My ill-advised political rant (504 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.75 on 4 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Flatuloso (View user info) at 2004-07-23 10:40:38 EDT
Well, I know that a rant on politics is probably not the best route for my second post - but I've been riled, and I'll try to keep it as down to earth as possible.
Anyone whose anyone in the faux-intellectual world has seen "Fahrenheit 9/11" - and they probably also know that it has come under a lot of fire for the conclusions it draws regarding president Bush and the terrorist attacks on 9/11. The film has definitely produced the expected amount of backlash in the political world - it's becoming cool in right-wing, moderate, and even some left-wing circles to dismiss the film as pure propoganda.
This guy certainly feels this way
http://draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=19623
That's just one example of those who get up on their soapbox and protest the film as being purely an opinion piece, and one that sways voters towards an uneducated decision. They claim that Moore's only motice is to get Bush out of the White House, that he blames Bush for everything. They also cite certain parts as insightful, but say that the overall message is so grossly off base that there is no way people can benefit from viewing it.
How quickly people forget the beauty of the first amendment.
Well of course Moore's motive in the movie is to get Bush out of the White House. Small wonder that the main theme of a political documentary that comes out just months before a national election is going to tackle the subject of our "president elect." What I find rather absurd is that these people are refusing to see any other ideas in the movie.
Are they kidding us??? From what I can remember, just off the top of my head, Moore also looks to address the military's recruitment policies, the media coverage of the war, the way legislation such as the Patriot Act is passed by our government, and the view of some of the soldiers that have actually fought in Iraq. None of these parts were directly linked to the Bush administrations, and none of these preceding ideas have recieved a great deal of media attention. Sure, random bloggers and people online have stood up and said "hey, I've been saying that all the time!" - but F9/11 actually made it possible for these concerns to reach a wider audience. Even if it was introduced through a filter of Moore's views, moviegoers can, if they so desire, go home and research these topics further (something I suggest they do).
We're also told to go elsewhere for political ideas. Where do these people expect us to go for our information? The politicians' web sites? Anyone whose been to those can agree that they are exceedingly lacking in information, and exceedingly loaded with rhetoric, regardless of party affiliation. The News? The networks are becoming more corporate every day - of course their bias is going to be towards those who provide them with their capital. That leaves the internet, where any old douche (such as myself) can make his case without proof of his sources or their validity. One of the focuses of F9/11 is that there is no unbiased news source, that the media has no sense of responsibility to report the facts, only to satisfy shareholders. If you're going to tell me not to go see a film, at least give me a viable alternative. Digging through old public records to find every politicians' political history is difficult and time consuming, otherwise every voter would do it. Regardless, there will probably never be an "unbiased" news source, so don't pick and choose and then tell me which ones should be deemed relevant.
And the idea that Moore's only goal in life is to remove Bush from office is absurd. The man made films before Bush was president - and he will probably continue to make them after Bush steps down. And Moore himself has gone as saying that isn't his only goal in the film. I don't know if anyone else saw Round Table with him - but I remember several instances where the host tried to push Moore into telling viewers what he thought they should do (things like "who would you say they should vote for?"). Moore stalled at this question, not because he didn't know what he, in his heart of hearts, wanted people to do, but because his perogative was for people to see his film and make their OWN DECISION. He also went on to say that Bush is only part of the problem.
I'm not a Moore fanatic. Yes, the film has its fair share of problems. It goes out of its way to make connections between Bush and shady Saudi and Al Queda dealings that may be minimally related, at best. It also takes a number of cheap shots (I don't care who you walk up to on the street, you're not going to get them to sign their kid up for the Marines). But when is any one person's view the end-all be-all answer to our problems? When people say that the movie is invalid because it is one man's view, they are also attacking the validity of every essay, documentary, book, and column ever written.
And when you break the movie apart, it is built on one solid fact. That fact is that the president, and most of the people that the president is linked to, all of them lie to us.
They lie to people in order to get their way.
Everything else is icing on the cake - other pieces of information, other peoples' opinions, reactions worldwide - they're all really in the movie to enforce that main point. Some of them are valid, some only moderately so, and others not really valid at all. But there is an idea behind all of it, regardless of wether or not people are willing to see it.
All that was my take on the film, really - here's my take on the protesters.
People against the movie say they trust the intellect of American voters, then turn around and tell us just how to feel about a certain person, movie, or ideal. Well guess what guys, Fuck You. I'll go see the film, and I'll decide how I feel about it. Don't tell me to put on blinders on your say-so. How about you tell me to go watch the movie with an open mind??? Because that's what I recommend to people reading this.
Ultimately, I see the movie as more of a self-validation piece. I doubt it will sway a huge number of people, most either disagree or agree with it before they step in the theater. But don't let people tell you that by agreeing with the film, you are a Moore fanatic. Remember when we were "liberal?" Then we were "anti-Bush" and now we're "Pro-Moore." I think there are surprisingly few Moore fanatics out there. Mostly it's just people trying to undermine your intelligence by pigeonholing your views into some moviegoing demographic. Stand up for your ideals, let people know that they are YOUR ideals, not a politician's or a filmmaker's.
To those of you who said "fuck it" to my long and convoluted writing, my final message is this. Don't ever NOT listen to something because someone tells you to. Always allow yourself to agree with parts of something, as opposed to the whole. And don't let people dismiss your or anyone else's views because they are "opinions" - that's lazy and condescending.
Have a good day everyone, and go see the movie, but draw your own conclusions.
User Reviews
Submitted by Brianthetruthspeaker (user info) at 2004-07-27 15:45:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
its so hard to post a politial idea
read a few of my attempts
Submitted by cigar (user info) at 2004-07-23 11:41:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Meh, well written but politics and the moore film is getting overplayed.
Submitted by disAbled (user info) at 2004-07-23 11:23:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I think that the principle outrage over the film is not the content directly. Rather, people are angry that Moore has taken his opinions and theories and presented them as absolute fact. He defends his material ardently and (like the administration he despises) LIES to press a political agenda. When I first saw Bowling for Columbine, I was blown away. I was concerned and upset. The 'information' in that film was compelling and required consideration of my core beliefs. However, a friend recommended that I research the film and its statements. That's when I found http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html, http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#MichaelMoore, and www.bowlingfortruth.com.
This is why I hate Michael Moore. I hate him for the same reason that I hate Rush Limbaugh. These people distort the truth or all out lie to press an agenda. They present misinformation as fact and lead people to make decisions based on lies. I respect the First Ammendment greatly, and I believe that Moore should have all the forum he wants. However, I am not required by law to like the guy, and my right to protest his lies is also protected by the first ammendment.
Submitted by Charred (user info) at 2004-07-23 10:49:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment