Forums > General Discussion > Fahrenheit 9/11
thebloodybrothers says: Dec 1, 2004, 1:24 PM
This essay perfectly details my problems with Michael Moore's "documentary" Fahrenheit 9/11. It better verbalizes all the flaws I found in the film. And guess what, it isn't from a right wing pundit or anyone associated with the American political system, but from a film theorist.This film is not technically good. It is scattershot and in the end, utterly pointless. I found it nothing but a way for those who oppose Bush to vent their frustrations. Those that fit into that category were so turned on by scenes of Bush reading to little kids while knowing about 9/11 that they did not see the fact that Moor offers no solution, and is in fact rather contradictory.
I'm not going to call Michael Moore a liar. I will instead call him a terrible film-maker, who found fame as an oppurtunist. Oh, and he's fat.
But read and decide for yourselves.
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/04/33/fahrenheit_9_11.html
I don't want this thread to turn into a left vs. right discussion, but one on the quality of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.
cvincent says: Dec 1, 2004, 2:01 PM
Just to start off, have you actually seen it yourself?cvincent says: Dec 1, 2004, 2:14 PM
Meant to continue my response here, but I accidentally hit the Return key. Anyways.The essay seems to offer very little empirical opposition to Moore's film. Indeed, it affirms many of the bits of evidence that the film presents. Its criticism of the film is that a) it offers no solutions to the problems it points out (a statement which implies that the film does indeed outline very real problems which should be addressed), b) presents information in a way that is somewhat confusing, and c) serves as basically Bush-bullshit but from a left perspective.
I somewhat agree with all of that. However, most of it is only a problem if you were expecting the film to be a problem/solution kind of deal. In a country where most people aren't even aware of the problems in the first place, I think it's just fine to spend a little time explaining them. Then, perhaps, the collaborative efforts of an entire nation can come up with better solutions than a single filmmaker can. The author's conclusion confirms this:
"Neither Bush nor Moore take us where we need to go"
And like I said, if you were expecting Moore to offer a solution, you will be disappointed. However, Moore is not the President, so that's not his sole responsibility, either. Again, I think it's just as important to present the problems so that we can all come up with better solutions.
You seemed to ignore that the essay points out that Bush is bad, too.
Now, I don't necessarily think that it's just the left version of Bush-bullshit. Yes, much of it is emotional, but only after presenting the facts.
"I'm not going to call Michael Moore a liar. I will instead call him a terrible film-maker, who found fame as an oppurtunist."
Actually, Moore has a history of filmmaking that you probably didn't bother to look into. He had a regular TV series called TV Nation, which I'm better even *you* would get a laugh out of. In one episode, he took a guy whose HMO refused to pay for a life-saving surgery to hand out invitations to his funeral to the workers at the HMO itself. Classic. And he ended up getting his surgery. In other episode, he visited extreme homophobes (such at that crazy pastor in Topeka) in his "Sodom-mobile" full of gay men to talk to them straight about their ridiculous prejudices.
And there's also Bowling For Columbine, a very good documentary. He did a couple others before that one, but Bowling For Columbine was the first that gained any attention.
"Oh, and he's fat."
So is Dick Cheney, but I've never brought it up in argument. You can say that it's because Dick Cheney has a lot more bad shit to talk about, but I'd disagree; it's just stupid to bring up. Have you no shame? Have you no friends who lack perfect physique? Or at least any who are important enough to you to make you think twice before posting such bullshit?
Leon5465 says: Dec 1, 2004, 2:22 PM
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htmcvincent says: Dec 1, 2004, 2:35 PM
I've read that one already. Seriously, you guys have to do better than posting a link to some other guy's analysis and then running off. If I wanted that, I could just use Google (like I'm sure you probably did).Here is the response I gave when I first saw it:
----
I looked over the web page you linked me to. But from what I can tell, it is a criticism of impressions created by Fahrenheit 9/11 (which are valid, mind you) rather than outright lies. There is a fine line.
For example… The film may create the impression that all troops in Iraq are either disillusioned or sadists (a valid criticism), but an objective viewer can separate that inference from fact, coming away with the correct idea that many soldiers are indeed disillusioned, and that there are probably common cases of bad behavior.
Like Keith said, you have to take it all in with a grain of salt. I would still hold that the individual facts Moore uses are truth, and many of them on their own are a cause for concern (with or without Moore’s personal analysis).
---
By the way, Leon, I'm almost *positive* you haven't seen the movie. If I'm right, then this isn't even a thread you any business in.
thebloodybrothers says: Dec 1, 2004, 4:42 PM
Yes I've seen the film. I'm not one of THOSE people. I even paid to see it, god help me.Second, the Michael Moore is fat thing is a joke. Sarcasm. Rohit knows.
Now, let's get cooking:
"And like I said, if you were expecting Moore to offer a solution, you will be disappointed. However, Moore is not the President, so that's not his sole responsibility, either. Again, I think it's just as important to present the problems so that we can all come up with better solutions."
The problem with the film, as pointed out in the article, is that all the accusations and problems exposed serve no purpose because it is unclear how to act upon the things he shows. Blame is not directed at the source but applied all over. As the essay points out, Moore indicts the Bush family for allowing the U.S. to fall pray to the Saudis. Whose fault is this? Bush, Jr.? Sr.? Clinton's? No one knows, therefore this criticism can not be acted on. As McKibbin points out, Moore fails to take a side, except for anti-Bush which is obvious. But his criticism of nearly everyone leaves us nowhere. In the end, to quote McKibbin:
"Fahrenheit 9/11 is thus a strange type of propaganda which has little to do with an agitprop approach that aims to address a mass movement. Rather, it's an agitprop of individualism..."
Additionally, I find it morally repugnant that Moore hoped his film would get Bush out of office, but offers no justification that this would change things. A man who can criticize and criticize but can offer no alternative is not worth listening to. Unless, that is you get off on Bush bashing, which I think the people that love this movie do. The fact is, Moore's argument comes from an ivory tower. He manipulates the audience into certain feelings (the soldier's mother) and gets people all riled up, but in the end, we don't know what we are riled up about, because Moore isn't clear in his argumentation.
You'll also notice McKibbin's running analysis of this film being a righteous act on Moore's part. He writes: "The big problem with righteousness is that it allows emotional absolutes and intellectual confusion. It allows us to be angry with many aspects of our lives, but doesn't really find a way out of the impasse."
Re-read the part just under the woman and the flag, which explains why Moore's attempt to resolve these problems is wrong.
----
"You seemed to ignore that the essay points out that Bush is bad, too."
This has no impact on the analysis of the film. I'm criticizing this film politics aside. And according to this film, there aren't really any good people. I suppose those who died in war. But at the same time, he openly criticizes those who fight the war. But in the end, Bush being bad doesn't make this a good or bad film, which is what I'm discussing.
And I still contend that he is a bad film-maker. The man has to resort to manipulating the audience to get a reaction. An open criticism of everything is a poorly made film. When I leave a polically centered film, I shouldn't have to ask myself, "Ok, what now?" Also, in response to your analysis on the 56 deciets, a good film-maker, especially a documentarian, wouldn't allow the viewer to infer things. They would have complete and total facts that were accurate. I mean for crying out loud, you admit the film paints the soldiers as sadists and dis-illusioned. But we are suppose to infer that what the director is showing us is an exaggeration? Come on. A documentarian doesn't allow little mistakes to creep into his film. Moore had the same problem with Bowling for Columbine. There's one of those little deceit things roaming around about that to. In fact, it made Roger Ebert re-evaluate the value of the film.
cvincent says: Dec 1, 2004, 5:30 PM
"As the essay points out, Moore indicts the Bush family for allowing the U.S. to fall pray to the Saudis. Whose fault is this? Bush, Jr.? Sr.? Clinton's? No one knows, therefore this criticism can not be acted on."Actually, the film was quite clear. Your first sentence even contradicts your conclusion. Moore specifically points out instances where both Bush I and II are suspect. What you misunderstand is what Moore was trying to do. He wasn't trying to blame someone for the immense Saudi investment in the US economy--he was simply pointing out that both Bushes were greatly involved. You can't deny that he did that effectively, and I think that it's knowledge that deserves to be disseminated.
"A man who can criticize and criticize but can offer no alternative is not worth listening to."
I offer a hypothetical situation to illustrate the contrary. Let's say you live in a town where there are bear traps lying everywhere, being set up by the mayor for the town's safety from, well, bears (I know this isn't a perfect parallel to Bush's policies, as that's not what I'm trying to do; pretend Bush doesn't exist; this is a completely separate world with a generic problem that I'm talking about). Unfortunately, these bear traps caused great injury to townspeople who were stepping into them by accident. The problem was, nobody seemed to recognize that there was a problem. So a writer for the local paper comes along and writes a story showing that the mayor had set down these traps for the town's safety, but that the traps were doing more harm than good. The writer didn't offer a solution, but his input got people talking about it, and eventually everyone came up with a solution together.
In the above situation, the writer identified a problem that few other people recognized, and it built up talk that led to a solution. Just because the writer himself didn't come up with the solution doesn't mean his contribution was not important.
What you need to see is that the writer was actually tackling a more fundamental problem. The problem was not the bear traps, but rather the lack of acknowledgment of them. In writing the article, he actually *enacted* a solution to that problem, whether or not the article offered a solution to the problem it was written about.
"The fact is, Moore's argument comes from an ivory tower. He manipulates the audience into certain feelings (the soldier's mother) and gets people all riled up, but in the end, we don't know what we are riled up about, because Moore isn't clear in his argumentation."
I know this isn't what the thread is about as you pointed out above, but it's related and needs to be highlighted. Don't you think that Bush does this? I'd argue Iraq, but it's getting tired. Instaed, gay marriage. Bush argues it from the standpoint that he is on the moral high-ground. He gets all of Red America all riled up with emotional arguments, but in the end his arguments create more questions than answers (for those who actually take time to think about it) as to why we need to ban gay marriage (such as: "Sactity" of marriage? What does that mean? Is it the government's place to "defend" it? Is it the government's place to define it for every couple?).
"And according to this film, there aren't really any good people. I suppose those who died in war. But at the same time, he openly criticizes those who fight the war."
Absolute bull. In Moore's film, the good people are the victims, meaning the entire sect of the country's population who can only have a voice if they work in tandem, as opposed to those with lots of money who can speak loudly as individuals. All of the soldiers are good in his film; if you view it closely and with an open mind, you see that Moore basically says that all of the soldiers are good kids who signed up so they could get to college or because they truly want to serve their country with the ultimate sacrifice. However, some of these good kids are turned bad by those who send them into harm's way without good, clear reasoning. "Violence breeds violence." In other words, these are good people turned bad by bad application of their service.
Same thing goes for the rest of the individually voiceless masses. The end of the film is a conclusion that I guess only a few people with a somewhat privileged background can understand. That society is a hierarchy, with money for those few on top generated by the masses at the bottom. His grand argument is that Bush is the embodiment of the elite few on top, using his power to strengthen that structure. That was the film's entire message. If it came out as confusing, that's because there was *so much* evidence to present; it's a complex case that not even a long movie can cover sufficiently. To be honest, it would be better represented with an interactive relationships chart.
"The man has to resort to manipulating the audience to get a reaction."
Again, this is politics... but that would make Bush a bad filmmaker. Would it also make him a bad President? You decide.
"When I leave a polically centered film, I shouldn't have to ask myself, 'Ok, what now?'"
No, that's exactly what you *should* ask yourself. It creates an atmosphere of discussion and collaboration. If enough people ask themselves that, then in tandem they begin to come up with solutions. (That is, unless the prevalent media continues to polarize and destroy that collaborative voice.) Your problem is that you probably didn't even ask yourself *that* until you read that essay. After seeing the movie, you probably shuffled all of the problems it prevented into the "whatever" file, things to be justified later with a search on the Internet as to why it must be wrong. The movie's point was to get people working on a solution together. The people who don't understand this are the people who can't think for themselves, who want someone else to come up with it. The most dangerous form of apathy, that which gives on an illusion of sincerity.
"Also, in response to your analysis on the 56 deciets, a good film-maker, especially a documentarian, wouldn't allow the viewer to infer things. They would have complete and total facts that were accurate."
You don't understand what an inference is. No matter how many facts you have, you cannot conclude anything without making an inference. There is always room for multiple conclusions.
"I mean for crying out loud, you admit the film paints the soldiers as sadists and dis-illusioned."
No, I state that it is possible to think Moore is saying that if you look at it through "Moore sucks" glasses.
thebloodybrothers says: Dec 1, 2004, 7:03 PM
"Again, this is politics... but that would make Bush a bad filmmaker. Would it also make him a bad President? You decide."I'm addressing this film on pure film-making credits. This would make Bush a bad film-maker, just like it makes Moore a bad film-maker. A GOOD FILM-MAKER DOESN'T RESORT TO MANIPULATION TO GET A RESPONSE!!!!!!!!
"Your problem is that you probably didn't even ask yourself *that* until you read that essay. After seeing the movie, you probably shuffled all of the problems it prevented into the "whatever" file, things to be justified later with a search on the Internet as to why it must be wrong."
Making assumptions are we?!?! I knew my thoughts on this film after watching it. I had a thorough discussion with Mr. Rohit on the ride home where we both critically, and I think openmindedly, went through the entire film. I then wrote a rather lengthy response, which you can find on my Xanga if you truly want. Although I think it's my old one. I did find this article, TODAY, and it expressed all the faults I had found with the film, only from a more technical, film-making, stance.
And you are wrong. Moore wanted this film to create IMMEDIATE CHANGE. He wanted to get Bush out of office. He's said so! That mitigates the fact that this was a sort of open minded call to discussion. It wasn't. It was a piece of propoganda.
____
"You don't understand what an inference is. No matter how many facts you have, you cannot conclude anything without making an inference. There is always room for multiple conclusions."
The portrayal of the soldiers as savages was pretty blatant. To say that I need to infer that that means they are actually good, is ridiculous. When you are talking about troops, troops that are fighting a war, I don't think you should take the chance of letting people infer incorrectly. Especially if you are going to parade around the mother of a hero, a hero mind you who was probably a metal obsessed, killing maniac prior to his death, to rile up the audience.
And don't take that as me using the cliche "Support the troops" rhetoric Bush and the rest of the Republicans are obsessed with. If Moore truly believes that, he needs to portray it fully. I won't agree with him, but at least he's sticking to his guns. No flip-flopping. But he does, and that's why his interpretation of the troops can and is inferred the way it is. A GOOD, honest, film-maker wouldn't allow this to occur.
I realize I responded to the bottom of your arguments first. Hows about the top.
"Actually, the film was quite clear. Your first sentence even contradicts your conclusion. Moore specifically points out instances where both Bush I and II are suspect. What you misunderstand is what Moore was trying to do. He wasn't trying to blame someone for the immense Saudi investment in the US economy--he was simply pointing out that both Bushes were greatly involved. You can't deny that he did that effectively, and I think that it's knowledge that deserves to be disseminated."
What good does this do? What importance does this play? Is this a Bush family only problem? Did they gain any power, the Saudi's that is, while Clinton was in office? The vagueness in this argument means no matter how much we discuss it, there is no way we can change it. We don't even know what the problem is, what harm is being done. Saudi's are friends with Bush. Ok.
Now let's talk about your bear trap example:
I realize it's hypothetical. But any journalist in their right mind would say, "Get rid of the bear traps." If the journalist didn't understand a solution to the problem, he wouldn't have the Mayor fired. But Moore did want the "mayor fired". That's what he said. The difference between the journalist and Moore is this: Moore doesn't have any idea how to solve the problems America is going through, but that doesn't stop him from asking for Bush to be fired, because by god it must be his fault. The journalist, however, doesn't have a solution and therefore doesn't offer any potential solutions. If Moore's film were an invitation to discussion, it would have been more centered and less sentinmental. The fact was, the film, as you said, was politics. Not good cinema, which is what I've been contending the ENTIRE TIME.
"His grand argument is that Bush is the embodiment of the elite few on top, using his power to strengthen that structure. That was the film's entire message. If it came out as confusing, that's because there was *so much* evidence to present; it's a complex case that not even a long movie can cover sufficiently. To be honest, it would be better represented with an interactive relationships chart."
Moore does not succeed in making this the actual message of the film. The film morphs from being an Bush stole the election film, to an anti-Bush/Saudi Arabia film, to an anti-capitalism film, to an anti-war film, to an anti-hierarchial film. He may have had your interpretation in mine the entire time, but he didn't do a good job getting that across. Let's see what professional film critic Roger Ebert things the film is about:
"Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is less an expose of George W. Bush than a dramatization of what Moore sees as a failed and dangerous presidency. The charges in the film will not come as news to those who pay attention to politics, but Moore illustrates them with dramatic images and a relentless commentary track that essentially concludes Bush is incompetent, dishonest, failing in the war on terrorism, and has bad taste in friends."
This man watches movies for a living. He doesn't see it, at its core, as an attack on hierarchy. He sees it as an attack on Bush. Mind you Ebert, the quintessential liberal journalist, loved the film. But I think this helps show the faults in Moore's narrative approach. Moore bit off more themes that he could chew, and as a result, the film becomes technically messy, haphazard, and without focus.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is NOT A GOOD FILM.
ccarpenter says: Dec 1, 2004, 7:20 PM
1) You should all be interpreting lyrics right now.2) I was not nearly as taken with F9/11 as I was with Bowling For Columbine, simply because I think Moore didn't do quite as good a job. Perhaps he was pressed for time. This is not a dig at Moore; he is a fine man and a good film maker. However, F9/11 was not his best, in my honest opinion.
3) Hack the planet: I downloaded F9/11 from BitTorrent.
cvincent says: Dec 1, 2004, 10:28 PM
"I'm addressing this film on pure film-making credits."Oh, come on. I'm SO sure you're COMPLETELY unbiased toward the film. Give me a break, Mikey. I know I'm biased. We all are. The difference is, some people allow themselves to admit it.
"And you are wrong. Moore wanted this film to create IMMEDIATE CHANGE. He wanted to get Bush out of office. He's said so! That mitigates the fact that this was a sort of open minded call to discussion. It wasn't. It was a piece of propoganda."
Yes, immediate change in the national conversation by pointing out things that nobody else seemed to have noticed. And yes, it's propaganda, but it's damn near impossible to create anything that expresses a point of view without creating propaganda at the same time. Your, shall we say...righteous?..."critical analysis" of the film is just as much propaganda.
"The portrayal of the soldiers as savages was pretty blatant. To say that I need to infer that that means they are actually good, is ridiculous. When you are talking about troops, troops that are fighting a war, I don't think you should take the chance of letting people infer incorrectly. Especially if you are going to parade around the mother of a hero, a hero mind you who was probably a metal obsessed, killing maniac prior to his death, to rile up the audience."
OH MY FUCKING GOD, Mikey! Moore SAID IT IN THE GOD DAMN FILM THAT YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T WATCH CLOSELY ENOUGH in all your brilliant "critical analysis" that they were GOOD KIDS turned BAD by BAD LEADERSHIP in a war they didn't understand. HE SAID IT VER-FUCKING-BATIM.
"But he does, and that's why his interpretation of the troops can and is inferred the way it is. A GOOD, honest, film-maker wouldn't allow this to occur."
Oh please. YOU make an airtight presentation of your opinion that is IMPOSSIBLE to misinterpret. Go ahead, you GOOD, honest reviewer you. You take natural human fault in expression to be moral injustice. Get a life and live it so you'll understand.
"What good does this do? What importance does this play? Is this a Bush family only problem? Did they gain any power, the Saudi's that is, while Clinton was in office? The vagueness in this argument means no matter how much we discuss it, there is no way we can change it. We don't even know what the problem is, what harm is being done. Saudi's are friends with Bush. Ok."
You just asked me what good it does to disseminate knowledge. I don't even know why I'm bothering with you beyond this point.
No, it's not a "Bush only problem", but a) Bush is currently the one in power, and thus the most important person to critique, and b) had far more direct influence in relation to the Saudis. Why does it matter? I think it matters because the President chose to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, all the while taking in the country that supplied everything (Saudi Arabia) as a fucking ally. We can't afford to have these kinds of conflicts of interest!
"But any journalist in their right mind would say, "Get rid of the bear traps.""
You misunderstand the purpose of the analogy. I was using a simple problem, but asking you to imagine it as a complicated one, just to illustrate. I wasn't going to rebuild the world for you just for a simple illustration.
"If the journalist didn't understand a solution to the problem, he wouldn't have the Mayor fired. But Moore did want the "mayor fired"."
And at this point you misunderstand the analogy again. The journalist was not parallel to Moore; he was parallel to a generic person pointing out a generic problem to get discussion started. I never said that the journalist wanted the mayor fired. In Moore's movie, he never said he wanted Bush fired, though obviously he does; but we're not critiquing Moore, we're critiquing the film. Try and stay focused.
"The fact was, the film, as you said, was politics."
No, I didn't say that. I said that a specific *aside* that I made was related politics. See that? See the way you misinterpreted my statement? You could say I'm a bad writer, but I tend to think you're a bad reader.
And I will go further to say that we each have different interpretations of Moore's film. The way I see the film as far as its purpose and its content, it was good. The way you interpret it, it's bad. That's really all there is to this argument. You think Moore is trying to say one thing, I think he's trying to say another. That's what our arguments are centering around: what each of us think Moore's motives are, not the movie itself. I'm sure that if I believed as you do that Moore wanted the film to offer a solution and immediately oust Bush, then I would think it was a bad film. However, I don't think that's what the film's contribution is supposed to be, even if it *was* Moore's intention. Surely even you can agree. Or maybe now you just think I'm a crazed liberal moral relativist who can't be trusted. And I'm coming for your children, too.
"Moore does not succeed in making this the actual message of the film."
Not to you, anyways. Honestly, I'd love to bring this to a face to face debate, because I can speak it more clearly and more quickly, and I think I'd kick your ass by stating that you're arguing the wrong point entirely. ;)
"The film morphs from being an Bush stole the election film, to an anti-Bush/Saudi Arabia film, to an anti-capitalism film, to an anti-war film, to an anti-hierarchial film."
Doesn't that all come out to being anti-hierarchical, in the end? It did to me. If you didn't see that, then obviously you wouldn't think it was a good film.
"This man watches movies for a living."
Ahh, an expert at MOVIES! You know, NOBODY ever disagrees with what Ebert says about movies...
"Fahrenheit 9/11 is NOT A GOOD FILM."
And here we have the transfer of subjective interpretation into a facade of objectivism. That, my friend, is the height of propaganda. I'll see you in our reincarnated, transcendent lives, where we will surely be born in the US again, only this time we will get our weekly sermons at school, and we'll participate in festive, biannual inquisitions!
ccarpenter says: Dec 2, 2004, 6:25 AM
The tension here is so thick you could find it on "The Biggest Loser".Ba-dum pssh!
PlaidAndroid says: Dec 2, 2004, 8:19 AM
Vincent, dude you say that we run off of certain analysis but honestly you do the same thing. All your information comes from bush bashing websites just as much as we get our info from kerry bashing websites. I remember all the heated debates that we have in school and you offer information that has no source. You normally just say "its public information for all" well if it is then how come it isnt known, to the public.cvincent says: Dec 2, 2004, 9:06 AM
Android, first of all...I don't go to Bush-bashing websites. Except the funny ones. But those are never my source of information.
Second... This isn't an argument about Bush at all, but an "objective" analysis of Fahrenheit 9/11 (which turns out to be completely subjective, but I digress).
Third, I offer information without sources because I don't have a computer with me in face-to-face, impromptu debate. But then again, I shouldn't have to cite a source to prove, for example, that Colin Powell was Bush's Secretary of State for his first four years. People who don't know that have no business debating with me.
Leoniceno says: Jan 5, 2005, 9:01 PM
I thought that the part where he linked Bush's finances to Osama was over-long, scattershot, and tenuous. And the rest of the film was hysterical mothers and Michael Moore assaulting senators and pulling stunts.Props to Michael Moore for expressing the frustration that many liberals feel, but he also encapsulates the problems that the party is facing as far as, you know, getting elected. Image problems, obstreperousness, and arguments that don't fit into a sound-byte.
cvincent says: Jan 7, 2005, 6:09 AM
I'd rather be in the party that is right but doesn't play the image game to get elected than be the party that is wrong and, if you go up high enough, knows it's wrong and has no qualms with pulling some of the worst behavior in political history but ends up getting elected anyway.Not that the Democrats don't play an image game; they do, they just aren't as good at lying as the Republicans.
I think we need to see the "hysterical mothers". Every time we hear about supporting our troops, it becomes a guise for saying that if you're against the war, you're against our troops. We need to see the people who have lost sons and daughters and are angry about it. Our heroic military culture tends to hide these in the dark.
And I don't think Moore was assaulting any congressman. Anyone who has watched Moore's past work (most never did until he insulted their favorite president, and then are suddenly all up in arms -- try bothering first) knows that he is notorious for getting into the face of the powerful and holding them to moral accountability. One of my favorite examples had a man whose HMO denied him an operation for a life-threatening condition using very shakey contractual grounds (the contract itself was conflicting, so of course the HMO chose the interpretation that meant they didn't have to spend any money). Moore took the guy right up to the corporate office of his HMO and they invited everyone there to his funeral. It was really a great analogy. In the end, the HMO gave in after the public humility and gave the man the operation that saved his life.
Post Reply
You must be logged in to participate in the forums. Don't have an account yet? Sign up for free!
