Freedom of Speech, Censorship and Michael Moore

[ak404]

I saw it. Political biases aside, some of it made me laugh, some of it was disappointing in the way that Moore abandoned an argument just when he's starting to make the point, it's a stretch to say that the pieces connected perfectly, and I'd be reaching for compliments if I said that what Moore wants to say at the beginning is what he says at the end, but on the whole, it was entertaining to watch, which is, after all, why I saw it.

[3278]

Of course Moore is biased! Just like Fox News is (they just hide it slightly better). But he's informed us of his bias, loudly and clearly. I fail to see the problem here.

It's not the same. Fox News does not intentionally misrepresent the truth in order to convince people of an agenda which is completely untenable. Michael Moore didn't used to do that, but this film is the worst case of propagandism in film I've seen since <i>Reefer Madness</i>. Fox News reports the news, and does so from and with their point of view, but the news does not hide or misrepresent or intentionally distort the facts to service their agenda. [Some pundits might, but those are individuals, and not Fox News. For what it's worth, I have yet to see any segment on Fox News produced by any individual that comes even close to the blatant fallacy of Moore's latest film.]

I have, so far, only seen the clips that Moore has chosen to show for publicity appearances. I will certainly watch the film, although I might not be considered an unbiased reviewer either. I can only tell you what I've seen so far - and that's been pretty bad - and what I see when I watch the film.

Moore hasn't "informed us of his bias." He's claimed to be a documentarian, someone who documents. He's most certainly not that. He is more of a misdirectionist than a documentarian, this time out at least.

[FlakJacket]

Well he has basically set out how anti-Bush he is. This is basically him having a pop at the guy from what I've heard.

[TheScamp]

Moore hasn't "informed us of his bias."

What, in your view, would he need to do in order to so inform us?

[ak404]

I'd have to agree with Scamp on this one - it's like taking O'Reilly at his word when he says he's being unbiased. It doesn't matter what Moore says, only what he does; he has a long history of being anti-authoritarian. He doesn't exactly need to come out and say that.

[Serious Paul]

Well you do live in the arse-end of nowhere- or didn't you move a while back? Either way, perfect isolated Cthulhu country. Wonder what Paul's SAN loss is?

We're an isolated system. But not by choice.

[3278]

Moore hasn't "informed us of his bias."

What, in your view, would he need to do in order to so inform us?

Well, /in the film,/ he'd need to say something like, "I'm intentionally misrepresenting the truth because I hate George Bush's politics so much." He'd need to be, you know, honest. No one "informs" you of their bias. Fox News doesn't put out ads that say, "We present the news from a conservative point-of-view." Admission of bias is almost always meta-admission: the content attempts to appear unbiased, while the presenter hides his bias behind supposed impartiality; we only know of the bias by sensing it, or by admissions outside of the content.

Air America, on the other hand, is fairly clear about their bias. That's nice.

Perhaps there is a disclaimer at the beginning of the film: "I hate George Bush and everything he stands for, and this film is a shameless attempt to undermine him by distorting the facts." I won't know until I see it.

[Chopper]

Moore is merely making money off of people's media founded hatred for Bush. He realised that even though what he says doesn't reflect the truth, he can still make money off of the lies because the paying people really don't care about truth, they just like to watch things that rip on Bush. Can't blame him for grabbing gold when he knew where it was.

I guess you could say this is a clear case of "Selling your soul to Satan."

This movie is also a clear case of a person taking advantage of ignorant people.

[TheScamp]

Perhaps there is a disclaimer at the beginning of the film: "I hate George Bush and everything he stands for, and this film is a shameless attempt to undermine him by distorting the facts."

Ah. So it's the problem that he doesn't declare his bias in the film itself. Saying exactly that (well, maybe except for the distorting facts part) pretty much every chance you get outside of the film doesn't count.

[Johnny the Bull]

Moore is merely making money off of people's media founded hatred for Bush.

Media founded? Fuck that. It's a well founded hatred. That motherfucker is, as Regan's son would say, to the right of Ghengis Khan.

[Marius]

Media founded? Fuck that. It's a well founded hatred. That motherfucker is, as Regan's son would say, to the right of Ghengis Khan.

You (and Reagan's dumber son) have got that quite wrong. Well, not literally, maybe. Bush probably is to the right of Khan. But then, it's really hard to compare because most of Khan's political writings didn't survive, and becuase, you know, his political environment was somewhat different.

But the thing is, while his personal views are fairly conservative, Bush's politics are not. Except for some of his garbage Christian things, which shouldn't really be considered part of the right end of the spectrum. Those of us who actually are[/ii] conservative tend to regard Bush politically inept and unconservative.

[Johnny the Bull]

Media founded? Fuck that. It's a well founded hatred. That motherfucker is, as Regan's son would say, to the right of Ghengis Khan.

You (and Reagan's dumber son) have got that quite wrong. Well, not literally, maybe. Bush probably is to the right of Khan. But then, it's really hard to compare because most of Khan's political writings didn't survive, and becuase, you know, his political environment was somewhat different.

But the thing is, while his personal views are fairly conservative, Bush's politics are not. Except for some of his garbage Christian things, which shouldn't really be considered part of the right end of the spectrum. Those of us who actually are[/ii] conservative tend to regard Bush politically inept and unconservative.

It's funny. The one thing I like about the conservative theory - a balanced budget - is never implemented by them. At least our conservative government has brought our debt levels to the lowest in the developed world. Instead American conservatives adopt the religious right, which while not a bad move, makes me want to kill them all with a pick-axe. Usually I'd say its a foreign leader, I really don't care because it's not my business. But Bush's agenda and pandering to the religious right is starting to be adopted by our government in Australia, albeit through little baby steps.

We've worked too fucking long and hard to get all trace of religion out of society. I don't want some scumfuck yank influencing our government and having it come back. Any film that could possibly help remove that cancer from the white house I will support with my dollars unconditionally.

[3278]

Perhaps there is a disclaimer at the beginning of the film: "I hate George Bush and everything he stands for, and this film is a shameless attempt to undermine him by distorting the facts."

Ah. So it's the problem that he doesn't declare his bias in the film itself. Saying exactly that (well, maybe except for the distorting facts part) pretty much every chance you get outside of the film doesn't count.

I really don't think it does, any more than Moo can fairly judge the McDonald's movie based /solely/ on what is said outside the movie. Moore's bias in the film should be judged by the content of the film, not by things someone may or may not see on Letterman.

[Marius]

Any film that could possibly help remove that cancer from the white house I will support with my dollars unconditionally.

Could we maybe wait until the only alternative isn't some worse shite?

[Crazy Elf]

Marius, you still haven't seen the movie, so you really don't have any solid stance with which to say that it's a piece of crap. You really do sound fucking moronic.

[DV8]

Any film that could possibly help remove that cancer from the white house I will support with my dollars unconditionally.

Could we maybe wait until the only alternative isn't some worse shite?

I guess I'm not in the loop enough. Why's Kerry doomed to fail even worse than Bush has?

[ak404]

Well, does Kerry actually stand for anything other than being an alternative to Bush? Have you seen their opinions and stances on current issues? They're really more alike than anyone cares to admit, except Kerry doesn't pander to extremist Christian fundamentalists.

Yet.

[Paul]

Give the Catholic church time and that'll change with a quickness.

[Johnny the Bull]

Any film that could possibly help remove that cancer from the white house I will support with my dollars unconditionally.

Could we maybe wait until the only alternative isn't some worse shite?

He's human. Compared the the missing link in human evolution that is Geroge Bush he's a step up.

[Serious Paul]

The same could be said about any of us by our opponents. That you hold such an extreme view makes me glad you aren't a registered voter here in America. I want people who vote with their minds not their emotion.

[3278]

Bravo, Paul.

[Salvation122]

I guess I'm not in the loop enough. Why's Kerry doomed to fail even worse than Bush has?

Because he is seemingly unable to take a position on an issue and stick with it. Plus, he's a borderline socialist, and socialism will not work in America.

[Serious Paul]

The Onion tells all!

WASHINGTON, DC—According to key members of the Bush Administration, the tragic proceedings of the 9/11 commission, which devastated the political lives of numerous government officials, could have been averted with preventive action in 2002 and 2003.


Above: Members of the 9/11 commission that destroyed countless political careers.
"A few adept legislative maneuvers could have saved the reputations of hundreds," President Bush's counterterrorism chief Fran Townsend told reporters Monday. "Had we foreseen the dangers of the commission's deceptively simple requests, we could have spared dozens of victims from the shocking, public mangling of their careers."

"It's tragic," Townsend added. "All those political futures snuffed out as millions of Americans watched on television. And to think there was a remote chance that they could've gotten our president."

Although there were only 10 commission members, they worked with shocking efficiency, and served to carry out the decisions made with the help of a much larger network of government employees.

"The frighteningly resolute faces of commission chair Thomas H. Kean and vice-chair Lee H. Hamilton are familiar after several weeks of frenzied media coverage, but the commission's roots run deeper," Townsend said. "The thing that keeps me awake at night is the number of advisors who are still out there today, secretly evaluating our policies. We have no way of knowing who might be called forth by a panel in the future."

"You see the vast scope of the problem," Townsend added. "We're fighting a whole new type of enemy—one that hides among its victims."

National security advisor Condoleezza Rice said that her office did not receive any intelligence regarding the commission's scope until it was already in place, and therefore was unable to implement a strategy to thwart its efforts.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) agreed.

"Nobody saw this coming," Lieberman said. "With 20/20 hindsight, of course, we know that if [House Speaker Dennis] Hastert hadn't let Public Law 107-306 come to the floor in November of 2002, we could have saved many of our colleagues from their sad fates."


Above: Tenet, whose agency was ripped apart by the 9/11 commission.
But Lieberman said that government officials should not look to place blame in the wake of the panel.

"Yes, if various departments had communicated certain intelligence, many of our colleagues would not have found themselves trapped under mounds of paperwork," Lieberman said. "But, as tempting as it is to point fingers, we need to move forward and look at how we can prevent another 9/11 commission from happening."

George Tenet, who recently resigned as director of the CIA, was among the high-profile casualties of the commission's investigation of key government agencies. According to Alan Fenton, Tenet's public-relations-crisis manager, Washington "seriously underestimated" the commission's power.

"Everybody thought, 'Ten guys, sitting together in some room somewhere, armed with only the power of subpoena—who could they hurt?'" Fenton said. "No one guessed that a commission this small could inflict so much political damage."

Defense lawyer Mark Agara, who has provided legal counsel for many of the commission's victims, blamed party insiders' short-sightedness on what he termed a "pre-9/11-commission mindset."

"A panel criticizing the actions that the administration took in response to the most devastating terrorist attack in history?" Agara asked. "People never considered the possibility. But now, here we stand—whole departments ripped apart, agencies in ruin, and, worst of all, the job security that government employees once took for granted gone forever."

Capitol Hill, ground zero for the investigation, is still reeling in the wake of the 9/11 commission. Americans from across the country continue to offer prayers and assemble candlelight vigils outside federal buildings that contain the offices of the fallen-in-stature.

"Think not only of these poor politicians, but of their families and their staffs," said Gerald Davis, spokesman for Stop The Panels, a group of advocates for the unseen victims of investigations. "Anyone who works for an important Washington politician has been touched by this tragedy."

[FlameBlade]

[MissTeja]

I just went and saw it. I almost got up and left, yet, I figured that listening to the opinion of someone with different views than my own could only make me more secure in my political identity - and it did.

This film, while raising some alarming red flags, was so completely saturated in bias - from the music selections chosen, to the selected (and possibly more importantly, the ommitance of certain) scenes of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc., to the definate lead Moore gave to those being questioned in what direction the answers were to lead, - it was /so/ selective that it lost a lot of it's persuasion potential.

A long time ago, I learned that any good argument should always represent the facts as they stand, without bias, and then state the opposing positions interpretation of the facts. Then, and only after those things had been met, the argumenter should state why the opposing side is wrong and why they are right. Moore's film, in my opinion, seemed to omit the first three steps in 90 percent of his movie. Being a moderate, I was actually hoping for some good arguments - as there are other issues I've been teertering politically on lately. I was disappointed not to receive that. Rather, it just seemed to be a complete mockery. While it definately /did/ increase my compassion even more for the civilians of war-torn countries and the soldiers fighting in them, this film only made me shake my head even more at the liberal extreme views on the issue in question.

I don't know if Michael Moore hoped to or intended on "enlightening" some of those who are more conservative on this issue, but making fun of them and excluding facts that may have, heaven forbid, prove things against his agenda - well, it was definately not the way to do it.

This is just my *opinion*, of course. I am just stating it to contribute to the thread, not to argue about it.

[lordhellion]

Just returned from watching it. There was definately the tinge of omission throughout the piece, but anyone who had any experience with Michael Moore's work will know better than to take it at face value (hopefully spending three minutes in this thread would be be enough to convince someone of that). And that's a statement from a confessed liberal and ardent anti-Bush activist.

The biggest fault I found from Moore, however, was that he kind of lost direction halfway through the movie. It started out with a selection of facts supporting a scheme of greed as the motive for war with Iraq. Some speculation from Moore, but a lot of it facts that can and will be checked before they stand on thier own. Suddenly, as the consipiratoal tension rises, he breaks away and starts tugging on heart-strings for the rest of the film--the emotional cost of war, etc, etc. He ends on a thought that he only briefly discussed earlier in the piece. Needless to say, not following film class structure of how a film plays out.

It was fine, I felt, as long as he stuck with facts and accusation. The attempts to raise sympathy felt really forced and unnecessay, as though in editing they thought, "Hey, if people aren't buying the facts, maybe we can guilt them into it," or, possibly, "Shit, we used all we got in the first two reels, what do we use as filler for the rest of the movie?"

The final idea, that the poor and downtrodden are protecting both America as a whole and the fact cats that stuck them there in the first place makes an admirable point, but he pulled out before he reached the orgasm of a seamless body of evidence. I actually felt sorry for Bush early on, when they footage from the seven minutes after he found out about 9-11, as he just sat there dumbfounded.

And to ak's question about has Kerry taken a stance anywhere--While here in the Pac Northwest Kerry made a point of stating he wants to dump money into alternative energies and free America from it's dependency on oil. The topic was specifically chosen due to the West Coast getting the short end of the stick with gas prices lately, but it was a very welcome idea.

Besides, who needs a stance? A lot of voters, myself included, would sooner vote for a stained pair of Bon Jovi's jockey shorts before we would Bush.

[Chopper]

who needs a stance?

Is that the new John Kerry slogan? Sounds catchy.

[Rev]

I bet "The Corporation" is better.

Its premise is: given that corporations are, in many ways, considered legally persons what kind of persons are they? Turns out they are psychopaths.

I doubt I will see Moore's film. I think he has become too self indulgent. He does give good interviews though. He has a few great comments in "The Corporation". And I saw an interview with him about "Farenheit 911". He said it was an opinion peice. He does not claim that it is an unbiased report. If thats what you expected the fault is your own. If you want impartiality watch the frontline episodes about the war and 911.

Now to compare it with fox one really has to say what one means by FOX News. Does one mean the news shows, or the cable tv channel. The channel is, I beleive, well over half right wing opinion shows. The news is given a mild right wing spin, but so far as I have seen really no worse than the whatever our target demographic wants to hear spins of most news organizations. There is a segment in "The Corporation" about a FOX News station that its viewers might find interesting. It was all about FOX News broadcasting intentional falsehoods at the request of Monsanto. In the end a lawsuit against them fails on a technicality, and they broadcast a quote from thier own legal department saying that they have been "vindicated" by the court, when in fact the judge simply found that the plaintiffs had no legal standing to sue the station because it isn't illegal for the news to broadcast lies (must have reassured them about the "vindicated" broadcast!). But I guess "we were vindicated" sounds better than "the judge agreed with our lawyers that we can lie all we want".

[Salvation122]

Besides, who needs a stance? A lot of voters, myself included, would sooner vote for a stained pair of Bon Jovi's jockey shorts before we would Bush.

And nothing personal, dude, but that's a really fucking stupid position to have.

[lordhellion]

Bon Jovi's shorts never had a personal agenda that it decided to force American citizens undertake without letting them know what the goal was, lying the whole time and then retracting earlier statements, trying to claim it never happened.

[Marius]

Bon Jovi's shorts never had a personal agenda that it decided to force American citizens undertake without letting them know what the goal was, lying the whole time and then retracting earlier statements, trying to claim it never happened.

Seriously, if you feel that at any point you didn't know what the Bush administration's policy was, or what the goals of the policy were, then you're too ignorant to be taken seriously. The White House has daily press briefings, and they're pretty clear. Halfway diligent attention to the news can give you enough grounding in current events to know what they're referencing, and what their opponents are referencing. No one who's paid any attention can really claim they were lied to, mislead, or confused.

[Serious Paul]

He does give good interviews though.

With about five minutes prep time I give a great interview too.

[MooCow]

The same could be said about any of us by our opponents. That you hold such an extreme view makes me glad you aren't a registered voter here in America. I want people who vote with their minds not their emotion.

Does that mean I'm not allowed to vote?

[lordhellion]

Seriously, if you feel that at any point you didn't know what the Bush administration's policy was, or what the goals of the policy were, then you're too ignorant to be taken seriously. The White House has daily press briefings, and they're pretty clear. Halfway diligent attention to the news can give you enough grounding in current events to know what they're referencing, and what their opponents are referencing. No one who's paid any attention can really claim they were lied to, mislead, or confused.

If you have a selective memory, yeah. Try comparing press conferences from two years ago to press conferences two months ago. Rummy, Cheney, Bush, and the whole cast of characters said "we guarantee this" and "things are definately like that". In more recent interviews, without being able to prove things like WMD's or 9/11-Iraq connections, they deny having ever said that--despite the fact that very clear footage exists.

In all honsety, I think that the Bush Administration is doing what they think is best for the country. I believe that they are trying to get the United States in tight with Middle Easterm oil to help stabilize the economy. But I don't believe that they're taking a very ethical way of going about it, and I don't know about anyone else but my wallet's not worth my soul. In all fairness I hold Bush least responsible, because I believe that he's kind of just turned into a spokesperson trying to cover the gaps as the Administration machine takes care of business.

[Daki]

He wouldn't show the plane footage, kudos for that.

Stuck me as odd that he would show the footage of a public beheading in Saudi Arabia. Obviously used to emphasize the point he made a second earlier about Amnesty International condeming Saudi Arabia. However, when you think about it... we execute our prisoners too. We just don't do it outside in front of a big crowd.

It was trying to show that the bin Ladin family is evil because one of their sons is a terrorist. And they are from Saudi Arabia. And the Saudi's are bad people. Because they behead people in public. And that makes the bin Ladin family evil too, and they are invested in Amercian corporations.

The connections with the money were interesting but not suprising since money is money and people work to get more of it.

Overall, I say the movie is just as extreme as what Moore accuses the current administration of doing, only in the polar opposite direction. Maybe you take a little of this, you take a little of the WHite House and you get somewhere in the middle. As something to make you think, it's great. As a movie? It was overly long, rambling and quite boring in parts.

I didn't like the movie, and I did feel like I was sitting there watching someone say "Bush is bad. I hate Bush" in every conceivable way.

Two other little notes that seemed a littel strange:

1. Doesn't show the planes crashing into the building to pull on people's heart strings... but does show, on several occassions, Iraqi victims in the war and one section that shows american GIs pulled from their destroyed transport, beaten with stick, and the remains hung up on a bridge.

(Side-side note: They showed the targeting footage from a chopper taking out targets. Didn't mention that the targets being taken out were in the process of planting a bomb on the bridge.)

2. Moore criticizes the current administrator for using fear and the media to churn support (valid points)... then he does the same thing to gain more press for his own film by making a stink about not having a distributor (nevermind he apparently knew for months they were not going to release it).

[Johnny the Bull]

The same could be said about any of us by our opponents. That you hold such an extreme view makes me glad you aren't a registered voter here in America. I want people who vote with their minds not their emotion.

I wouldn't care, but what happens in the US tends to happen here, only to a lesser degree. I don't want Australia to become US circia 2000-2004 Lite. Hence my rabid hatred of Bush.

[Cain]

Well, does Kerry actually stand for anything other than being an alternative to Bush? Have you seen their opinions and stances on current issues? They're really more alike than anyone cares to admit, except Kerry doesn't pander to extremist Christian fundamentalists.

Please. Exactly how different are any two major US politicans these days?

Compared to the radical politics in many other countries, our politicians all seem to be cut from the same cloth. Ralph Nader is closer to Bush Jr. than Wen Jiabao, despite Nader's socialistic principles.

You could make the exact same comment about any two US politicians. And, given the spectrum involved, you'd be right-- where the rest of the world goes for red or violet, our politicans are all varying shades of green. Some are closer to yellow, others are closer to blue-- but we're all still very centrist in relation to everyone else.

[lordhellion]

I blame the media for that, only because I can't think of another word for how I feel about it. We've managed to centralize our culture thanks to television and the internet, so our images of what a politician should be have kind of blended into an amalgamation of all former opinions. You're chances of being elected/relected are higher if you appeal to as broad a base as possible.

[ak404]

Daki, I do believe that the burning and beating footage was from Fallujah. So, no, they weren't GIs. I recognized it right off the bat, but other people might have not; Moore never says that the victims weren't military.

[mrmooky]

Compared to the radical politics in many other countries, our politicians all seem to be cut from the same cloth.

I'd say that has a lot to do with your first-past-the-post voting system, which more or less ensures that a Republicrat always wins.

[Serious Paul]

You could make the exact same comment about any two US politicians.

I guess I don't get what you mean Cain. I mean basically you're agreeing with him right?

[Cain]

Basically, Kerry and Bush are as different as you're going to reliably *get* in US politics. Yes, you could go theoretically further to either side. Sometime, that might just be a fun thing to watch. However, in a practical sense, no one with radical politics is going to succeed in this country.

Kerry and Bush might be similar in an absolute sense, but they're as different as you could hope for within our spectrum of things.

[Serious Paul]

Okay I get that.

[JongWK]

I bet "The Corporation" is better.

Its premise is: given that corporations are, in many ways, considered legally persons what kind of persons are they? Turns out they are psychopaths.

I managed to catch part of it on HBO last weekend. Looks really good, though I reserve final judgement until I can fully see it.

Now to compare it with fox one really has to say what one means by FOX News. Does one mean the news shows, or the cable tv channel. The channel is, I beleive, well over half right wing opinion shows. The news is given a mild right wing spin, but so far as I have seen really no worse than the whatever our target demographic wants to hear spins of most news organizations. There is a segment in "The Corporation" about a FOX News station that its viewers might find interesting. It was all about FOX News broadcasting intentional falsehoods at the request of Monsanto. In the end a lawsuit against them fails on a technicality, and they broadcast a quote from thier own legal department saying that they have been "vindicated" by the court, when in fact the judge simply found that the plaintiffs had no legal standing to sue the station because it isn't illegal for the news to broadcast lies (must have reassured them about the "vindicated" broadcast!). But I guess "we were vindicated" sounds better than "the judge agreed with our lawyers that we can lie all we want".

I saw this segment. In as much as I despise FOX News for what they did (basically, they sold out themselves), I have to somewhat disagree with the conclusion The Corporation reaches.

FOX had every right to publish false news IF they weren't intentionally lying. The notion of "truthful news" is an abomination and should be buried along with other censorship laws. You need a margin of error in this business.

[lorg]

Well, not literally, maybe. Bush probably is to the right of Khan. But then, it's really hard to compare because most of Khan's political writings didn't survive, and becuase, you know, his political environment was somewhat different.

I wonder what exactlly was the politics of Ghengis Khan? Expand the empire and plunder all you can?

[ak404]

Make as much money as you can, apparently. From what little I remember of the Mongolian Empire, it wasn't the most organized empire in the world - communities under Mongol control were generally left to their own devices except to pay taxes or tribute - but they created a lot of trading routes that're still in uses, but it all quickly fell apart under Genghis's death.

Or I could be totally wrong about this. Somebody correct me.

[JongWK]

Not to start the debate again, but I found the US box office results for F9/11.

Being a documentary released only two weeks ago, that's pretty impressive (especially because second week revenue was higher than its opening week). I wonder if it will hold it's own the third weekend.

How much does a movie ticket cost in NorthAm, by the way? Just to get an raw estimate on how many people saw it.

[Marius]

Eh. Spiderman 2 is still doing far better, and it's just as much a documentary as Farenheit, but much less a cult movie than Moore's. Color me unimpressed.

[lorg]

Eh. Spiderman 2 is still doing far better, and it's just as much a documentary as Farenheit, but much less a cult movie than Moore's. Color me unimpressed.

Spiderman2 doing better then F9/11. Gee who could have guessed that ... I could have told you that without looking at the box office results.

[Johnny the Bull]

Fahrenheit 9/11' sets new documentary mark, topping $100 million

It hasn't even opened in a whole bunch of countries, including Australia.

Colour me /fucking/ impressed.