Please, Bash Moore, but Beware

You'll look like an idiot. You can't outreason the truth:

CBS News | Moore Distortions | June 29, 2004�13:21:17

Now, I notice a few problems with this opinion. It rambles into nowhere, takes a point he says Moore does not make, and argues it without any information contrary to Moore's assertations.

"A mainstream liberal consensus on Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" has emerged quickly. It goes something like this: Moore's a nutty conspiracy theorist, and parts of the movie -- in which he suggests, among other things, that we invaded Afghanistan not because of 9/11 but because we wanted to build a natural gas pipeline -- showcase Moore at his least responsible."

The mainstream consensus about the film is not that he's a nutty conspiracy theorist. It's that he presents a very one-sided portrait of Bush. The side Bush does not want the American public to see.

As far as the oil pipeline thing, where is your evidence that this pipeline was never conceived of except in Moore's imagination.

"But he's also a talented polemicist and filmmaker; and as a result, the second half of the movie -- in which he uses the story of Lila Lipscomb, a grieving military mother, to examine why it is only the poor and working class who sacrifice in times of war -- is both profound and smart."

There it is there.

"In "The New York Times", A.O. Scott called the interviews with Lipscomb the "most moving sections" of the film. If the folks with whom I saw the movie provide any indication, audiences across the country will leave the theater so moved by Lipscomb's story that they will forgive "Fahrenheit 9/11" its often-incoherent points and poorly supported accusations."

Moore is never incoherent. He is just exploding with information. Imagine the 24 hour long director's cut.

No one has come forward to deny the $billions invested in Bush by the Saudi royal family, or give a complete accounting of the true amount, which sounds low to me.

"That, I suspect, is exactly what Moore wanted: to wrap assertions that can only be described as odd -- such as his insistence that the military is failing to adequately patrol miles of deserted Oregonian coast -- in the heart-breaking story of a mother's loss and the legitimate observation that America's system of military service asks too much of the poor and too little of elites."

He never said the military fails to patrol the coast of Oregon. We don't even want that. Moore's 'hidden' suggestion is that we could spare a paltry percentage of the money flowing into Iraq for even a minimum number of State Police to respond to public safety calls. Hmmm, this guy has reasoning issues. Can't get there from here. We'll continue and see how feeble he really is.

Here's where he gets to the meat of his mad cow. He stipulates a side point to the movie, a point which has been 'out there' for more than thirty years. If you have seen any other of Moore's movies, he ends up in Flint a lot. It has everything to do with him, his views and why he does what he does.

"There's a central -- and dishonest -- trick to what Moore is doing here: He's conflating two questions that have very little to do with each other."

Oh, you want to argue this, eh?

"The question of whether a war is just (Moore's thesis is that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were not) has no logical connection to the question of whether it is fought by a justly selected military."

It has every connection. It seems to Moore that this fact makes it easier for 500+ members of Congress to send these poor devils to get killed. The same thing happened in Vietnam.

"Vietnam was not an unjust war because elites received draft deferments; it was an unjust war in which the burdens of military service happened to be spread unfairly."

Wrong. Vietnam was an unjust war because we had no business poking our noses in there. It served no purpose, seemingly other than to thin the herd.

"Every war the United States has fought since Vietnam has been fought by an unjustly distributed military."

Wow! With that reasoning, we are now on the same side. All war is unjust. You firgure it's because we get the poor killed off, I think it's because all killing is wrong. Good, send your kid to get his arm blown off, if that make it a just war.

"But not every war has been unjust."

Before 'Nam, I should guess.

"The distribution of sacrifice in a democracy is a moral problem all its own."

HUH? Where do you get that? That's the problem with a hierarchical system. Democracy just so happens to be a hierarchical system. So were Soviet Socialism and Hussein despotism. Where ever there is an elite, someone is sacrificing disproportionately. Why does there even have to be sacrifice?

"Moore's argumentative strategy, however, rests on tricking audiences into believing otherwise."

You made up an unsupported thesis. It has nothing to do with Moore's point. Where are you going with this, anyway?

"Having laid out his mostly unconvincing cases against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars...

Moore's case against the Afghanistan action has to do with the poor timing and incompetent execution from the executive level. On September 11, 12, or 13, 2001, we had carte blanc to act. Pay attention. He showed Bush sitting there for seven minutes with that god-awful dumbass look on his face. He sat in the Oval Office for the next month with that same look. He had no idea what to do.

How about getting up, excusing yourself (They were kidnergardners! They would not have taken offense. Years later, if Bush was not such a dumbass, they would have been able to tell people that they were with the president when it happened and he was so great when he said he had important stuff to do. Then, a week later, Osama was in an American jail and the world became a safer place. Alas, a fantasy.) We could have dropped the hammer on al Quaeda, and no one would have faulted us. We could have

Instead, Bush sat there wondering who did it, when he read a memo a month before that told him this would happen, albeit about the time and place. What if there had been 10 planes? It would have gone off without a hitch.

Moore suggests that we could have nipped this in the bud by going after bin Laden's group IMMEDIATELY. By highlighting Bush's pear paralysis, he emphasizes the point that Bush did nothing. NOTHING. What is unjust is that he acted slowly and strung this out and bungled the whole thing, making the world more dangerous.

The war in Iraq was also a huge boondoggle. We never should have started it. I have been with the peace movement since before the war. I knew Bush was lying about everything. Everything Bush sold the public on Iraq has turned out to be a rotten bill of goods. You had to know this going in. You cannot deny that Hussein is no worse than dozens of other world leaders who have no oil. That is why he was targeted.

The public record contains countless thousands of news articles which support the idea that Bush duped us into this. Those who cannot see this by now are not the kind of people, like George Bush, who let reality get in the way of their lives and beliefs.

"..., and having presented compelling scenes of Lipscomb grieving, military recruiters preying on the ignorance of teenagers, and congressmen fleeing questions about their children's military service, he pulls an intellectual sleight of hand that goes by so quickly -- and indeed, that sounds so logical -- that many viewers won't realize they've been tricked. In a voiceover, he says (and I'm paraphrasing pretty roughly here): "I've always been amazed that in America the poor and working class do most of the fighting.""

Just an observation. A valid one.

""That is their gift to us. And all they ask in return is that we don't send them to war unless we absolutely have to.""

They're certainly asking that now.

"The logical connection between the two thoughts here is patently absurd."

How's that?

"(Is Moore implying that it's okay for the poor and working class to do most of the fighting as long as they are only sent to fight in necessary wars? Would it be okay to fight unnecessary wars if the military burden were properly balanced?)"

That's not his point, but if there was a necessary war, it WOULD be less unjust. Unjust is unjust. And that second question is rhetorical. Of course not. Keep grasping at straws.

"But it's also central to Moore's argument. He needs to be able to place his movie's best point -- the brazen immorality of Lipscomb having to grieve her son while elites make no similar sacrifice -- in the service of his larger argument, which is that Bush's wars have been unjust. So he eloquently conflates them, pumps up his soundtrack, and hopes viewers don't bother to think about what he's actually done."

Not so. It is a story you obviously don't want to hear. Grief you do not want to see. You made up a point that Moore did not make and now where are you going?

"How do we know Moore only wants to use his point about who sacrifices in war as a distraction from his real agenda of indulging conspiracy theories about Bush's foreign policy?"

Its what's called a side point. A tangent. These are his thoughts. I'm sorry you have to think in a straight line. Maybe you should go back to school and learn a few critical reasoning skills.

"Because a serious examination of that issue would have required something very different from what Moore delivers. He could have taken his camera and knocked on the doors of Ivy League presidents who ban ROTC from their campuses, helping to perpetuate the notion that military service is not for our country's young elites."

That's not the point, but a good idea. I hope Michael reads it.

"He could have seriously considered the arguments for a draft."

Why would he?

"The problem of the military's socioeconomic imbalance, when considered thoughtfully, isn't really a partisan issue."

Sure, there are rich dems, too. He did not say there were. Nor is Moore's a partisan view. If you knew more about him, you'd know that he criticized Clinton, too. I think Moore seems more conservative than liberal. Conservative in the Libertarian sense, but with a lick of common sense, perhaps Green inspired. (He supported Nader last time, remember?)

"But that's exactly how Moore treats it, because embarrassing (presumably liberal) academics or considering proposals with non-ideological appeal just isn't how Moore does business."

Yes, Moore has an ideology. He's sold me. I suppose everything's partisan to you. Peanut or Plain? And why would he go to an academic, looking for a fight? That makes no sense, nor would it sell any tickets. You stipulated earlier he is a talented polemist and filmmaker. Now you criticize?


"His approach to the issue makes clear that he is using it rather than examining it. Surely Moore will concede that whether America's wars are just or unjust -- indeed whether we fight wars at all -- we do need people to serve in our military, and we do need to find them somewhere."

Or do we?

"The logical extension of elite schools shutting their doors to military recruiters is that those same recruiters end up scouring the malls of Flint, Michigan. If Moore really cares about the socioeconomic imbalance of the U.S. military, you wouldn't know it from this movie. "

Now who's trying a sleight of hand? He brought it up, you didn't.

"Which is too bad, because the question of who serves in the American military is an important one, and we ought to be having a national debate about it."

You seem to be having a fine debate with yourself.

"But far from provoking such a debate, "Fahrenheit 9/11" will stymie it."

Now that you mention it, I think we might hear more of that later, after we get rid of George.

"That's because Moore essentially argues that the way to redress our military's socioeconomic imbalance -- the way to stop the Lila Lipscombs of America from bearing an unfair percentage of the burden of our country's defense -- is not to fight unjust wars."

A point Moore does not make. Seems to me there's some creative thinking going on in your head.

"This makes no sense..."

I agree.

"...but it is also a deeply attractive message to Moore's target audience of true believers..."

We're not his target. He targets moderates. Our mind is made up. Why would he try to convince us? You just seem to have a hard time comprehending the truth through the dissonance. I sympathize. It hurts my head, too.

"...because it neatly waves away the guilt of elites who do not want their children to serve in the military."

I am not the elite.

"It tells them that the difficult moral question of how we determine who serves in the military -- a question that should make any parent or young person who really thinks about it deeply uncomfortable -- need not be grappled with, as long as we only wage just wars."

Now you're in the deep end. And doing laps.

"Just as young viewers of "Fahrenheit 9/11" (like me) may be beginning to wonder why it is that the life of Lipscomb's son was worth less than their own, Moore invites us to short-circuit this troubling, important line of reasoning with a glib piece of illogic: No unnecessary wars; no need to spread the sacrifice of military service. It's as if he forgets that people also die, and mothers also grieve, in necessary wars."

So, you agree that Iraq was an unnecessary war?

"There seems to be a growing sentiment among liberals that Moore is a bad guy, but dammit, he's our bad guy."

That's not exactly how I would put it.

"I disagree. Liberalism is as badly served by liberal intellectual dishonesty as it is by conservative intellectual dishonesty."

Nothing dishonest about the truth, buddy.

"Besides, Lila Lipscomb and the young men being funneled directly from Flint malls to Iraq deserve better. That is, they deserve to be more than distractions from the intellectual mess that precedes them in this movie."

You should make that movie. And you are an intellectual mess, not the movie.

"Moore ends "Fahrenheit 9/11" by predicting that American voters will not be fooled into voting again for George W. Bush. I hope he's right. But I also hope they won't be fooled by the bad logic at the center of his film."

I hope he's right, too. And I haven't seen a lick of logic in your argument.

"Richard Just is editor of The New Republic Online."

I guess you're not going to hire me, now.

The strategy of Iraq's insurgents | csmonitor.com

The strategy of Iraq's insurgents | csmonitor.com

What a weekend: A great movie and a free Iraq! Who could ask for anything more?

I can. I ask that the interim government not declare martial law. I ask that all killing stop.

A declaration of martial law will only galvanize the fractured resistance into an unstoppable force which will feed itself until the state follows. Look at Palestine. We will be creating a new perpetual bombing zone.

Likely, martial law will be declared and the insurgents could not care less whether the transfer happened last Christmas or next Halloween. They did not seem deterred today.

:: John Kerry for President - Welcome to JohnKerry.com! ::

:: John Kerry for President - Welcome to JohnKerry.com! ::

Don't forget to check in regularly on Johnny Ketchup.

CNN.com - ABC already spinning off 'Wife Swap' - Jun 28, 2004

CNN.com - ABC already spinning off 'Wife Swap' - Jun 28, 2004

Sounds like hetero marriage is just fine. Let's start the swapping!

'Fahrenheit' Is Casting a Wide Net at Theaters

'Fahrenheit' Is Casting a Wide Net at Theaters

I know you're already a member of the Times. Quite an interesting article. It seems to me that we have a paper willing to stand up for the integrity of free choice.

I love the testimonials. Converted Republicans are enough to make Moore's cuckles glow. And glowing they are.

Great job Mike.

A Link for the Informed: GeorgeWBush.com :: The Official Re-election Site for President George W. Bush

I hope you consider yourself informed. Frequent visits to this page help in a few ways. First of all, use the features. I set up a Bush Lost party at the King Burrito for Saturday after the election. Second, pay attention to the details. They are telling: Bush knows he is on the ropes. And for sure, check out the video. It was made a long time ago and never circulated, but it shows us a lot about how the GOP views itself.


GeorgeWBush.com :: The Official Re-election Site for President George W. Bush

CNN.com - Tenet furious over scathing CIA report - Jun 24, 2004

There's nothing like poking a bear who's not dead yet. Tight lipped Tenet looks like he has a short fuse, too. Why would the GOP want to do this?

CNN.com - Tenet furious over scathing CIA report - Jun 24, 2004

What I think, is that this is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. I think George Tenet knows quite a bit of stuff. Secret stuff. And he knows the difference between sedition and taking down a foe.

Remember the Chalabi revelation? How he tricked us into steamrolling Iraq so that Iran could be sure they were not going to face any opposition when they invade? I made that last part up, but I gotta say I'm getting good at predicting this chaos. But it's not really any great task, considering it's as plain as the stupidity in the king's head.

I would posit the thought that George Tenet is not the man you want to piss off. Remember the damage Paul O'Neil did? So far, Christine Todd Whitman is one of the few who has not spilled any beans. This is not a very tight family. Kick him in the head on the way out the door? Not a good idea at all. Not at all.

Hopefully, Mr. Director of the CIA knows the who, what, when, where, why and how of this entire administration. GW would do good to talk to papa about this. He has been the CIA Director.

But that's just my opinion.

Bush or Kerry: The Electoral College Map

Now here's an interesting item:

It's on the LA Times site. You have to be a member, but aren't you already? If not, you're missing the last credible paper in the US.

Bush or Kerry: The Electoral College Map

I have been checking back often. The numbers sound credible, it gives a history and you can check state by state polls.

And read the Times while you're there.

Now, A Prediction

Saddam Hussein is the future President of a democratic Iraq.

To show his faith in Iraq, George will have to hand over Saddam after the "June 30 transfer of power." His polls will drop when he balks, so he'll be called to the carpet. And we all know what happens when we call him to the carpet: he does something dumb, like bomb a country on the basis of dubious intelligence obtained from an enemy.

This time, he will give them Saddam. Probably just before the election. This will not only boost his numbers among the sheep who will bleat: re-e-e-e-e-e-so-o-o-o-o-lve, re-e-e-e-eso-o-o-o-o-olve. Bu-u-u-u-ush has re-e-e-e-eso-o-o-o-o-lve. Hopefully, it will not be enough. Or it will be too early.

If King G lets him go, say, in late July, then Saddam might be walking the streets by election day. That's bad for George. It will finally make things exactly the way they were before we got over 800 of our girls and boys killed, paid a bazillion dollars which really could have helped here at home and alienated the rest of the world in the process. He will have no way to hide that he has left us morally and financially bankrupt as a society.

If Hussein gets back to Iraq in say, Septemberish, then maybe Hussein will still be in jail by the time the election rolls around. (But right now, I heard 40% of them want him as President again. That number will get him elected.) If Hussein sits in an Iraqi jail on November 2nd, then George might give Kerry a run for his money.

If Hussein sits in an American jail at election time, that could drastically reduce his votes, too. Therefore Hussein will be released to Iraq before the election. However, Bush cannot do it too close to the election, because then it might not give him a boost as it is perceived as a last ditch effort to bring his numbers back up.

Giving back Hussein might not win him the election, but not giving him back will cost the election, most certainly.

What A Dissonant Week!

Why can't they stop making this stuff up? There's always more room in Bush's corner for him to back up. I suppose it's not flip flopping if you slither?

The serpent King George. King George has his police state shaping up quite nicely. 15 seconds? You should fear the worst, because you could be the next Brandon Mayfield. You have 15 seconds to hide whatever it is you do that's against the law, because they're going to use it in any way they can.

What about the wrong house? Suppose your door gets broken in on account of some bureaucratic error (and this administration is one big bureaucratic error at this point)? Do not kid yourself, they will use whatever they find against you in a court of law. And if the court doesn't get it right, the Supreme Kangaroo will make it so. Kiss another liberty goodbye.

And another: being anywhere without your identification. Barcodes, George. Just give us barcodes. That way when you start bashing in random doors in a big 'error' and start scooping us up like so many maggots, you can just cut out our tongues. As long as you have your scanner, you can identify us.

Blow it a big long kiss goodbye. And all the others you've lost since GW took office. I just hope no one retires or dies before Kerry gets into office, especially one of the good ones.

Can We Impeach George Before The Election?

What a boon to the Kerry campaign! We have an opportunity to convict George Bush of some pretty high crimes and felonies. That would certainly help him win in November.

This reigns supreme in the history book already, this I tell you. Forget Teapot Dome, Watergate, Iran-contra and Monica. Authorization of torture and proof of the commission of serial acts of torture in Guantanimo, Afghanistan and Iraq proves it to me. I don't need any more evidence. Congress needs to take action.

George Bush is not dancing around semantics of vaginal intercourse and fellatio. This is serious. He asked for legal advice regarding torture. The memo authorized it in no uncertain terms. The torture happened. Tell me, did these privates first class and specialists just know and then act to spare the president the embarrassment of giving a written order? They undoubtedly did not.

The brief was circulated with the implicit message that action was authorized. Pass the memo to the commanders and they take action. Whether this action came in the form of giving direct orders to commit torturous acts or just setting the scene and letting 'nature' take its course, the end result is the same.

We need to gut the administration and force GW out of there. Dick, too. He's more guilty than George, especially since he's actually smart enough to understand the gravity of his crimes. Cheney deserves to spend the rest of his life in jail. Bush should join him for about 30 years. Rumsfeld is probably at the capital offense level. Powell is obviously Secretary of State in la la land, by the way Bernstein describes it in a book the Bush administration endorses as being flattering. If we go after Colin, we're pumping an empty well. Nevertheless, he can get off easy. Tenet bailed, but you know he ain't talking. Tight lip Tenet. He won't roll.

Condi should be the one we get to crack under the pressure. She needs the relief. If you remember back a few months, you can remember the look on her face. She thought she'd crack in front of the 9-11 commission. She was able to 'answer' without perjuring herself. This time we will get her to spill the beans. Remember her Freudian slip from a while back? That, too, indicates that she really is the soft spot in the presidential armor.

I smell it. The day is coming soon. Bush will be gone.

Apathy Is Inexcusable

Bush lite?

I read a letter in the paper the other day. Some Nader supporter actually called John Kerry that. Johnny Ketchup is no Bush lite. Bush is resolute to run this country into the ground and he and his buddies get richer in the process. John Kerry will turn things around completely.

The protests at the Vatican emphasize the fact that everyone dislikes us. The Saudis hate us. Why are they still our ally? The bin Ladens and Bandahar have been taking us for a ride on the rube express, with GW as our engineer, who obviously does not know how to drive the train.

The train does not drive itself, George.

We really are the scourge of the uncivilized world. Because heaven knows we do not qualify as a civil nation in the eyes of the world. And what does world opinion mean to us? It means everything.

We have to share the earth with them. All of them.

John Kerry understands. George Bush does not. Bush wants his presidency to be the last. He kinda resembles the anti-christ.

What future generations have to look forward to depends entirely on who we elect to the presidency this November. If George Bush serves a second term, there is no telling what he will do.

The draft is back or at least murmurs of the threat have surfaced on the internet. I've heard tell of a clause in the red threat level that allows Bush to declare martial law. Our nation is broke. Our nation has proven to be corrupt. A change of leadership is warranted.

John Kerry has prepared himself to perform this job. Ralph Nader has not.

Has Ralph Nader taken the time to build international ties with influential people and foreign leaders. I do not think so.

Ralph Nader is a very smart man, but he is not qualified to lead this nation out of the trouble we are currently in. I voted for him last time. I lived in San Diego. California's 50+ delegates went to Gore. I would have voted for Gore had I thought Bush had a chance in California. I truly did believe that my vote for Nader mattered in that he was able to gain funding for a third party. An election I knew Al Gore would win.

My worst fear came true, though. Bush stole the election and Al Gore did not have the chutzpah to push him down and take back what was rightfully his. And ours. Sure, Gore let us down. But so did we. Enough of us voted for Bush that he was able to take the crown.

Now we have a wonderful opportunity to take it back. Kerry's landslide victory will send an unmistakable message. This year, anyone voting for Nader deserves the bitter irony that will befall them when Bush destroys us all in one way or more.

Look what he did to us in California. He let us fry under the desert sun. His biggest monetary cheerleader walks free to this day. I predict right now that if Bush loses, he will have Ken Lay prosecuted, convicted and pardoned before John Kerry takes the Oath of Office in January 2005.

I think we need to purge the legislature of Republicans, too. The cannot have both houses.

We need more independents in there. Greens, Libertarians, Socialists and Peace and Freedom deserve voices at all levels of American government. A true patriot knows this.

I, for one, am as conservative as I am liberal. I could vote for all these parties, at one point or another, even on the same ballot. Our bloated government needs to scale back, get out of debt, keep us protected and get our collective business in order. A monumental imperative, indeed.

Three libertarians could hold up almost all but the most prudent of spending legislation in the House. Three Socialists would help protect the interests of the American proletariat. Three Peace and Freedom representatives would help ensure the protection of our personal rights. And, of course, we all know that the three Greens would stop the wholesale destruction of our environment.

A couple of wingnuts and a loose cannon or two added in for variety would make for a legislature truly representative of all Americans.

As for diversity in the politically sensitive sense, we need to make that happen, too. We need to move beyond bigotry of every sort. And elect qualified people to every office.

But we must not vote for Ralph Nader in this election. Not a one of us. Not if we care about the future of our nation on this planet.