NP Michael Moore

[William Jones]

Not at all related to Pynchon, but there are a few points worth raising 
here.

>
>It's apparent that Moore is something of a sacred cow around here, one 
>whose
>myth-making and hypocrisies are not open to discussion and evaluation and 
>to
>which we should remain cowed and compliant.

Actually, I think we're having a dicussion right now. You say something, 
other people reply. Perhaps you have another definition of a dicussion?

>The double standards are
>palpable. The pro-Moore argument seems to be based on the assumption that
>propaganda and deceit are OK so long as it's "our" propaganda and deceit
>(which smells way too much like the pro-Bush argument for my liking),

Or perhaps the palpable bias in the media needs redressing? One could 
suggest Moore doesn't need to go over the pro-Bush line because it is so 
well covered already. The pro-moore argument could be based on the idea that 
there are elements of US foreign policy and the Iraq war not covered very 
well by the mainstream media. Just a thought.

>and
>that getting rid of a tyrant like Bush is a brave and noble aim but that
>getting rid of tyrants like Saddam or the Taliban leaders has been the 
>crime
>of the century.

Or perhaps that an illegal war involving massive fraud and deception of the 
populace, resulting in the death of thousands and nothing thus far to show 
for it is rather different from a democratic campaign to replace the 
president in an election?

>That lives lost in the overthrow of Saddam and the
>subsequent restoration of Iraq are worth four and five times more than 
>Shia,
>Kurdish, Christian and Mandaean lives lost under Saddam's dictatorship;

No, but there is a very real problem with the killing of Iraqis by American 
troops. That the torture in Abu Graib (sp?) was subsequently carried out by 
American troops. If the war in Afghanistan was supposed to have helped the 
Afghan people I can see how the complete collapse of order and the 
replacement of the Taliban with a government which can't control anything 
ten miles outside Kabul was a real improvement. People are still dying, 
order and democracy have not been brought to Iraq, the people of the world's 
biggest democracy were lied to, and these are points not worth discussing?

Maybe the war was justified, maybe the Bush administration was right, but 
Moore has not lied (note the absence of legal proceedings) and so perhaps it 
worth looking at the questions he raises?

>that
>while democracy and freedom are the inalienable birthrights of all
>Westerners, Iraqis and Afghanis are not entitled to the same systems of
>natural and social justice just because of the accident of their birth and
>their skin colour. And, just imagine what would have happened to someone
>like Moore or the woman in the movie theatre under Saddam ...

Cheap shot and you know it. Criticising Bush and what has been thus far one 
of the stupidest, worst-planned millitary ventures America has ever gone 
into does not make you a supporter of Saddam Hussein, you can infact dislike 
both vehemently.

However, I can't help but think we're getting a bit worked up over nothing. 
Moore is supposed to be a satirist, and if we submitted people like Swift or 
Pope to rigorous analysis they'd probably fall apart too. Has anyone 
seriously criticised 'A Modest Proposal' because the details aren't quite 
right? Moore is making a point, an important one worth discussing. Surely we 
should have submitted the government to this kind of scrutiny? Or the 
intelligence services?

Sorry for clogging up the inboxes.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo