gerry) made
several points of interest. However, mostly I just felt that I had basically
exhausted the topic of Reagan as it related to life in Japan, and yet
another one of my unbeloved traits is a dislike of non-topical posts. (My
recent "recreational" activities have been oh-so-topically focused in the
new alt.fan.michael-moore newsgroup.) I was actually afraid to look at the
rest of this Reagan-related discussion lest I be drawn in again, since I
confess to having certain opinions regarding some of the issues mentioned.
(Unsure how to handle the context, I've left it intact below, in case
someone wants to refer to it.)

However, my new question is about the move Fahrenheit 9/11. As suggested in
the new Subject: line, from what I've been hearing of the reaction in
America, I think Dubya is toast now, but I still want the pleasure of
personally witnessing the instrument of his political destruction. From
today's discussion with the local Warner Mycal people, I'm pretty sure that
this big theater chain will not be carrying the movie. (Also nothing on the
Michael Moore Web site yet.)

So what's the scoop? When and where will Fahrenheit 9/11 be shown in Japan?

Gerry wrote:
> In article <40cbf07a$1$1008$44c9b20d@news3.asahi-net.or.jp>, Shannon
> Jacobs <shanen@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>> I think it's commonly viewed that while he had a lingering disease,
>>> these past 14 years, was also a period during which a realistic
>>> assessment of his career was in poor taste.  I assume it will
>>> always be common decency to morph his career to suit Republican
>>> political purpose, and any facts will be considered reprehensible
>>> politics.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless my criticisms above and before were about Bush. How
>>> long after Reagan's season of honorment can we begin discussing
>>> Bush again?
>
> [snip]
>
>> On the first part above, I'll say that the "true" historical
>> perspective is very difficult to achieve, and that's one of the few
>> things that Dubya actually managed to say almost correctly, though he
>> cast it from his typically selfish perspective about why he shouldn't
>> care.
>
> This, despite his executive order to void legislation that requires
> documents of a presidency be released 12 years after a president
> leaves office. His order keeps these papers private as long as there
> is any living family member or progeny.  In theory--till the
> bloodline runs out!
>
> Releasing such papers at the beginning of the Bush term would have, of
> course, exposed myriad details of the activities of operatives from
> Reagan's time that now run the Bush operation.  So Bush's INTENT was
> to ensure a "true" historical perspective is not achieved.  I can only
> assume he considers these potentially politically damaging, since I
> can't find any other reason not to make public the records of the
> greatest president in the history of humanity.
>
>> Historical judgment does have to wait until the actors are all dead,
>> and it takes a long time. (The last wife of a Civil War veteran just
>> died recently.)
>
> I don't thing all the principals need to be dead to assess their work.
> Certainly all the political utility of fabricating history has to be
> dead, though, and that might take another hundred years or more. I've
> long assume the intent is to create an anti-Roosevelt.  Loved,
> accomplished, heroic. Roosevelt seemed to be these things without 30
> think tanks working a million hours to accomplish.
>
>> What you [I didn't watch it] saw in the Reagan funeral...
>
> Me, watch the funeral.  No way.  I spent all week avoiding the endless
> iterations of cut-and-paste homilies and still managed to see more
> than I wanted.  I know Reagan fans that burned out on it before the
> actual DC parade, and they only buried him yesterday.
>
>> ...is actually worship of the dead emperor. Emperors are routinely
>> projected as ideal "superheros" and deified. That extends to the
>> current believers in Bushal infallibility.
>
> Bush is not dead.  I'm not sure that he's "alive" in the traditional
> sense, but they do parade him about at his ranch from time to time.
>
>> (For a sharply conflicting perspective on Reagan, I recommend
>> Slansky's _The_Clothes_Have_No_Emperor_, which seems to be back in
>> print again.)
>>
>> Now the real reason I was hooked into commenting: Y'all can blame
>> Reagan for my presence here. If that doesn't destroy the Reagan
>> worship, I can't imagine what would.
>>
>> The short history according to Garp:
>>
>> From youth I'd always dreamed of living abroad for a while, but when
>> I "grew up" I dropped the idea and just did my programming. When
>> Reagan was elected, I regarded it as a momentary sickness of the
>> always peculiar American political system, soon to be cured. When
>> Reagan was re-elected, it was difficult to regard the sickness as
>> momentary, and I got my very first passport, though I didn't actually
>> use it until later. When Dan Quayle was elected V-P on Reagan's coat
>> tails, it contributed significantly to my decision to come to Japan.
>> After Dubya was selected, I applied for and received my 永住ビザ. If
>> Dubya is finally elected this year, even if by hook and crook, it is
>> actually conceivable I would start reconsidering my citizenship.
>> Unlike Colin Powell, I believe there are probably limits to how much
>> humiliation and embarrassment I will endure.
>
> When/if we can wrest control of the government from the corporate
> bag-men and lackeys that now control it, by all means come on back and
> enjoy yourself.

-- 
Do you agree that democracy is good and depends on serious discussion
of the issues? If so, don't reply to off topic, ad hominem garbage.
Send it to "The vile spewers of mindless blather thread".