I Can't Take Much Moore Of This Unholy Roman Empire
Now, before everyone misinterprets what I'm about to say: I think Michael Moore is a good guy, and the disgruntled former worker from Flint certainly has some true and interesting messages to give. Yes, yes, he does pull a few strings sometimes when it comes to making his point--but for the most part he's definitely on the right track.
And yes, yes-- Fahrenheit 9/11 is probably a good movie. But I am not going to see it. Why? As I explained to some friends last night who actually invited me to see the flick (yeah, it's still playing!) I have two main reasons:
1. It's depressing that it takes a sensationalist movie to teach people the truth about the way things are with the US Administration. Or the previous one. Or the previous one, or the...
The facts about the current president, his ties with the Saudis, the smacking of corruption and lies at every corner, the corporate interests--should be widely known by people already. Yes, yes, everyone blames the media--that big ugly giant that continually lies to us. But why can't people take it on themselves to read something apart from the mainstream newspapers? Why do we have to use the Devils Tools (movies) to do God's work (tell the truth)? Why has it taken this long for people to figure it out? For some, the information in the film is not new. And I don't say that with any condescension--there has been no "cover-up"--it's been on paper all the while--you just have to go to a library (as opposed to a convenience store or Chapters). So, my problem is it takes Harvey Weinstein, Miramax and other millionaires, to tell it to us--no, to shove it down our throats. Isn't that kind of pathetic, and sad? Isn't that just as bad as the tricks the corporate media magicians play on us? Not allowing citizens to examine an issue in a rational-critical debate; merely ramming a point down our throats until we absorb it like a sponge?
2. Movies like this make the political spectrum seem quite polarized. The conclusion is the current president is a boob, a dork, a crook and a liar. Great--so are Americans to vote for John Kerry? Canadians for Paul Martin? These supposed "left-wing" politicians, who double as corporate-interested millionaires? They may be alternatives to something dire, but they are still propagating the status quo--just a teensy bit less, perhaps. But "make no mistake about it", they will not cure the world's ills. They don't have the people's interest at heart--how can they when their pockets are lined with gold? I mentioned to some friends last night how humorous it was to hear some blue collar workers speak so highly about their oppressor, local conservative Belinda Stronach, and how she "is a great politician because she is so rich she will be very honest--she doesn't need any more money!" First of all, people with money always need more money. And secondly, you don't think Paul Martin is a millionaire? Why dontcha check those facts and get back to me....
I think Moore does some great editing in his work, and has some good (although quite simplistic) points that need to be made. As I have said before, the Right is at an advantage--they can make great sound bytes because they are not proposing an alternative--it's the Left that is. For many middle class North Americans, life ain't bad. So as long as we forget about the 3 billion people living in poverty, the fact that a few percent of the world own everything, and that life generally sucks ass outside of the West---why change it? Just close your eyes, turn on the T.V. and faghetaboutit....
And yes, yes-- Fahrenheit 9/11 is probably a good movie. But I am not going to see it. Why? As I explained to some friends last night who actually invited me to see the flick (yeah, it's still playing!) I have two main reasons:
1. It's depressing that it takes a sensationalist movie to teach people the truth about the way things are with the US Administration. Or the previous one. Or the previous one, or the...
The facts about the current president, his ties with the Saudis, the smacking of corruption and lies at every corner, the corporate interests--should be widely known by people already. Yes, yes, everyone blames the media--that big ugly giant that continually lies to us. But why can't people take it on themselves to read something apart from the mainstream newspapers? Why do we have to use the Devils Tools (movies) to do God's work (tell the truth)? Why has it taken this long for people to figure it out? For some, the information in the film is not new. And I don't say that with any condescension--there has been no "cover-up"--it's been on paper all the while--you just have to go to a library (as opposed to a convenience store or Chapters). So, my problem is it takes Harvey Weinstein, Miramax and other millionaires, to tell it to us--no, to shove it down our throats. Isn't that kind of pathetic, and sad? Isn't that just as bad as the tricks the corporate media magicians play on us? Not allowing citizens to examine an issue in a rational-critical debate; merely ramming a point down our throats until we absorb it like a sponge?
2. Movies like this make the political spectrum seem quite polarized. The conclusion is the current president is a boob, a dork, a crook and a liar. Great--so are Americans to vote for John Kerry? Canadians for Paul Martin? These supposed "left-wing" politicians, who double as corporate-interested millionaires? They may be alternatives to something dire, but they are still propagating the status quo--just a teensy bit less, perhaps. But "make no mistake about it", they will not cure the world's ills. They don't have the people's interest at heart--how can they when their pockets are lined with gold? I mentioned to some friends last night how humorous it was to hear some blue collar workers speak so highly about their oppressor, local conservative Belinda Stronach, and how she "is a great politician because she is so rich she will be very honest--she doesn't need any more money!" First of all, people with money always need more money. And secondly, you don't think Paul Martin is a millionaire? Why dontcha check those facts and get back to me....
I think Moore does some great editing in his work, and has some good (although quite simplistic) points that need to be made. As I have said before, the Right is at an advantage--they can make great sound bytes because they are not proposing an alternative--it's the Left that is. For many middle class North Americans, life ain't bad. So as long as we forget about the 3 billion people living in poverty, the fact that a few percent of the world own everything, and that life generally sucks ass outside of the West---why change it? Just close your eyes, turn on the T.V. and faghetaboutit....
3 Comments:
you wrote: "Isn't that just as bad as the tricks the corporate media magicians play on us? Not allowing citizens to examine an issue in a rational-critical debate; merely ramming a point down our throats until we absorb it like a sponge?"
To this I add -
When has a major political issue ever been rationally and critically debated BEFORE the government has decided its course of action? I am hard pressed for examples - Referendums are few and far between, especially when it comes to war. Your criticism is an ideal that only plays out in text books. It will never be seen in the people's poltical reality, a reality whose forum is guarded by police barricades and drowned out with rabble-rousing slogans: "Bay-Street's covered in Baghdad's Blood!". So be it. Freedom is found in the options available to us. Breaking-away from these contraints and towards something substantially "more" requires cunning and exactitude.
Instead of just 'faghetaboutit' we should ask what interests we wish to be upheld. What will it be? oil at a good price from a hostile yet subdued dictator; or oil at a good price from a dictated yet democratic regime? Thirst for oil is not wanning. So it seems that having "the people's interest at heart" is not synonymous with having the good and idealistic side of their collective conscience at heart.
Before you think I am trying to completely derail your comments, let me add something else.
The discussion of whether the war is legitimate is moot. The war is real. And that is enough for its consequences and not its causes to be of the utmost concern. Should people vote for Kerry just b/c the war was a shame? No. They should vote for Kerry and his millionaire friends if he has a plan that can deal with the mess in Iraq in a way that Bush and his millionaire friends cannot. What does that mean? Well, we will have to wait for the mainstream sensationalist media(s) to get their ass in gear. Then you can go shout in the streets some more......
jdore3@yahoo.ca
To the last poster...I would say freedom lies in the opportunity to create new options...not the ones handed to us by a small, and very very smarmy, group of "haves".
Did you see that scene in F9/11 where Bush is, presumably, speaking at a fund raising dinner. He addresses the audience as 'his' and says "I like to call you the 'haves' and the 'have mores'." eeek, that was funny.
Post a Comment
<< Home