« Just Ask | Main | Priorities »
Who's Starting What?
These people say they want to take away Michael Moore's Oscar for "Best Documentary" because his film is "fictional," meaning it does not contain just the facts, ma'am. Sure, Moore is an infamous truth-stretcher, but lots of stories stretch the truth to make a point. But if we want to talk about truth-stretchers, what about the people behind this "revoke the oscar" business? They only care because they disagree w/Moore. All are "true patriots" and defenders of "freedom," I'm sure. A couple of clicks from the revoke the oscar site gets you to this site that implores you to "never forget who started it." Funny how they don't tell us who "who" is or what they mean by "it." Those details probably don't matter, though—just never forget, ok? Of course, one look at this site and we'll never forget who's selling it.
If you enjoy the complete lack of concern good "patriots" show about sticking to the "facts," pick up the most recent edition of Harper's and read this transcript of a Feb 4th interview between Jeremy Glick and Bill O'Reilly on FOX News' "The O'Reilly Factor." Glick's father was a Port Authority worker who died in the 9-11-01 destruction of the World Trade Center; yet, despite that, Glick is outspoken in his condemnation of the 2001 U.S. attack on Afghanistan, as well as the recent occupation of Iraq. This makes O'Reilly apoplectic; he comes apart like a robot on bad code: "That does not compute. Error. Error. That does not compute!" For superfun, check out this mp3 version of the interview. Obviously, the last thing O'Reilly wants is to remember—or even talk about—who started "it."
Posted April 17, 2003 08:50 AM | general politics
I'm thinking, based on the imagery presented on that site, that whomever is running it is referring to Osama and the Terrorists as the "who", and war as the "it".
No matter how you slice it, though, pretty outrageous stuff. Perhaps it never occurred to the webmaster that the Academy does "make up" Oscars, too, and could be making up for blowing Moore off when he made "Roger and Me".
This is right up there with people who openly beg for money.....
Posted by: greg at April 18, 2003 12:08 AM
Well, it probably also never occurred to the "never forget" people that the recent war (which I assume they support) started on arguably "fictitious" grounds. Truth Stretcher Numero Uno = G. W. Bush (or is it Rumsfeld or Cheney?). With "WMD" still missing, it seems the one guy telling the truth on this issue was Saddam Hussein. Ohmy! Perhaps we should revoke Yubbledew's presidency! ;-)
Posted by: ambimb at April 18, 2003 06:16 PM
Just so I don't come off as being a hard-right Republican sympathizer, (which I am not) let me start with this.
I’m just as embarrassed by George Bush as the next guy. In my opinion there should be legislation that prevents the offspring of former presidents from being eligible for the presidency - And legislation that prevents more than one family member from being able to govern at the same time. It would prevent this sort of monarchy from ever happening again.
Fortunately, in the US we have the amazing privilege of regime change every 4 years.
I have to tell you that it pisses me off when anti war liberals think that our cushy little reality is some sort of natural state of being or human right. As if peace is some sort of given.
Our present universe and "human rights" are by all means just a cute little illusion created in very recent history thanks mainly to the amazing efforts of the US. Unfortunately some of those efforts have been violent but if we look at recorded history or consider the fact that virtually every living creature on this rock eats whatever happens to walk by, we realize (hopefully) the hideous nature of being. And relative to this hideous nature of life itself we should realize and appreciate the fact that, all told, life on earth has never been so good (for Humans).
Here's a fact you can check just by looking in your history books: Since the birth of the US the quality of life on earth has improved GLOBALLY in huge exponential increments. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. And part of that amazing truth is the hideous reality of war.
Both world wars were not started by the US but it took the might of the US to bring them to a halt.
One thing America needs to do is stop educating terrorists.
I would love to see what the world would do if America were to repatriate her money, bring all military personnel back to US soil, deport all middle eastern visitors, close her boarders to immigration and stop all humanitarian efforts throughout the world.
Then, let the radical Middle East fight amongst themselves and raise hell throughout central and Western Europe for about a decade.
You know what we would be hearing from the crybabies then? Why doesn’t the US do something? Help me! Whaaaaaaaaa…..
Posted by: steve at April 23, 2003 07:51 AM
I agree that the U.S. needs to stop educating terrorists. As I read it, that was part of Moore's point in "BFC."
Would you agree that the U.S. also needs to stop *arming* terrorists? Is the world safer for the fact that the U.S. is the largest producer and exporter of arms in the world? Yes, the U.S. has had lots of positve effects in the world in the last 200 years, and yes, we owe much of our "cushy" lifestyle to wars fought by the U.S. But off the top of my head I'd guess that the same history books that tell me those facts will also tell me that each time the U.S. used force to help make the world a better place, that force was backed by an international consensus that it was the right thing to do.
The question is not whether the U.S. should remove itself from the world beyond its borders. On the contrary, it should do exactly the opposite by becoming *more* involved in international affairs -- but by working *with* the world instead of against it or alone.
You're right -- we're in too deep in too many places to just pull out, even if we wanted to. But that's the point -- we live in a deeply interconnected world. The U.S. has obligations to its own citizens, and to the citizens of the world. One of those obligations is to play nice with others, and one time-tested way to do that is by working with the innternational community on international issues rather than acting like we don't have to care what anyone else thinks. Is it hard to find that lesson in history?
But anyway, does this mean you agree with the "revoke the oscar" folks? Did you dislike "BFC"?
Posted by: ambimb at April 23, 2003 11:29 AM
