If You're Not For Us, You're Against Us
- Wade
First, let it be duly noted that I'm waiving my right to skip my Friday gambit, like wadE and Al have conveniently skipped their last two Friday gambits. (And I don't really care, I just know those asshats would mention it if I'd done it.)
Second, go here (then come back.)
I've got several thoughts on this topic, prefaced by a) I've never seen this movie, b) I've never seen Roger and Me, and c) I've never seen Fahrenheit 911, and d) I'm not a big Michael Moore guy.
(As an aside, isn't "big Michael Moore" redundant? rimshot)
That said, my original response to the article can be found as the title to this little ditty-- anyone who questions the decisions made by the U.S. and, specifically, the current administration must hate America. Said administration isn't necessarily shy about espousing this idea. Most Dubya for President ads are variations on the theme of "John Kerry says he supports the troops but voted against funding them"-- as though there are no shades of gray in the issue. Cynical Wade would say that the ad is probably targeted towards typical Republicans who have trouble discerning shades of gray-- but today's Friday and we're being happy.
But after reading the article a couple of times, I started to wonder... why does Michael Moore get to criticize Bush and his decisions and not get called out by people who disagree? Some would say the First Amendment, which is technically true but I don't think the maker of Michael Moore Hates America is saying that Moore didn't have a right to make the movie-- I think he wants to ask questions about what's represented in Fahrenheit.
I don't know if running away from questions about his film is typical or atypical of Moore, but if I were to guess I'd say it's standard operating procedure. And I think his credibility is damaged because of it-- if he really believes what's represented in his films as the Gospel truth, he should be able to withstand critiques and defend it. Not that he has to answer every Tom, Dick, and Karl Rove that questions his facts, but this movie seems like it would have been a good chance to get some free publicity and (who knows) converted some skeptics.
The impression I get from Moore is that he's peeved at (among other things) the administration's stance that if you criticize-- heck, even have doubts-- about the United States' actions following 9/11, you're siding with the terrorists. But what does it mean when he won't address doubts about allegations in his movies?
Or... you could go with the argument that it's Friday, everyone involved in politics is a liar, so it's best not to get too worked up and just go on with your day. Mmm... sweet delicious apathy...
What do you think? Drop us a line at webmaster@simpleprop.com and give us some
feedback. Maybe we'll even run your letters in future Gambits. 'The Daily Gambit' is updated every weekday.
