NP Michael Moore

[Otto]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: NP Michael Moore
>

> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/09/1089000339554.html?oneclick=true
>
> One doesn't need to be a Bush-supporter to recognise Moore for what he is,
a
> self-serving propagandist and hypocrite, and the article finds its marks
> very strongly in my opinion, which is why I posted the link to it. The
> supporting evidence exposing the film's deceits is readily available on
the
> Internet (Keith, I believe,  has posted a link).
>

How do you know? You don't claim you've been a Bush-critic in the past,
don't you?

To reduce Moore to a "self-serving propagandist and hypocrite" without doing
proper analysis of his funny film, based upon an obviously weak article
seems dangerous to me. You like the article because it fits to your
prejudice, as you admit yourself. To me it's quite natural that people who
have opposed the war like the film and vice versa.

> I thought this quote particularly apt, as it circumscribes the rhetoric
and
> mind-set of both the Bush Administration *and* the extreme anti-Bush lobby
> as embodied in Moore and many of his fellow-travellers:
>
> > [...]
> > His hectoring tone, too, is a reflection of the times. No sooner had
Marxism
> > collapsed as an organising force or a credible moral universe than other
> > orthodoxies filled the void left by the end of the Cold War. Religious
> > fundamentalism has flourished, and the leading chronicler of this
change,
> > Professor Philip Jenkins, found that the clear winners have been the
most
> > uncompromising, most conservative and most combative groups with "a
strongly
> > apocalyptic mind-set".
> >
> > Sounds like Michael Moore. His scorched-earth rhetoric, selective moral
> > absolutism, hatred of opponents, and innate conservatism - he uses the
> > nostalgic rhetoric of old-line socialism (preached but not practised) -
are
> > markers of the fundamentalists and evangelists. Moore happens to be a
> > secular fundamentalist.
>
> 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.

Wrong, just because he's no sacred cow we're talking about him. His
"deceits" are being discussed. From my first post on this issue I've said
that his films are no documentaries. What I praise him for is that he makes
people go to the cinema watching his films (and reading his books) who
normally turn off the news.

> 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

Wrong, you won't find a single piece of evidence supporting this. I don't
expect absolute truth in a polemic that tries to show by which means of
distorting the truth a military campaign against a foreign country that has
posed no threat against the USA has been justified.

> (which smells way too much like the pro-Bush argument for my liking),

Since when are you so self-critical?

> 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.

Absolute crap. We're talking about a President who tries to get re-elected
for his second (and last) term. Getting rid of Saddam the way it has been
done simply was a "crime" according to international law. But now we're
beyond that and support the new Iraqui government. The international
community is helping the coalition of the willing to clean up the mess. Last
night I watched a remarkable tv-interview with Bill Clinton who said that
going to war against the Iraq has been wrong while the war against the
Taliban was inevitable. But turning away the attention from the war on
terror, from Bin Laden to Saddam, was a big mistake. The biggest mistake
according to Clinton has been that Hans Blix could not finish his job
because of the war. Just six weeks he had demanded, but Bush couldn't wait
those six weeks. Saddam could have waited for another year, but that
wouldn't have been the right year for Bush to get re-elected. So Bush's
motives were self-serving, and all his talk about "Iraqi freedom" was just
hypocrisy.

> 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;
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.

That's the worst argument of yours because this is not why the coalition
went to war. Reminds me of Madeline Albright back then. Following this line
of thought the Sudanese government must be attacked and ousted immediately
to prevent a catastrophe, Robert Mugabe must be jailed and North Korea put
under sanctions.

>
> And, just imagine what would have happened to someone
> like Moore or the woman in the movie theatre under Saddam ...
>
> best
>


This argument is on the same poor level as the argument concerning the money
Moore is making while keeping his lumberjack-image. To me he appears more
like the King's Fool. The criticism, both pro and contra, shouldn't make him
bigger and more important than he is.

Otto