Monday, July 05, 2004
calling it that, is typical of right wing criticisms of Moore's movie. They call him a liar, then fail to point out a single lie. Of course Moore has a point of view, so does Hitchens, and so do you, but no one has proven anything Moore says in this move to be lie. Instead they
attack Moore himself (for his weight or his wealth), or they make assumptions about his positions on issues. For instance, Hitchens assumes that Moore is against the war in Afghanistan because he brings
up the profiteering and Unocal. I often point out the profiterring in Afghanistan, and the opium production and the ties to the Taliban the Bush had before 9-11. And yet I argue from the right that we didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan soon enough. What is contradictory about these two opinions? The same is true with Iraq. Plenty of people were for the war, Joe Lieberman comes to mind, who take issue with profiterring, poor planning, etc. Just because we criticize something
doesn't mean we're against it in principle.
If you're going to write about the movie, maybe you should have dropped the $8.50. Because you say that you don't have to see the move to know that Moore would take liberties with the facts. Hell, I'll send you ten bucks if you'll go see the movie and find one lie Moore tells in it. I dare you. Putting facts together in a way that supports your point of view is what editorialists do, as I'm sure you know.
"Michael Moore is an American who doesn't like Americans." This kind of crap is what makes me really hate you right wingers. Just because Moore, or anyone for that matter, criticizes Americans doesn't mean he hates Americans. This is the kind of idiotic conclusion that makes me, and Moore, want to speak out about how ashamed we are of people like you. Michael Moore loves Americans, as do I. Just not all Americans. To just lump everyone together in a statement like that proves that you are the one who doesn't know how to hold a reasonable debate. This is a very diverse country. When Moore speaks about the harm we've done in the world, he does it from a deep feeling of love for this country, and from a deep shame for all the bad things we have done. That is healthy and good. We all know the great things this country has done. If you look at the body of Moore's work, including his TV shows, you'd know that he has praised this country many times. He believes that he is doing us a better service by pointing out our flaws than by being a cheerleader saying everything is great.
And once again, a right winger is calling someone unpatriotic because he doesn't agree with you. I'm really getting sick of the false dichotomies you guys put forth: You're either for Bush or for the
terrorists, you're either for jobs or for the environment, you either love America or you hate America, all as if it's impossible to do both, or neither. It's the good and evil cowboy mentality that so many of us are sick of, and Michael Moore has done a creative and thoughtful job of stating how we feel in a movie. It's not that I was either laughing or crying, it's that I was doing both.
Then you say this about Moore's quote to the British: "Such thoughts presume that sadness, misery, terror and bloodshed would not have occurred were there not a United States." They do no such thing! Where the hell do you get this kind of statement? The fact is that the US has created unneccesary evil and grief in the world. Moore's not saying there would be no misery if the US didn't exist, he's saying THAT PARTICULAR misery wouldn't have existed. He's trying to apologize for the misery that we did inflict, that we are inflicting. For you to go off on such a blanket statement about what Moore's thoughts presume is ridiculous.
"...would there be more or less misery in the world without us? " Good question, but that's probably impossible to determine, and what does it have to do with Michael Moore's movie? We would be a sorry nation indeed if we went around the world plundering and profiting, while no one here questioned our behavior. Can you imagine such a world, where Fox news was the only news, and our media was nothing more than cheerleaders? Probably sounds good to you.
"The nation's history of fighting tyrants to free entire peoples, delivering humanitarian aid to places in crisis and serving as a beacon of freedom to which the world has flocked speak volumes in
favor of the latter."
Unless, of course, you're from Africa, where you would have heard Ronald Reagan support Apartheid, and where you'd be wondering where all that humanitarian aid is right about now. Or unless you were a
child in Iraq during the nineties, living under sanctions, or unless you were a slave, or a Latin American person killed by US supported death squads. Or, well, you get the idea.
"Something to contemplate while standing in line in a hot parking lot." I agree. SO, get out there and stand in line before you put your foot in your mouth any further.