Go to Fahrenheit 911 - pros and cons
- Add a comment
- Go to Is it true if it's not consistent?
There is no doubt that Michael Moore has touched a nerve. While many who decry his politics would like to critique his film like a court document, that is a tactic to be ignored.
First of all, the critics are willing to apply a stronger standard to Michael Moore's presentation of his opinions than they are to George W. Bush's presentation of his. Interesting--and exactly the reason that Moore's movie was necessary. Those who desired a serious debate in the lead-up to the Iraqi War waited in frustration for serious journalists to ask hard questions and apply critical scrutiny to the arguments being literally marketed to the American public. Perhaps if more had been done by the mainstream press to air these questions, if more had been done in Congress (as Senator Byrd pleaded) to debate the ramifications of such a pre-emptive war--perhaps then Saddam Hussein could have been brought to justice by a World-Wide consensus that had been involved in the effort to see the inspections through. Perhaps there would have been less bloodshed. Or perhaps we would have gone down the same path anyway. At least there would have been a fuller knowledge and a fuller understanding of what we were doing. We could have taken responsibility for the cost in lives of soldiers and innocents. . . as Democracy demands. Moore's movie would not have been necessary. His questions are the questions that should have been debated in fall 2002. The People did not get a chance to consciously choose.
Why should Moore's movie receive closer scrutiny that a decision to go to war? Indeed, why should it be held to higher standards than a political cartoon? Or to go even further, why is it being held to higher standards than the EPA's new advertisement rediculing people who try to save gasoline mileage?
posted by
sarwood
on July 6, 2004 at 7:33 PM
| link to this | reply
An intelligent voice
Finally someone who can make an argument against the movie using some intelligence without a personal attack on Moore. I don't agree with you bot I'm willing to listen.
posted by
GLC3
on July 1, 2004 at 5:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Great post! Some real intelligent words! Thank God!
posted by
anaerie
on July 1, 2004 at 3:35 PM
| link to this | reply
If you applied that high standard of consistency to your cherished beliefs
then you would be insane. Is the Bible consistent? How about various churches? What about conservative principles?
How consistent are any of these, or their opposites?
posted by
t_rat
on July 1, 2004 at 2:22 PM
| link to this | reply
No presentation of any political topic is seamless.
Because reconstruction of events are always influenced by perception, even in car wrecks and autobiographys. Perception will be different in every individual because of the way our brains process each piece of information. For instance, if you are riding a bike down a busy city street along side parked cars, and one opens a door in your path, your brain will focus on the immediate threat to allow you to swerve from danger, thereby missing details such as colors, sounds, and faces. So the question is - what is the truth? And does it matter because people tend to believe what is conceivable according to their comfort zone anyway?
posted by
Flumpystalls3000
on June 29, 2004 at 6:27 AM
| link to this | reply
I think one of the great things about the whole Moore issue is the fact that people are in such a scramble to figure out what the "truth" is, they don't realize that they are in a way playing into Moore's hands. We are doing the research, we're trying to be informed, even if it's just to prove him wrong or prove him right. Can anyone who has been seriously following this thing say they haven't learned at least one thing?
posted by
roofpig
on June 28, 2004 at 6:50 PM
| link to this | reply