2004-06-28
Bruce left me a FAT note concerning my "Propaganda 9/11" entry. Well Bruce, your note is the longest note I've ever received. Pretty damn cool. So seeing as I owe you as well though out a retort, I think I'll simply go down the note you left me, line by line, and leave you essentially the biggest note YOU'VE ever received. So pull up a chair, bitch, because the filmmaker and conservative in me have a lot to say and, finally a LOT of time to say it.This post, by the way, is 8 double spaced pages long and deals with nothing but politics and Michael Moore. If you are anyone but Bruce and don't want to read it, I won't be offended. But I hope you do. There's some good stuff in here.
Dear Hobin: After reading your post I'm sitting here wondering if you TRULY think what you are saying. You make gross generalizations and assumptions that only serve to reinforce my aversion to most anything you have to say on politics.
I'm hoping you're not calling gross generalization on me by thinking that I haven't seen the movie. My post was attacking Moore and the far left. If you feel attacked, I want you to know that my concern for you is likely equal to the concern you may have for me if you caught me dreamily doodling a picture of Rick Santorum in my notebook. And I was a college debater, Bruce. That's four years MIRED in very liberal argumentation, rhetoric and philosophy. I know both sides of the political coin very well and don't make *uneducated* assumptions and generalizations. Because when I do, I usually get burned.
You say the film can be summed up in the "fine French Linens" scene. To say one (yes, insipid) anecdotal line sums up an entire two and a half hour movie does a disservie to film maker in you. The emphasis of that scene was also the company he was keeping that day and his agenda the day before, the last line was just Michael Moore being silly and melodramatic.
I could rant and rave for pages about the omissions and inflated truths in the film, but I still believe that the French linens scene sums the film up quite nicely. I wish that I'd spelled it out better in my entry, but it's a perfect example of Moore's selective fact finding that he uses to paint this appalling tableau of Bush. He digs up obscure facts like the godforsaken French linens but while making the bold claim that Iraq under Hussein never once (his words, here) attacked, threatened, or killed Americans, happens to pass over major facts like, say, Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel where quite a few Americans walk the streets of Jerusalem, and that the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Baghdad was also for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Munich and Rome. But I guess Moore didn't feel like sharing that. Maybe there weren't many Americans in Munich and Rome. Silly and melodramatic, nothing.
And the golf scene; Oh obviously he was attacking the President's sense of humour or his ability to play golf, it couldn't have possibly been in the middle of a scene discussing all the vacation days Bush had taken for that would make it *pertinent* and perhaps even *gasp* shocking. For your information President Bush used more vacation days in his first two years in office than any other president. Ever.
What was he supposed to do, Bruce, sit around planning new aggressive military conflicts? Just because he's out of Washington doesn't mean he's completely removed and disconnected from his political responsibilities sitting on a beach sipping a maitai somewhere, as Moore attempted to persuade. Pope John Paul II spent more time out of the Vatican than any other papal leader in history and nobody takes him to town for it. Point me out one specific damage that America has incurred that Bush's time away from the White House is DIRECTLY correlated to, and then we'll talk, because I don't recall much hubris about his time away from the White House until, well, until this movie came out. As far as the golf thing, it was all spin to create an unfairly rendered image of Bush. If Eisenhower had done it, he'd be a calm statesman. If Clinton had done it, he would be showing off his charm. I guess when Bush goes golfing, he's... an asshole.
It is obvious how deep Michael Moore has to dig; not far at all. Seeing how ninety percent of the clips in that movie come from news sources (and I'd say about 40-50% of the movie is clips). Yeah, he had to dig real deep to find the clip of Condi Rice saying the "vague" name of the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S." report. I bet that was made up. Or the clips of all the leaders of miniority orginizations protesting the President Elect during an open session of congress; an open session where NOT A SINGLE SENATOR showed up, mind you. Is the movie one sided? Yes. Michael Moore has an agenda, just like most film makers who try to say something (through fiction or not). Is Michael Moore a psycho liberal nutcase? Yes. But the simple fact of the matter is that this movie presents facts that, no matter how you look at them, are god damned suspicious. Some of the information presented, taken on its own without any infulence from Moore, is amazing in its conspiracy-esque tones.
Bruce, I couldn't have said it better myself. Citing again all of the ignored facts that I pointed out concerning Iraq's aggression toward America and plenty of other ignored facts in the film, it's clearly not a matter of how deep he HAS to dig, but how deep he CHOOSES to dig. And as far as the conspiratorial half-truthness of the film that you're talking about, this works against Moore. Big time. Everybody that I've discussed the film with that enjoyed it has said that it's truth, but admitted that it's a sort of oddly slanted truth and that Michael Moore is a leftwing crazypants. Even you said that! So how much stock are your man-on-the-street Democrats really taking in somebody so irreverent and unfair that they can't put stock in without reservation?! Finally, concerning the idea that Michael Moore's agenda is somehow excusable because we filmmakers supposedly almost all have our own agendas, I'd like to quote Christopher Hitchens, documentarian and columnist for "The Nation," on this one, because he puts it a whole lot better than I could. "A documentary must have a 'POV' or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your 'narrative' a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft." This quotation was made in direct reference to "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Just because the man wants to make you think like he does doesn't mean he should be totally discounted; hell your own post was trying to get people who read it to think like YOU do. Michael Moore "knows" he's right and he approaches his film making that way. If you go in with that knowledge then you can seperate his bullshit from the rest of the movie.
Okay, I'll go with you on that. He thinks he's right, and I think I'm right. But when I completely disprove his "facts" with my facts, then he ceases to be right, which I've done, and if somebody can prove me wrong with EVIDENCE, then I'll hang my head on this one, but don't count on it. Heck, Bruce, if I'm not enough for you, let me know and I'll mail you links to all of the facts that I'm citing.
Yes there were quick cuts that made some things seem out of context but for each of those there were 5 other cuts that were perfectly valid. So instead of seeing THIS movie we should see one that you "approve" of? I'll admit that any other film maker is probably less politically slanted than Moore, but that doesn't make them any more valid. As others have stated just because it was made by a *gasp* Democrat doesn't mean that it's any "better". There are some Democrats I trust to be objective and some Republicans I trust to be objective. People are people and will act like such (trying to influence you or not) whether they have a -D by their name or an -R.
Yes, I approve of "Journeys With George" as a Republican but also as a filmmaker, because any idiot can watch "JWG" and see that it's not out trying to tear somebody down by any means necessary. Of the two films that present portraits of the President - or any person being profiled, for that matter - objective neutrality trumps subjectivity, be it positive or negative. Otherwise, you're not making a documentary. You're making *gasp* propaganda, regardless of whether you're a Democrat or a Republican. But you're right again, any other filmmaker is less politically slanted than Moore. Seriously, name me one. I can't. Except maybe those "Omega Code" guys, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.
I'd also like to point out the MAJOR DIFFERENCE between subject matter "on the campaign trail" and "in office".
Okay. What is it? Because you can document any number of diverse "subjects on the campaign trail" and "in office." It doesn't all have to be about how the President conducts or how he will conduct his administration. "JWG" could have gone in that direction, but it didn't.
So disregard this film if you must, as you probably will. Call it propaganda all you want but I could just as easily call YOUR movie propaganda because it goes against what I "know" is the truth.
That's dumb, Bruce. You can't say that because haven't seen my movie yet. But you should. Oh, how you should.
You've blinded yourself with your version of the truth and are unwilling to accept any variation on it. You're outright disregarding what other people are saying without even hearing them say it. I hope that one day you will take your fingers out of your ears and accept the fact that other people can make points just as valid as yours. Sincerely, Bruce
That's the thing about politics. You hold your allegiance to one party and suddenly your blinders are on to the other side. That's a load of BS, dude. I can't believe you started your note busting my balls for making gross generalizations only to close your note with one yourself! I'm a Republican, but that doesn't mean that Ann "Let's invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all to Christianity" Coulter is my patron saint of politics. That doesn't mean that I hate all liberals. And that certainly doesn't mean that I'm blind to the other side, as evidenced by my longtime support for arts funding and public radio, my disdain for No Child Left Behind, and my support for stem cell research. I am well aware that points can be made that are as valid as mine, and I'm well aware that, though they may be valid, I will disagree with them to defend the validity of my own points. That what being politically aware is! The only thing I've blinded myself to are people like Michael Moore, who distort the truth through manipulation and omission of fact. People like he and Coulter and Franken and Savage polarize American politics, feeding the flames of our ugly bipartisan civil war through hateful rhetoric and shouldn't represent either of our parties. In the last paragraph you said that I'm trying to get people to think like me? Well yes, Bruce! Everybody, whether liberal or conservative, should work to be fully realized and well-researched in what they believe in and do everything in their power to fairly and ethically defend it! My last post on the subject was extremely pissy. I had just gotten out of the theater and was absolutely spitting nails. Plus, I didn't have nearly as much time to make as well thought out an argument as this one. In retrospect, I wish I could've. Come to think of it, I'm probably going to post this whole thing on my diary because, well, because I CAN. But I'm not deaf to the other side because I can make these arguments. If I weren't concerned with what anybody had to say, I wouldn't have gone to see the film in the first place. Now granted, I had my opinions about Michael Moore on my way in, but when we're talking about the guy who thought it was so cool to ambush Charleton Heston at the onset of his senility in "Bowling For Columbine," can you blame me?
I told my friend Aaron that really, at the end of the day, the movie won't matter. Karl Rove said that in politics, anything can happen overnight, and we've got... 127 overnights to go. If Moore were a better businessman, he would've released the movie in early November. Either way, if liberal war opposition, 15 Nobel Prize-winning economists poo-pooing the tax cuts only to be disproved, the huzzah of gay marriage, the crapfest of No Child Left Behind, and even the resurrection of a long-dead DUI bust can't derail the Bush train, a fat guy in a baseball cap pointing a camera at a grieving woman for an unscrupulously long amount of time doesn't stand much of a chance. There you have it. I welcome your retort, dude. My ears are wide open. Sincerely, Hobin.
PS: NYYAAAAHHHH!!!
If you read this whole thing, leave me a note. I owe you a gold star.
-Andy