MICHAEL MOORE IS MY COUNTRY

"AMERICAN DISSIDENT : THE POLITICAL ART OF MICHAEL MOORE"

2007-05-11T12:02:00.000-07:00

I just received a nice comment on my blog from Francois Primeau, the author of a book entitled "AMERICAN DISSIDENT: THE POLITICAL ART OF MICHAEL MOORE" (Lulu Press, 2007). I had never heard of it, so I clicked on the link and read that magical summary :

FINALLY, A LEFT-WING LOOK AT THE WORK OF AMERICA'S MOST CONTROVERSIAL FILMMAKER! - With his new film "Sicko", Michael Moore proves once again that he is the leading creative voice for the new Left in America. Few have criticized the social and foreign policies of the American government the way Moore did in his films, books, and TV shows. Titles such as "Roger & Me," "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" are now associated with an artist who has dedicated his professional life to expose the foibles of an America that believes itself virtuous and free, but which can only breathe on feelings of anger, mistrust and paranoia. "American Dissident: The Political Art of Michael Moore" is an engaging and thought-provoking look at the work of America’s favorite civil libertarian. Through a personal reading and impassioned defense of Moore’s project, it offers for the first time a detailed analysis of his feature films and two television series to date, "TV Nation" and "The Awful Truth."

http://stores.lulu.com/americandissident

"POLITICAL ART"... "FINALLY, A LEFT-WING LOOK AT THE WORK OF AMERICA'S MOST CONTROVERSIAL FILMMAKER!"... "a personal reading and impassioned defense of Moore’s project"... Yeah, it sure looks good ! And I like that cover too :

Mr Primeau seems to be aware of two essential facts : first, that Michael Moore is CENSORED and in need of vocal defense, and second, that Michael Moore is an ARTIST, and deserves to be treated as such, definitely and decisively.

I've been waiting for a long time for someone to dare defend Mike with his head held up high and in an outspoken, unapologetic fashion, crediting him for the artist that he really is and shedding a personal light on his work, free from all that right-wing suspicious, petty, media-inspired BS. I feel inclined to make that bet that Mr Primeau is this long awaited person, and I promised him I would write an extensive review for his book as soon as I've read it. 308 pages ! Mmmm... yummy.

Mr Primeau informs me that "It's central thesis cannot be refuted, even by the biggest Moore-detractor out there. It is an answer to Christopher Hitchens and all those other losers out there." I'm skeptical about the former (all theses can be refuted), but immensely grateful for the latter (my nightmare was to have to deal with said losers and their miserable, venomous nitpicking on my site).

Mr Primeau also claims that "It is the only articulate and extensive defense of his work to date". Well, what can I say ? It's true, and it's nothing to be proud of.

Do as I do. Make amends : Buy his book, and Pass the message along.

HE MAKES MOVIES - Concluding the set of essays about Mike as a filmmaker

2007-04-02T11:57:00.000-07:00

CONCLUSION : HE MAKES MOVIES (The Documentary Ends Where The Quest Begins)

(above : Filip in action in Kieslowski's "Amator")

In “Amator”, a movie written and shot under Jaruzelski’s dictatorship, Polish director Kieslowski portrays a man who naively and almost inadvertently buys an 8mm movie camera when his first child is born for family fun purposes. But, because it's the first camera in town, he's named official photographer by the local Party boss. His horizons widen when he is sent to regional film festivals with his first works, but they also lead to domestic strife and philosophical dilemmas when his focus on movie making becomes a passion and he perceives that the eye of his camera witnesses Things That Shouldn’t Be Seen and silently, inevitably accuses Those Who Shouldn’t Be Accused.

More than Chaplin, more than Capra, more than Lenny Bruce, more than Zola, more than Nick Broomfield, more than Saul Alinsky, more than Socrates, more than Andersen, more, even, than the modern embodiment of Nemesis, the Impartial Goddess of Righteous Vengeance – Michael Moore is this man.

After all is said and done, Michael Moore is just Filip, a little guy who just felt like filming his people and his town as the “dawn” of the American Empire was rising and shadows got longer and things grew bleaker – always bleaker. A little guy who was vaguely looking for some fun to have, vaguely searching for something to do – and got awoken by accident.

It could have been me. It could have been you.

But it was him.

Because He Made Movies.

SCROOGE AND HIS NEMESIS

2007-04-01T08:39:00.000-07:00

This entry is the third part of the section entitled "The Storyteller" in my essay "Yes, He Makes Movies", devoted to Mike's contribution to film.

Most of the time, and par for the course, the Frail Moving Bastard doesn’t want to lose. So he just leaves the ring, and so the Big Bad Angel leaves the ring as well… to follow him, and to make sure that there is NO REST FOR THE WICKED.

Hence the Chase – the half-Christian, half-Marxist version of the Pursuit of Happiness. Especially half-Christian, but also half-Marxist.

I don't see it so much as confrontation. I see it more as a continuation of my Jesuit training. The pope has never liked the Jesuits much because they ask too many questions.
http://www.detnews.com/2002/entertainment/0210/21/d01-616260.htm

Moore is clever enough to know when someone is making a fool of himself, and he gives them enough rope—time on camera—to hang themselves. If that doesn’t work he is not above getting his preferred results by creative editing that outrages his critics.
http://bostonreview.net/BR28.3/stone.html

As Roger Ebert notices in his F9/11 review, “It's vintage Moore, for example, when he brings along a Marine who refused to return to Iraq; together, they confront congressmen, urging them to have their children enlist in the service.”

It’s vintage Moore because it’s the Mike at his Socratic best. William Karel once pointed out that Moorean questions were questions that a 4 year old could ask. This is very true and the key to the filmmaker’s brand of radicalism : a 4 year old asks naïve but essential questions, like “Why is it dark at night ?”. And very, very few people can actually answer that. And even less can answer that in a way a 4 year old will find satisfactory. For 4 year olds still have the metaphysical and moral urges that fake adults/real spiteful children have “reasonably” given up on. Mike knows that enlisting in the service is really up to the youth, not to the Congressmen. There’s a law about that. But the interesting thing is that the Congressmen DON’T know that law – at least not enough to answer the urge in a clean, straightforward way. No They RUN instead.

Run, bastards, run. The childlike documentarian will chase you for your childish irresponsibility.

Look, bastards, look. Hey, hey, hey, look what you doing to me. Hey, hey, hey, look what you dun.

PLAYBOY: Sometimes your confrontations with companies seem tasteless. The Voice Box Choir stands out.

MOORE: Well, I'm proud of it. Voice Box Choir was a group of half a dozen or so antitobacco campaigners, all of whom had had their voice boxes removed to stop the spread of cancer. They had been heavy smokers who could speak only by holding a small amplifier to their throat. We had the choir sing Christmas carols at the New York headquarters of Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds. We also went to the chairmen's houses. It gets a huge laugh, but it's the kind of laugh you can't believe you're laughing.

http://www.playboy.com/arts-entertainment/features/michaelmoore2/04.html

(above : a scene from "Voice Box Choir", The Awful Truth, I, 3)

Mike also writes to his victims. He never shuts the dialogue. HE NEVER SHUTS UP.

He writes “Shame on you” messages to the bastards. He writes “Look what you dun” messages to the bastards. On and on, on and on.

October 30, 2002
To: Charlton Heston, President, NRA
From: Michael Moore, Winner, NRA Marksman Award
Subject: Your Visit to Tucson Today in the Wake of Another School
Shooting

Dear Mr. Heston:

When you showed up in Denver to hold your pro-gun rally just days after the massacre at nearby Columbine High School, the nation was shocked at your incredible insensitivity to those who had just lost loved ones.

When you came to Flint to hold another rally in the months after a 6-year old boy shot a 6-year old girl at a nearby elementary school, the community was stunned by your desire to rub its face in its grief.

But your announcement that you are on your way to Tucson today, just 48 hours after a student at the University of Arizona shot and killed three professors and then himself, to hold ANOTHER big pro-gun celebration -- this time to get out the vote for the NRA-backed Republican running for Congress -- well, sir, I have to ask you: Have you no shame?

I am asking that you not go to Tucson today. (…)

Yours,
Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com mike@michaelmoore.com

His letters to Bush are famous and countless. Lesser known is the fact that they all convey the same underlying Fantasy of the Meeting.

A Supreme Meeting Where The Bastard Will See What He Dun :

Do you expect Fahrenheit 9/11 to be screened at the White House?

I would LOVE to have a White House screening of this film. I would attend it. I would behave myself. After all, it's a little known fact that, the first time we met, George W Bush's cousin was working as my cameraman on Roger And Me. His father, George The First, who was in the White House, did have a screening, down at Camp David. Young George and various others were there, but I was not invited to that one. I hope they'd consider doing it again.

http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/feature.jsp?id=133235

SOCRATES AS A WRESTLER

2007-03-31T05:29:00.000-07:00

This entry is the second part of the section entitled "The Storyteller" in my essay "Yes, He Makes Movies", devoted to Mike's contribution to film.

Mike is one these big bad wrestlers who, in best wrestling style and tradition, attacks and crushes the SEEMINGLY weak and flustered… and wins, much to the joy of the watchers.

Oh, the immoral bastard ! Oh, the bloodthirsty watchers ! How can such an approach be ethical ? Boo ! Boooooooo !!! goes the self-righteous mob – louder than a poor guy’s bombs.

PLAYBOY: You were criticized for embarrassing former NRA president Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine. Some viewers felt you took advantage of an aging, ailing man.

MOORE: I take exception to that. I was very respectful.

PLAYBOY: Heston looked ridiculous. He was frail and flustered.

MOORE: He was opposing gun controls in the aftermath of high school shootings. That made him fair game. All I did was ask some questions. He said the problem with America is our mixed ethnicity. He said he was proud of the white guys who founded the country. I was stunned. I was respectful when I asked the questions, but at the same time, how am I supposed to treat someone who, after leaving my interview, went back out campaigning for laws that would allow people to have Uzis and cop-killer bullets? Once again, most Americans are with me on this. They understand that duck hunters don't need Uzis and cop-killer bullets.
http://www.playboy.com/arts-entertainment/features/michaelmoore2/04.html

But, Mike, aren’t you catching your subjects off guard ? How can this be fair game then ?

And - Boo ! Boooooooo !!! goes the self-righteous mob – louder than a poor guy’s bombs.

Apparently Bush and other members of his administration don't know what every TV reporter knows, that a satellite image can be live before they get the cue to start talking. That accounts for the quease-inducing footage of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz wetting his pocket comb in his mouth before slicking back his hair. When that doesn't do it, he spits in his hand and wipes it down. If his mother is alive, I hope for his sake she doesn't see this film.Such scenes are typical of vintage Moore, catching his subjects off guard.
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/about/press/view.php?id=6

Oh yeah – and in Comencini’s masterpiece “Lo Scopone Scientifico” too, capitalism was embodied by a frail, sick, ever so moving old lady who was just trying to steal, not only the poor’s money, but most of all the poor’s HOPES of ever becoming as rich as her.

I will say this, though: at the point where Charlton Heston wanders abstractedly away when the questioning gets too hot, with Moore in angry pursuit, the ageing actor suddenly wears an expression of weary, wounded blankness very similar to Ronald Reagan's when he was being questioned about the Iran-Contra scandal.
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/fridayreview/story/0,12102,839711,00.html

The truth, as always, lies in MIKE’S MIKE. This seemingly incredibly violent, incredibly unfair struggle is in fact the sweetest, the fairest, the most terrifyingly peaceful there is to be found : no blows, no jabs, no punches from the Big Bad Angel. The violence is in the Frail Moving Weakling. The injustice pours out of the mouth of The Frail Moving Weakling and into the Mike of the Big Bad Angel, like toads from the villains in the ancient tales. And all the Big Bad Angel does is LISTEN. LISTEN in Golden Silence.

And IT HURTS !!!!!!!!

MICHAEL MOORE: I'm not going to give you the popcorn pleasure of watching me throughout the two hours shoving a stick up every member of the Bush administration.
EW: I'd say you did that throughout the movie.
MICHAEL MOORE: I let them do that themselves. They have the funniest lines.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikeinthenews/index.php?id=89

Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word – read the transcript of his whole speech.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

But, Mike, aren’t you still big and bad and fighting the frail and the weak ? How can this be right, whatever the intelligence and the elegance that you put in it ?

And - Boo ! Boooooooo !!! goes the self-righteous mob - louder than a poor guy’s bombs.

Well, self-righteous clowns – remember that The Frail Moving Weakling only LOOKS like a frail, moving weakling. Remember that the Wrestling is ALL A SHOW.

The Frail Moving Bastard is in fact rich, powerful, merciless, dead as ice and cold as stone. But he’s able to achieve a rather good and convincing schtick of Pity Me I’m Just A Man by CUTTING HIMSELF FROM ALL THE EVIDENCE OF WHAT HE REALLY IS.

(In this case) this is the Dick Clark restaurant, it is his name and he is a shareholder in it, and he profits from it. He didn't put the gun under the bed that the boy found. He didn't shoot the little girl. He didn't make that woman poor. But he was trying to benefit from her poverty. He was trying to get a tax break. He wasn't motivated by altruistic reasons, like, "Let's try to employ as many poor black women as we can to raise their standard of living." No! Try, "Let's get workers for our restaurant at the bare, base minimum wage and then let's get a tax break so we don't have to pay our fair share of the taxes that could help elevate some of the poverty." All right? That's his little role in it, and he can't just divorce himself from it.

http://www.splicedwire.com/02features/mimoore.html

And so, the receptive Big Bad Angel who listens is also an ACTIVE WRESTLER, whose art and strategy consist in forcing the Frail Moving Bastard to MARRY AGAIN HIS DIVORCEES.

One technique is THE CROSSCUTS, which display analogies and metaphors meant to RESTORE THE TRUTH :

Why are these gun nuts upset that their brave NRA leader's words are in my film? You'd think they would be proud of the things he said. Except, when intercut with the words of a grieving father (whose son died at Columbine and happened to be speaking in a protest that same weekend Heston was at the convention center), suddenly Charlton Heston doesn't look so good does he? Especially to the people of Denver (and, the following year, to the people of Flint) who were still in shock over the tragedies when Heston showed up.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

Another technique is THE QUESTIONS, which display impossible answers and missing pieces to RESTORE THE TRUTH :

It's vintage Moore, for example, when he brings along a Marine who refused to return to Iraq; together, they confront congressmen, urging them to have their children enlist in the service. And he makes good use of candid footage, including an eerie video showing Bush practicing facial expressions before going live with his address to the nation about 9/11.

http://www.fahrenheit911.com/about/press/view.php?id=6

And this is how the rare Frail Moving Bastards who are mad enough to actually think of themselves as frail and moving – LOSE.

Where does your relationship now stand with Nike CEO Phil Knight?
Deep tongue kissing.
Seriously.
Nike is very upset at this film. They got ahold of a bootleg copy and called and said, "We'd like to meet with you." I thought they were going to tell me they're going to build the factory in Flint, where I challenged them to build one. Instead, their director of public relations flies to New York and takes me out to breakfast. I sit down at the table and he says to me, "What would it take to have two scenes removed from the movie?" And I kind of freaked out. I didn't even want to hear what the offer was. I just said, "Well, I'm not taking anything out of the movie. I'll add a scene. I'll add a scene of you building that factory in Flint."
What scenes does Nike want out?
He said Phil was upset at two things in the movie where he felt he misspoke himself and he wanted to clear up. The thing about the fourteen-year-olds he didn't care were working [in Nike factories in Indonesia]. He said the age is actually sixteen, something Phil had already told me in the second interview. The second thing was, "In five years, one of those poor little Indonesians is going to be your landlord." They sort of figured out there's some subtle racism in that statement, and they wanted it out.
What made Nike invite you over in the first place?
I have no idea. Maybe Phil just thought he was a hip, groovy guy. Maybe his wife told him to.

http://industrycentral.net/director_interviews/MICHAEL MOORE02.HTM

But, Mike…Shut the fuck up now, self-righteous MOB.

SHUT THE FUCK UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SAME OLD STORY

2007-03-30T07:26:00.000-07:00

This entry is the first part of the section entitled "The Storyteller" in my essay "Yes, He Makes Movies", devoted to Mike's contribution to film.

localroger has an interesting theory about Michael Moore, the filmmaker : to him, “he keeps making the exact same movie over and over. And surprisingly, it gets better every time.”

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/7/4/84621/13655

In other words, Mike keeps on telling the same STORY in rumbling spires, and with each new movie he’s getting closer to its own perfection.

In his remarkable essay, localroger still somehow fails to describe the exact plot of the Moorean Lost Story. He limits himself instead to a familiar but reductive analogy with the “Emperor’s New Clothes” tale instead : “Moore is simply the little boy at the Imperial parade who is willing to wonder very loudly why that guy with the crown isn't wearing any clothes.”

He then notices rightly that the pro-Moore and anti-Moore factions don’t define themselves by their political belongings (pro-Bush / anti-Bush, or even pro-capitalism / anti-capitalism), but rather through THEIR IDEA OF OBSCENITY : “The people who like Moore are the ones who have also noticed that the Emperor is naked and who welcome a voice brave enough to say it openly. The ones who dislike him are the ones who have some kind of investment in the fineness of the Emperor's raiment.”

(above : scene of “A Cheaper Way to Conduct a Witch Hunt”, the opening ketch to “The Awful Truth” series, I, 1)

And finally, according to him, the progress lies in “growing into more universally relevant topics.”

All of this is true. But not enough to explain Mike’s success in GETTING ACROSS WHAT EVERYBODY KNOWS.

For Andersen Just Said It.

But MIKE JUST DID IT.

“What comes across to the common person who is not parsing the discourse like a debate squadder is a damning sufficiency of things that undeniably speak for themselves”, in localroger’s words, indeed. But Andersen didn’t show this sufficiency of THINGS. Andersen didn’t go to the HEART OF THE MATTER. Andersen merely showed the OBSCENITY of it all.

Whereas MIKE SET THE CONTROLS TO THE HEART OF THE SUN.

Whereas the Moorean Story is a QUEST.

The Quest of Socrates setting out as a Lone Wrestler to become Scrooge’s Nemesis.

LOUD AND CLEAR AND SUBTLE

2007-03-29T04:19:00.000-07:00

This entry is the fourth part of the section entitled "The Innovator" in my essay "Yes, He Makes Movies", devoted to Mike's contribution to film.

“Roger and Me” had a FORMULA. The film was lauded for its unique combination of acerbic editorializing and exploration of the deterioration of the Flint community in a most casual, accessible and personal manner. The former is the Moorean touch. The latter is the Quality Mainstream touch.

Mike has always been a master provocateur, adept at raising temperatures and arousing passions. Under his shambling, wilfully unglamorous persona lies a shrewd intelligence, someone with the keenest of eyes for the preposterous and the absurd, a filmmaker who knows both what he can make fun of and what makes fun of itself.

Mike is Today’s Master of Agit-Prop. And he handles it through the dialectics of emotion and restraint on the one hand, and the dialectics of comments and silences on the other.

(above : an Agit Prop poster based on the crosscut technique used by Mike in Roger and Me to point out the true nature of Roger's Christmas wishes)

Agit-prop is a contraction of "agitation and propaganda". The term originated in Bolshevist Russia, where it didn't bear any negative connotation at the time. It simply meant "dissemination of ideas". In the case of Agit-prop, the ideas to be disseminated were those of communism, including explanations of the policy of the Communist Party and the Soviet State. In other contexts, propaganda could mean dissemination of any kind of beneficial knowledge. "Agitation" meant urging people to do what Soviet leaders expected them to do at various levels. In other words, propaganda was supposed to act on the mind, while agitation acted on emotions, although both usually went together.

Now the Moorean Touch lies in the truly exceptional dignity the filmmaker shows in practicing this lost, difficult and now pejoratively connoted art. Its secret is simple – obscenely simple, to some : he treats the victims like victims, and the villains like villains.

Mike, who’s been accused of coming close to emotional pornography in occurrences such as his extended depiction of Lila Lipscomb’s pain in F9/11, or his leaving a photograph of murdered little Kayla at Heston’s home, finds in fact in such scenes the perfect dialectics between emotion and restraint, which generates in turn the most powerful emotional punch and the most effective appeal to a vast and receptive audience in the American heartland we ever witnessed since Chaplin and Capra. But, rather than featuring grisly images of the World Trade Center collapsing, he lets the screen go dark, like he was closing the eyes of 3 000, relying on sound to convey the horror of the event. And this scene restores the sense of infinity attached to the loss of these innocent victims, and brings back the sense of obscenity where it belongs – to the mainstream media.

As acknowledged by CNN Reviewer Paul Clinton :

“The heart-wrenching grief of Lila Lipscomb is a taste of exactly what the USA needs now: a head-on, popular confrontation with the Bush war machine. It's great if much of Fahrenheit 9/11 makes people uncomfortable. Better still that it makes the warmongers burn with shame at the senseless loss of life they have caused. And it'll be the very best if it helps fire the US people to throw out the warmongers and build movements for lasting social change.”

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/591/591p13.htm

Yes, this coming from a CNN reviewer. Now so much for the voyeurism.

On the other hand, the villains receive the perfect parallel treatment, through the dialectics of comments and silences. In F9/11, Mike doesn’t rub political salt into the continuous incompetence of the Bush administration, or its behavior. He doesn’t need to say anything when the AG starts singing Let the Eagle Soar. He doesn’t need to comment on Bush‘s “I call you my base” fund raising dinner. He lets the “talkies” do the work – and the effect is infuriating.

As for the traitors – the PR people dispatched when Mike charges, cameras rolling, into their polished corporate lobbies – their (self-)treatment is even harsher. Unable to laugh at his engaging brattiness, these hapless flacks must politely push him toward the door while defending corporate downsizing in an era of record profits. The look on their faces—a fascinating blend of fear, frustration and "I hear what you're saying, bro"—expresses the potency of the big-picture questions Mike asks in Roger and Me and The Big One.

Did you ever feel sorry for the PR people you pestered during the
filming of The Big One?
Look—they're workers too. The CEO won't come down and talk to me, so they've got to deal with me. So, I do feel bad for them on one level. On another level, they're the good Germans. And I gotta tell you something: Most of them are former journalists who saw they could make three times the money in PR. And every day, they sit in those cozy little offices and get softball questions from the mainstream press. For one lousy day out of their lives, some overweight guy in a ball cap comes into the lobby and asks a simple question: How do you defend the position that the company just made a record profit and laid off ten thousand people? They know it's indefensible; they're not stupid.

http://industrycentral.net/director_interviews/MM02.HTM

And above all that, but not, NEVER beyond good and evil, Mike never forgets decisive subtlety for his undertones in overall style. Discreet Monna Lisa smiles at the Winks of Fortune. Hints at the Cosmic Joke behind it all. This he calls his “10 percenters” :

I put these little films in the movies, I call them the 10- percenters. I know that only 10-percent of the audience will get it, but they're going to love me for it, because they're going to be part of the 10-percent who will get the joke. I know that less then 10-percent will read the French title of the film poster (Heston sits in front of the French poster for A Touch of Evil during his interview with Moore.) Thee French call [the movie] "A Thirst for Evil." A thirst for evil… and he asked to sit in front of it! We're just going, 'WOW!' Not everyone gets it when the women in the bank (where you can get a free gun if you open an account) says while I'm trying to remember how to spell, 'Caucasian,' and she says, 'I don't think that's the part they're going to be worried about.' That line just speaks volumes! Two white people sitting down, 'Ah. Don't worry about that part, you're a white guy!' (laughs)

http://www.themovieinsider.com/celebrities/cid/116/

Now if the 10-percent were ever to turn into 90-percent, none of my pro-Moore pieces would be necessary, Dumb-ya’s would never get elected ever again, and the world would go rounder.

But it isn’t done….

ATYPICAL DOCUMENTARIAN

2007-03-28T04:55:00.000-07:00

This entry is the third part of the section entitled "The Innovator" in my essay "Yes, He Makes Movies", devoted to Mike's contribution to film.

At this point, there’s a need to go deeper into the seemingly shocking contradiction between the words “documentarian” and “Genius”.

First of all – he Makes Movies – but does that make him still a documentarian ?

Is "Fahrenheit 9/11" a Documentary Film, or What is a Documentary Film?
by Eugene Hernandez

Discussions about Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" have raised questions about what exactly a documentary film is. (…) During a panel discussion about telling political stories, at the Nantucket Film Festival just days before the release of "Fahrenheit 9/11," panelists debated some of these very issues. (…)

How do you define the term "documentary film"?

Liz Manne, partner in the NYC-based production and consulting company Duopoly : "Clearly the definition evolves as our culture evolves, and morphs over the course of time -- whether you call it 'documentary,' 'non-fiction,' 'reality,' or simply 'unscripted,' all these terms are partly accurate and partly inaccurate."

Matt Dentler, from the reactionary SXSW Film Festival in Austin, Texas which is currently promoting “Manufacturing Dissent” (*) : "A documentary was once best described as 'academia on film' but now is best defined as 'journalism on film.' It may be world news, it may be arts & leisure. It may be serious and disturbing, it may be hilarious and irreverent. It may be Walter Cronkite, it may be Hunter S. Thompson. Whatever the case, it's journalism." (…) "It's also borderline propaganda, just like a newspaper's endorsement for a politician during an election. No matter how important I feel the message is, and no matter how much I agree with it, it's hard to look at the film as objective." Dentler added that he liked the film and agreed that it is a documentary. "Historical documentaries or 'talking head' pieces should tell both sides of the story, both sides of the history. And, in a sense, 'Fahrenheit' tries to portray itself as a historical doc, but it's really closer to propaganda. I think a very key point of this is how the film credits Michael Moore as the writer, a credit (that) documentaries rarely feature."

Josh Braun of Submarine, who has repped a number of docs for sale : "While we assume the term documentary film presently conjurs up thoughts of box office success stories such as 'Super Size Me' and 'Spellbound,' these films are really non-fiction narratives that start from a reference point of documentary film but have structural roots in fictional narrative and reality television. Therefore the term as it applies (or doesn't) to the new crop of non-fiction narrative films is outmoded and requires an overhaul."

(*) This is a personal note from fear_and_hate_9_11

http://www.indiewire.com/onthescene/onthescene_040702docs.html

Beyond moderate and objective Liz Manne, and against anti-Moore borderline fascist Matt Dentler, let Josh Braun’s be my conclusion. Say no Moore…

Now, what makes Mike so ATYPICAL a documentarian ?

First off, his global outlook and the universality of his aims necessarily cause bold, broad and clear-cut artistic licenses in the treatment of his MOVIES : and that means CLEVER EDITING, DISTORSION OF CHRONOLOGY AND STAGING THE FACTS FOR THE SAKE OF A HIGHER BUT TOO LENGTHY TRUTH.

For example, in Roger and Me, Reagan's visit and the pizza shop was in 1980, before he was president and Robert Schuller came to Flint in 1987, after the Great Gatsby party. This criticism was later reaffirmed by film critic Pauline Kael in a review in the New Yorker, when she declared the flick "a piece of gonzo demagoguery."

In defense, Moore stated in the interview, "The movie is essentially what has happened to this town during the 1980's. I wasn't filming in 1982...so everything that happened happened. As far as I'm concerned, a period of seven or eight years...is pretty immediate and pretty devastating....I think it's a document about a town that died in the 1980's, and this is what happened....What would you rather have me do? Should I have maybe begun the movie with a Roger Smith or GM announcement of 1979 or 1980 for the first round of layoffs that devastated the town, which then led to starting these projects, after which maybe things pick up a little bit in the mid '80's, and then _boom_ in '86, there's another announcement, and then tell that whole story?....Then it's a three hour movie. It's a _movie_, you know; you can't do everything. I was true to what happened. Everything that happened in the movie happened. It happened in the same order that it happened throughout the '80's. If you want to nit-pick on some of those specific things, fine."
http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/celebrities/michael-moore-faq/part1.html

For example, plenty of well-meaning Good Germans complained that, in F9/11, the story of Lila Lipscomb’s political conversion was fake because, the first time Mike met her, her son had already died in that helicopter crash, but he still constructed the sequence in such a way that you don't know he's dead until later in the film.

Only trouble is that this ANECDOTE doesn’t prevent the STORY from being TRUE… Lila did convert to anti-war after her son died.

And TRUE IN A SUPERIOR WAY… for a MOORE STORY beats an ANTI-MOORE ANECDOTE any time.

The truth is that chronology is distorted because Mike’s movies can reach up to TIMELESSNESS, in the superior significance of the overall substance as well as in the superior accuracy of the overall form :

As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, when Heston proclaims "from my cold dead hands," this appears as Heston is being introduced in narration. It is Heston's most well-recognized NRA image – hoisting the rifle overhead as he makes his proclamation, as he has done at virtually every political appearance on behalf of the NRA (before and since Columbine). I have merely re-broadcast an image supplied to us by a Denver TV station, an image which the NRA has itself crafted for the media, or, as one article put it, "the mantra of dedicated gun owners" which they wear on T-shirts, stamp it on the outside of envelopes, e-mail it on the Internet and sometimes shout it over the phone”.

Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it?

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

Moore cleverly structures Fahrenheit 9/11, achieving a sort of lyricism with his “rhyming couplets” effect. The rounding up of suspected resistance fighters in Iraq by US soldiers parallels images of the way US military recruiters target blacks in the poor parts of Flint. The wailing grief of an Iraqi woman whose uncle's house has been bombed is reflected by the heart-wrenching grief of Lila Lipscombe in Flint, whose son was killed in Iraq.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/591/591p13.htm

And still, the last word to all of this Superior Art, Superior Truth and Superior Knowledge remains a frustrating, and secretly excruciating, “What do I know ?”. For, contrary to what one might think from Godard’s really stupid statement that “Moore is more intelligent than his movies”, the tiny reed of a man in Mike does bow, at the end of the day, to the impossibility to possess his own art : his stories, and the makings of of his documentaries, are clearly journeys of discoveries for the man with the mike himself, who makes no bones about not having the answers EVEN THOUGH HE HAS SO MANY OF THEM.

And THIS is Genius.

(above : "Voyage to Lilliput", from Gulliver's Travels)

BEYOND NICK BROOMFIELD

2007-03-27T06:24:00.000-07:00

This entry is the second part of the section entitled "The Innovator" in my essay "Yes, He Makes Movies", devoted to Mike's contribution to film.

One might (and has) argue(d) that these tremendously effective and intelligently honest methods are nothing new. Nick Broomfield invented them, not Michael Moore. Nick Broomfield was the innovator, not Michael Moore.

(above : Mike with fellow documentarians Kopple, Spheeris and Broomfield, barefoot on the left)

And so, at about the same time as Rob Blackwelder was falling a victim to Mike’s Superior Truths (10.27.02), in his essay entitled “One of Us”, Tim Grierson was asking a very good question :

“Why is it that people generally treat Michael Moore like a conquering hero” (yes, they roughly still did in 2002), “Why is it that people generally treat Michael Moore like a conquering hero but Nick Broomfield as a slimy weasel? In reality, aren't they the same person? Both are documentarians. They both use their films as journalistic investigations into societal issues. Not content to stay behind the camera, each guy plays a visible, central role in his movies."

Alas, this new applicant for the Championship of Truth finds it smart to subsequently spend the rest of his ink re-establishing Broomfield as the real conquering hero, and Moore as the real slimy weasel – completely unaware that Michael Moore’s Crucifixion had begun, and that he was part of the Crucifiers.

From this wasted essay, one can still learn about Broomfield’s greatness. But, from here, we can only infer Mike’s Superior Greatness, and that’s what I’ll do afterwards.

Grierson :

“Nick Broomfield's films aren't as noble, but that's fine; they don't operate under any false pretense. A serial killer, a Hollywood madam, a rock-star suicide, and now the bloody murders of two hip-hop superstars -- this is normally the stuff of National Enquirer fodder, but Broomfield is fascinated by such unconventional subjects. What he's done with the terrific Biggie and Tupac (as he's done so many times before) is sift through a seemingly unsavory story to find some unusual characters and milieus, bravely and entertainingly exposing them along the way.

Biggie and Tupac investigates the unsolved murders of legendary rappers Notorious B.I.G. and Tupac Shakur. Unfortunately for Broomfield, the film's release coincided with a lengthy piece in the Los Angeles Times, which offered a much different theory behind the individual killings. But much like Oliver Stone's impassioned muckraking in JFK, the question of "Who did it?" in Biggie and Tupac is less important than illuminating the buried and little-known information involved in these cases. Neither JFK nor Biggie and Tupac purport to be unquestionably true, but they both achieve a greater purpose -- they make you see the case in a new light, they shake up your preconceptions, and they provoke
you to keep asking questions.”

(Grierson quotes from http://www.knotmag.com/?article=467)

The same can be said of Michael Moore… but Mike plays TWO OR THREE OCTAVES HIGHER (and here lies Grierson’s real main beef against him : “Nick Broomfield's films aren't as noble….” Moore is not dwarfish enough for his taste).

The Columbine slaughter, too, was tabloid fodder.

Mike, too, sifted through a seemingly unsavory story to find some unusual characters and milieus, bravely and entertainingly exposing them along the way.

Mike, too, investigated… but he investigated APPARENTLY SOLVED MURDERS – to find that the real murderers were NOT “monsters” Klebold and Harris… but AMERICA AS A WHOLE.

Ouch.

In BFC, too, the question of "Who did it?" is less important than illuminating the buried and little-known information involved in these cases…. But EVEN MORE IMPORTANT IS THE WIDELY KNOWN INFORMATION ABOUT BANKS, WALMARTS AND LOCKHEEDS – so that America doesn’t stand accused so much as the “everybody knows” type truth of CAPITALISM AS A CULTURE OF DEATH. Ouchhhhhhhhh….

Like JFK and Biggie and Tupac, BFC doesn’t purport to be unquestionably true, but it both achieves a greater purpose -- they make you see the case in a new light, they shake up your preconceptions, and they provoke you to keep asking questions.

However, beyond these ambitions, BFC’s GREATEST purpose of all is to ALSO PROVIDE THE ANSWERS THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS, PLUS THE ANGER THAT NOBODY FEELS….

….Ouch, ouch, ouch !….

And so, the awful truth isn’t that Moore is the slimy weasel. It’s not even that both documentarians are to be put on a par. It’s that MOORE IS BEYOND BROOMFIELD : a Broomfield with Genius. He’s to Broomfield what the Beatles were to Little Richard or Buddy Holly.

OUCH.

KARMA MAN

2007-03-26T05:38:00.000-07:00

This entry is the first part of the section entitled "The Innovator" in my essay "Yes, He Makes Movies", devoted to Mike's contribution to film.

In a confrontational interview following the release of BFC and in the wake of the anti-Moore mania that was soon to win over each and every conformist heart, one by one, the Lying Man of Truth has defended his methods.

He was inspired on this day. In a tremendously powerful and convincing, yet casual, demonstration, the Man of Truth converts doubting but unwary Rob Blackwelder, who should have run from the light to keep his illusions, by sheer means of rationality and common sense. This masterly display of the power of dialectics is called “Gunning for Michael Moore” – a title that was surely found after the meeting actually took place - and it sure is something to read, actively read and witness.

Rob first confesses to having “a problem with some of Moore's conclusions and many of his methods, including some of his blindsiding interview tactics, his tendency in this film to leave out information that could provide a bigger picture when talking about specific cases of gun violence, and his scattershot way of assigning blame.”

He consequently takes Mike to task, asking him from scratch why he didn’t place any blame at the feet of the uncle who left the gun where the kid could find it, but went to L.A. to hassle Dick Clark instead, even though he really had no connection to the event except that he was a major shareholder in the restaurant that got a tax break for hiring the welfare mom.

Mike answers precisely : “Blaming the uncle for having the gun there in his house was done sufficiently by the mainstream media. Because I live there, I saw all that. The uncle not only was blamed, but he's now in prison.” And those familiar with the F9/11 controversies will have recognized here the “No blame on Saddam” pattern.

He then elaborates on the mother’s doomed two jobs karma, which forced her to involve the uncle.

RB: OK, I'll give you that. I'll give you that, but...

MICHAEL MOORE: That's a big give, though!

RB: I understand the problems with the welfare-to-work...

MICHAEL MOORE: It's not just problems with the welfare-to-work. It's inherently evil. It's an act of terrorism.

And those familiar with the Roger and Me controversies will have remembered the factory/Mc Veigh exploding buildings crosscut pattern.

Now for Dick Clark, and also in karmic terms : “his is the Dick Clark restaurant, it is his name and he is a shareholder in it, and he profits from it. He didn't put the gun under the bed that the boy found. He didn't shoot the little girl. But he was trying to benefit from her poverty. He was trying to get a tax break. (…) That's his little role in it, and he can't just divorce himself from it.”

And the Socratic lecture ends in the same spiralling ricochet logic, involving capitalist selfishness which just CAN’T DIVORCE ITSELF FROM THE POLITICS OF FEAR : "I wanted to say something much larger about how society is manipulated by politicians and corporations into being in a constant state of panic and fear," Moore asserted, "and how once you get the population whipped up like that, conservative regimes can get just about anything they want out of the people without firing a shot."

“Since I'm not pretending to be an objective journalist in this article, I'll just conclude by saying, Amen to that, Brother”, Rob has to conclude with suitable but all too rare humility.

(All excerpts from http://www.splicedonline.com/02features/mimoore.html )

Call Michael Moore The Karma Man. The one who understands the intermingling and intertwining of personal responsibilities to an extent which makes him able to grasp the Superior Truth inherent to his seemingly tiny topics, by means of spiralling ricochets. That’s how he’s far, far beyond his original inspiration – Nick Broomfield. (see next post)

THE ABSOLUTE DUEL

2007-03-25T06:16:00.000-07:00

This entry is the third part of the section entitled "The Eternal Artist" in my essay "Yes, He Makes Movies", devoted to Mike's contribution to film. It deals with Mike as the heir of Frank Capra : a direct democrat.

(above : Mr Smith goes to Washington, only to non-meet the Multi-headed non-listening Hydra in Congress)

Like Capra, Mike chose direct democracy as his main strategy.

His work, in his movies as well as in his TV series, revolves around a very simple pattern :

He questions some person of great power or wealth whom he feels, knowingly or not, betrayed the public trust.

The chase, the fight, the showdown : these are the three steps and the Trinity to the Battle of Evermore between the Man of Art and the Man of Power.

And this Absolute Duel becomes even more absolute when the Artist infringes on the Politician’s prerogatives, to make himself heard, and WIN. And THIS is what The Moderate and Objective Enemy calls lying.

Ever since the Greek tragedies, artists have, from time to time, asked themselves how they might influence ongoing political events. It's a tricky question because two very different types of power are involved. Many theories of aesthetics and ethics revolve round this question. For those living under political tyrannies, art has frequently been a form of hidden resistance, and tyrants habitually look for ways to control art. All this, however, is in general terms and over a large terrain. Fahrenheit 9/11 is something different. It has succeeded in intervening in a political programme on the programme's own ground. For this to happen a convergence of factors were needed. The Cannes award and the misjudged attempt to prevent the film being distributed played a significant part in creating the event.
To point this out in no way implies that the film as such doesn't deserve the attention it is receiving. It's simply to remind ourselves that within the realm of the mass media, a breakthrough (a smashing down of the daily wall of lies and half-truths) is bound to be rare. And it is this rarity which has made the film exemplary. It is setting an example to millions - as if they'd been waiting for it.
John Berger

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1289515,00.html

And THIS is how all the sugary lying of humor and satire leaves you burning with the Truth of a ferocious, lasting, and hopefully untameable ANGER…

Chaplin, again – NOT too serious, too honest Capra this time :

T: FAHRENHEIT 9/11 reminds me of the Charlie Chaplin movie "The Great Dictator". That movie was very much criticized at the time of its release. People said, "it's not a comedy; it's more like propaganda and it is very preachy." What do you think about Charlie Chaplin?
MICHAEL MOORE: Chaplin in America is remembered as the great comedian. But the other truth is, he was a great political force. He was a socialist and he used his comedy and his filmmaking always on the side of the little guy and against the rich man. It was always the Little Tramp against the boss, the Little Tramp against the policeman, the Little Tramp against the factory, right? That was his character, that's what he did. And he combined comedy with the tragedy. And people flocked to the cinema to see him. And he had a profound effect on the movies, on people, on politics and he became a danger to the point where he was threatened and couldn't get in the country because he was blacklisted. I don't have a favorite. I'm both of those people. In the famous insignia of comedy and tragedy, you know, the two masks, those Greek masks of comedy and tragedy? Well, that's what you see in my films. They're two sides of the same coin. Our best comedians have been the angriest people. Charlie Chaplin was an angry man. Richard Pryor was an angry man. George Carlin, I don't know if you know him, a comedian in the United States, is an angry man. Lenny Bruce, angry man. And they turned their anger into comedy, and then into a message to people. I hope people don't see me as just an angry guy, because I'm not just that. I'm all these other things too.

http://www.japattack.com/japattack/film/moore01.html

And when the anger is here, THEN the tragedy can happen.

Zola, this time – NOT too peaceful, too hopeful Capra :

He didn't call it "J'Accuse!" but he might as well have.

Like Emile Zola, whose celebrated 19th century open letter assailed the French government for being a party to intolerable injustice, Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11 has launched an unapologetic attack, both savage and savvy, on an administration he feels has betrayed the best of America and done extensive
damage in the world.

http://www.fahrenheit911.com/about/press/view.php?id=5

SINGING IN THE RAIN

2007-03-24T09:02:00.000-07:00

This entry is the second part of the section entitled "The Eternal Artist" in my essay "Yes, He Makes Movies", devoted to Mike's contribution to film. It deals with Mike as the heir of Charlie Chaplin : a satirist.

(above : Machine raging against Charlie Chaplin in "Modern Times")

Like Chaplin, Mike chose humor as his main weapon :

"Political humor is a good way of providing a message -- as opposed to giving a sermon." - Michael Moore

http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/celebrities/michael-moore-faq/part1.html

In spite of being a preacher, Mike is a satirist first. He’s a satirist first BECAUSE he’s a preacher.

For satire alone provides the necessary distance to get intellectually angry. That is, angry for good.

Brecht, for one, had noticed that the phenomenon of catharsis generated by tragedy according to Aristotle was in fact a nuisance : people get stirred, people get moved, people cry… and then people forget. Whereas the hidden coldness of satire, behind its cool, deadpan LOOKS, drops the anger like a stone to the bottom in the well of your heart…

…and you don’t forget….

World: Canadian Bacon was the funniest film at the festival, at the same time one of the most serious. How does humor fit into political action?
Moore: First of all, I think humor is a very effective means of communicating a message to people. I think we've all seen that too many people are turned off by the sort of soapbox kind of preaching. That stuff's good when you're preaching to the converted, but when you're trying to convert, for whatever reason, wherever we're at now in 1995 in America, it doesn't work very well. So I decided to use my sense of humor as a means to affect change, to get people thinking about the issues.
Underlying the humor though is a very serious point, and underneath that is a lot of anger. I think some of the best comedy comes from people who are very angry about the situations they see in the world and the humor sort of acts as a means to deal with the frustration of living in the society in which we live.
http://www.pww.org/archives95/95-09-23-3.html

THE HEIR OF SOCIAL COMEDIES

2007-03-23T07:00:00.000-07:00

This entry is the first part of the section entitled "The Eternal Artist" in my essay "Yes, He Makes Movies", devoted to Mike's contribution to film.

Mike has realized and known since long that Something is rotten in the state of Hollywood, Denmark :'

'Most films in America are dumb and stupid and make a lot of money,'' he says. ''Then you have a few art-house films that don't make much money. I think there's a big middle ground. People who live in the Pittsburghs and the Milwaukees and the Flint, Michigans, have a brain and would like to see a film that has all the normal movie conventions but is also about something. Why do these things have to be incompatible? Couldn't you have a Jim Carrey movie that makes social commentary?'' The great divide between comedy and commentary didn't always exist, in Moore's view. ''Look at Charlie Chaplin, our great film comedian,'' he says. ''All his early films were social comedies or political comedies. He was commenting on the times in which he lived. Where are those films today? They don't exist. The closest we get is 'The Player' and a few others."

http://www.michaelmoore.com/dogeatdogfilms/cbcst.html

Yes, Romeo Social and Juliet Comedy divorced a long time ago. And Mike says : “Come together… Right now, over me.”

Capra, Chaplin, Sturges : Michael Moore is the heir of social comedies.

Think back to Roosevelt. He had the Capras, Sturges, Steinbecks and they moved millions, the nation, with their art. That brought popular support to a radical agenda. Don't need to make polemical documentaries.

http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7&pid=2104

For example, Roger and Me was described as “a comedy about 30,000 people losing their jobs.”

http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/celebrities/michael-moore-faq/part1.html

Capra, in particular, showed how one single ordinary guy can be crucial to his environment : his family, his city (“It’s a Wonderful life”), his country (“Mr Smith Goes to Washington”).

And Charlie Chaplin “made comedies about the politics of his time. Where are these films today? These are the films I want to make," he said. "It's difficult to pull off -- making people laugh and think at the same time. Hollywood seems to think those two things are incongruous."

http://www.michaelmoore.com/dogeatdogfilms/cbhrep.html

Mike is their heir.

"I MAKE MOVIES"

2007-03-22T07:21:00.000-07:00

"I make movies," Moore told me plainly, when I asked him how he answers the critics who say his films are not documentaries. "I don't write non-fiction books," he continued, referring to his successful career as an author. "I don't call it non-fiction, I call it a book."

http://www.indiewire.com/people/people_040624moore.html

I have set out to write my thoughts about Michael Moore’s contribution to film.

But all of my efforts will be lost on the reader if I overlook the basic paradox at the core of his work, and if he/she fails to admit that essential truth that, although Mike makes documentaries, he is NOT a documentarian ; and that, although Michael Moore “lies”, he is NOT a liar.

Mike writes books. He doesn’t call them non-fiction, he calls them books.

Well, just the same, Mike MAKES MOVIES. He doesn’t call them documentaries, HE CALLS THEM MOVIES.

In other words, Mikes endorses a superior, global vision of what The Truth is : his base is non-fiction, but his home is vaster and includes personal themes, artistic references and lineage, and an original know how when it comes to the lost and ancient art of storytelling.

In Godard’s words, “A great artist who starts from fiction is bound to meet non-fiction in the end. A great artist who starts from non-fiction is bound to meet fiction in the end.”

And the fact that this very filmmaker, initially enthusiastic over Roger and Me when it looked weak and doomed, failed to acknowledge Mike’s genius and finally rejected F9/11 in 2004 at Cannes without having seen it, only goes to show how much The Truth of Lies is difficult to really figure out and to really accept, even to those who can see it.

INTRODUCING A SET OF ESSAYS ABOUT MIKE AS A FILMMAKER

2007-03-21T19:57:00.000-07:00

I have written a lengthy, detailed, and hopefully enlightening piece about Michael Moore as a filmmaker.

Erm.

Actually, very lengthy.

Being all of a sudden savagely fed the solid content of 24 typed pages, my blog savagely fought back as blogs will do : various technical bugs and problems which finally forced me to back down... I fought the computer and the computer won.

Tell you what : I'm going to do that little by little. One part at a time. Maybe even one sub-section at the time. And, in order for it all to still make overall sense (something I'm keen on), I'll limit myself for tonight to the general outline of what I have, to be honest, to call a mini-book.

Here goes then :

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE : YES, HE MAKES MOVIES

INTRODUCTION : I MAKE MOVIES (Putting An End To The Obsession with “The Real Documentary”)

I - THE ETERNAL ARTIST

A – THE HEIR OF SOCIAL COMEDIES
B – SINGING IN THE RAIN
C- THE ABSOLUTE DUEL

II - THE INNOVATOR

A – KARMA MAN
B– BEYOND NICK BROOMFIELD
C- ATYPICAL DOCUMENTARIAN
D – LOUD AND CLEAR AND SUBTLE

III – THE STORYTELLER

A – SAME OLD STORY
B – SOCRATES AS A WRESTLER
C – SCROOGE AND HIS NEMESIS

CONCLUSION : HE MAKES MOVIES (The Documentary Ends Where The Quest Begins)

SYNOPSIS

Mike "makes movies", as opposed to "documentaries" (for the pro-Moore) and to "crockumentaries" (for the anti-Moore). Meaning that he's BASICALLY A FUCKING ARTIST.

Heh.

Like all true innovators, Mike has roots and lineage. He's the Heir of Capra and Chaplin and that means he tries to get Romeo Social and Juliet Comedy to marry again on the one hand, Man of Art and Man of Power to divorce again on the other ("The Eternal Artist").

But Mike is of course better known for his revolutionary methods and techniques. He didn't create them, but he brought them to perfection : his subjective non-fictional stories, both loud and subtle, can reach up by spiralling ricochets to mythical status, allowing us to get a grip on the world and on our own freedom ("The Innovator").

For Mike is a Storyteller, and the power of the universal Story he bears inside him ridicules the imbecile particular Anecdotes in which the Dwarves try to lock him, because of their tiny, miserable idea of The Truth. He also IS his Story. Beyond Andersen, he tears apart the Emperor's New Clothes. Beyond Socrates, he turns his questions into weapons and tools. Beyond Nemesis, he turns his vengeance into listening, seeing and testifying. ("The Storyteller")

There never was any "documentary". There always was a Quest.

MANU-FACT-URING FACT BASTARDS

2007-03-14T09:48:00.000-07:00

This is Dedicated, with all due respect, to the Canuck tribe of the IMDb F9/11 board....

...and to their fwends as well....

Just check my use of COLORS...

Toronto filmmakers focus on Michael Moore

Friday,
March 9, 2007 CBC Arts

A documentary about filmmaker Michael Moore by Toronto's Rick Caine and Debbie Melnyk is drawing buzz ahead of its premiere at the South by Southwest festival in Austin, Texas.

Manufacturing Dissent follows filmmaker Michael Moore during the release of Fahrenheit 9/11 and questions many of his tactics.

One of the documentary's revelations is that General Motors chairman Roger Smith, the apparently elusive subject of Moore's 1989 debut Roger & Me, had been interviewed for the film, but Moore simply chose to leave the footage out of the finished cut.

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2007/03/09/southwest-festival.html

"I don’t really understand the point of this documentary?"

Manufacturing Dissent Movie Trailer featuring Michael Moore

Posted By Peter Sciretta On 20th February 2007 @ 06:40 In Movie Trailers, Documentary, Independent, Movie Marketing, Film Festivals, SXSW

(…) Synopsis: Manufacturing Dissent seeks to separate fact, fiction and legend, tracks Michael Moore on tour during the release of the explosive Fahrenheit 911(and the subsequent Slacker Uprising Tour and 2004 US election), all the while chronicling the politically supercharged climate in America that has fueled Moore’s transition from mere filmmaker to icon of the political left.

(…)And before you ask, dissent is a sentiment or philosophy of non-agreement or opposition to an idea (eg. a government’s policies) or an entity (eg. an individual or political party which supports such policies).

I don’t really understand the point of this documentary? Is it to discredit Moore? To make him look like a fool? Can someone explain to me the point? Is it negative? Positive? Non-partisan?

http://www.slashfilm.com/2007/02/20/manufacturing-dissent-movie-trailer-featuring-michael-moore/

Now here is the picture that this person who "doesn't really understand the point of this documentary" chose to adorn his commentary :

...and here is the picture that the DOCUMENTARIANS chose for a poster to their documentary...

AND NOW TO * THE POINT *.....

The Point - Manufacturing Fat Bastards, Made (Up) In Canada

PART 1 - THE (TRAIN) SPOTTING

Doc by Toronto filmmakers questions Michael Moore's tactics

Christy Lemire - AP - Sunday, March 11, 2007

As documentary filmmakers, Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine looked up to Michael Moore.

Then they tried to do a documentary of their own about him - and ran into the same sort of resistance Moore himself famously faces in his own films.

The result is Manufacturing Dissent, which turns the camera on the confrontational documentarian and examines some of his methods. Among their revelations in the movie, which had its world premiere Saturday night at the South by Southwest film festival: That Moore actually did speak with then-General Motors chairman Roger Smith, the evasive subject of his 1989 debut Roger & Me, but chose to withhold that footage from the final cut.

The husband-and-wife directors spent over two years making the movie, which follows Moore on his college tour promoting 2004's Fahrenheit 9/11. The film shows Melnyk repeatedly approaching Moore for an interview and being rejected; members of Moore's team also kick the couple out of the audience at one of his speeches, saying they weren't allowed to be shooting there.

At their own premiere Saturday night, the Toronto-based filmmakers expected pro-Moore plants in the audience heckling or trying to otherwise sabotage the screening, but it turned out to be a tame affair."It went really well," Melnyk said. "People really liked the film and laughed at the right spots and got the movie and we're really happy about it."

Moore hasn't commented publicly on Manufacturing Dissent and Melnyk thinks he never will. He also hasn't responded to several calls and e-mails from The Associated Press.

"There's no point for Michael to respond to the film because then it gives it publicity," she said."

(President) Bush didn't respond to Fahrenheit 9/11, and there's a reason for that," Caine added.The two were and still are fans of all his movies - including the polarizing Fahrenheit 9/11, which grossed over $119 million (U.S.) and won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival - and initially wanted to do a biography on him. They travelled to his childhood home of Davison, Mich., visited his high school and traced his early days in politics and journalism.

"The fact that he made documentaries entertaining was extremely influential and got all kinds of people out to see them," said Melnyk, whose previous films with Caine include 1998's Junket Whore. "Let's face it, he made documentaries popular and that is great for all documentary filmmakers.""All of these films - Super Size Me, An Inconvenient Truth - we've all been riding in his wake," said Caine. "There's a nonfiction film revolution going on and we're all beneficiaries of that. For that point alone, he's worth celebrating."

But after four months of unsuccessfully trying to sit down with Moore for an on-camera interview, they realized they needed to approach the subject from a different angle. They began looking at the process Moore employs in his films, and the deeper they dug, the more they began to question him.

The fact that Moore spoke with Smith, including a lengthy question-and-answer exchange during a May 1987 GM shareholders meeting, first was reported in a Premiere magazine article three years later. Transcripts of the discussion had been leaked to the magazine, and a clip of the meeting appeared in Manufacturing Dissent. Moore also reportedly interviewed Smith on camera in January 1988 at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York.

Since then, in the years since Roger & Me put Moore on the map, those details seem to have been suppressed and forgotten."

It was shocking, because to me that was the whole premise of Roger & Me," Melnyk said.

She and Caine also had trouble finding people to talk on camera about Moore, partly because potential interview subjects assumed they were creating a right-wing attack piece; as self-proclaimed left-wingers, they weren't.

Despite what they've learned, the directors still appreciate Moore.

"We're a bit disappointed and disillusioned with Michael," Melnyk said, "but we are still very grateful to him for putting documentaries out there in a major way that people can go to a DVD store and they're right up there alongside dramatic features."

http://www.canada.com/topics/entertainment/story.html?id=9a9567d6-106b-4cbd-9019-f74fcb14ec19&k=55604

Manufatturing Fact Bastards, THE LIES

THE (HOUSE WASTE) SORTING

PART 2 - THE LIES

confrontational documentarian : MM NEVER was confrontational. He always was pesky. He always used his Mike to Let Them Talk. “And he never gives an answer…”

their revelations : There are NO revelations to this miserable REMAKE OF “MICHAEL AND ME” (which wasn’t successful enough for the two fatasses’ tastes). As REPORTED, “the fact that Moore spoke with Smith, including a lengthy question-and-answer exchange during a May 1987 GM shareholders meeting, first was REPORTED in a Premiere magazine article three years later”, and “Moore also REPORTEDLY interviewed Smith on camera in January 1988 at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York.” I, for one, already knew it.

The Point - Manufattturing Fact Bastards, THE DECEITS

THE (HOUSE WASTE) SORTING

PART 3 - THE DECEITS

the Toronto-based filmmakers expected pro-Moore plants in the audience heckling or trying to otherwise sabotage the screening : McCaine and his Whore of Babble-On felt (RIGHTLY) guilty for acting like The Seventh RIGHT-WING ATTACK on Mike (“This Divided State” being the only pro-Moore documentary done in the direct WAKE of his HARD WORK) and expected the same kind of punishment that Republican slandering sites got in 2004 from a NOW LATE, LAMENTED pro-Moore dedicated Army

Michael : These true, dedicated pro-Moore left-wing McCaine and his Whore of Babble-On NEVER call him by his Real Name : MIKE. They call him MICHAEL instead. Like Ralph Nader.

"There's no point for Michael to respond to the film because then it gives it publicity," she said.

"(President) Bush didn't respond to Fahrenheit 9/11, and there's a reason for that," Caine added.

This one’s pretty plain to see but remains and absolute must to ALL of the “left-wing” Iscariots and ALL of the “left-wing” traitors : “Michael” = “(President) Bush”

The two were and still are fans of all his movies : McCaine and his Whore of Babble-On WERE fans, but they AREN’T. Not anymore.

But after four months of unsuccessfully trying to sit down with Moore for an on-camera interview, they realized they needed to approach the subject from a different angle : McCaine and his Whore of Babble-On can’t have REALIZED that, cuz Mike Wilsod, Brian Baloney and Larry ELDER had “REALIZED” that FACT before them. Even RABID ATHEISTS like McCaine and his Whore of Babble-On must have REALIZED that this RIGHT-WING ANTI-MOORE TRINITY came first, long before them.

those details seem to have been suppressed and forgotten : They SEEM… but they HAVEN’T BEEN.

Despite what they've learned, the directors still appreciate Moore : McCaine and his Whore of Babble-On LEARNED * NOTHING *. The Repug Trinity said it all in 2004. Unless, perhaps, their righteous attacks “seem to have been suppressed and forgotten” ? BIGGRIN.

The Point - Manufacturing Fat Bastards, THE HYPOCRISY

THE (HOUSE WASTE) SORTING

PART 4 - THE HYPOCRISY

it turned out to be a tame affair : Tame affair for tame filmmakers, tame audience and tame “left”. What a SURPRISE.

the Toronto-based filmmakers expected pro-Moore plants in the audience heckling or trying to otherwise sabotage the screening : McCaine and his Whore of Babble-On expected the audience to be pro-Moore ? What a JOKE.

"All of these films - Super Size Me, An Inconvenient Truth - we've all been riding in his wake," said Caine : McCaine explains that his documentary is SIMILAR to Super Size Me and An Inconvenient Truth, both genuine pro-Moore movies. What a SURPRISE and what a JOKE.

She and Caine also had trouble finding people to talk on camera about Moore, partly because potential interview subjects assumed they were creating a right-wing attack piece; as self-proclaimed left-wingers, they weren't : McCaine and his Whore of Babble-On describe themselves as “self-proclaimed left-wingers”. SAY NO MOORE.

The Point - Manufacturing Fat Bastards, THE SLANDER

THE (HOUSE WASTE) SORTING

PART 5 - THE SLANDER

People really liked the film : People liked to see Mike humiliated.

and laughed at the right spots : They needed no pre-recorded laughter, it was inside them.

and got the movie : They got that THE POINT was to BELITTLE MIKE.

and we're really happy about it : McCaine and his Whore of Babble-On are happy that the 300 are dead and that they’re left with an all-Persian “”””””””””pro-Moore””””””””””” audience."

Let's face it, he made documentaries popular and that is great for all documentary filmmakers : McCaine and his Whore of Babble-On acknowledge how much Mike really is A GREAT MAN. They also acknowledge that he did * THEM * ONLY GOOD.

There's a nonfiction film revolution going on and we're all beneficiaries of that. For that point alone, he's worth celebrating = “Poor, poor, pitiful, nonfictitious Fat Bastard !!”

"We're a bit disappointed and disillusioned with Michael," Melnyk said, "but we are still very grateful to him for putting documentaries out there in a major way : the Whore of Babble-On is “a bit disappointed and disillusioned” (but NOT TOO MUCH, let’s remain MODERATE AND OBJECTIVE) with “Michael” (like Nader), but she’s still very sorry for Poor, Poor, Pitiful Nonfictitious Fat Bastard, whose GREATNESS SHE’S WELL AWARE OF.

THE POINT : MANU-FACT-URING FACT BASTARDS, * THE TRUTH *

THE (HOUSE WASTE) SORTING

PART 6 - THE TRUTH

As documentary filmmakers, Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine looked UP to Michael Moore, as stated in the TITLE. That is, they were dwarves and he was a giant. And they realized that AWFUL TRUTH when confronting their IDOL. So they set out on a QUEST TO BELITTLE MICHAEL MOORE by “questioning his tactics”, that is, “soiling his immaculate purity”.

It was shocking, because to me that was the whole premise of Roger & Me," Melnyk said : the Whore of Babble-On is shocked that THE GIANT DIDN’T ALIGN WITH HER DWARFISH MINDSET.

The lies and deceits are equally shared between the author of the article and the authors of the movie. So tightly that THEY BECOME THE TRUTH.

There are NO revelations to this documentary, other than PRICELESS ONES ABOUT THE “LEFT”.

McCaine and his Whore of Babble-On’s real AGENDA is to KILL THE STORY-TELLER and to KILL THE ARTIST, so that MIKE gets CUT DOWN to CROOKED LYING COWARDLY POLITICIAN like KERRY.“Manufacturing Dissent” is really about MANUFACTURING THE CONSENT OF MILLIONS OF SWARMING MCCAINES AND WHORES OF BABBLE-ON.

* MY POINT *

Fuck the traitors.

Death to Judas Iscariot.

Death to McCaine and his War of Babylon.

DAY OF THE WHORE

2007-03-11T09:43:00.000-07:00

Written March 8, 2007. Slightly edited for more discretion. Will edit some more if asked to.

Once upon our time, it started this way...

What is Feminism?

by Doodle1 (Wed Mar 7 2007 12:20:22)

Feminists want equal rigths. But what is the fundy definitio

3 Women

Pr Gloria Orenstein (Greek Chorus of the Hicks : “Is she Jewish ????? Is she Jewish ?????”) will often openly marvel at the fact that she was born on International Women's Day (March 8th) and grew up to be a professor of Women's Studies. For her experiences have taught her that "the most ordinary occurrences in our everyday lives, in what we mistakenly think of as non-sacred reality, are in fact signposts on a path whose underlying pattern has been set in motion with our birth, or more likely perhaps, even before our physical birth into this dimension." And looking back at the synchronistic signs, symbols, and omens of her life has convinced her of the genuine sacredness of worldly reality.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/comp-lit/biographies/fc_bio_orenstein.html

So….

HAPPY HYDES OF MARCH TO DIAMOND_D, MY FRIEND THE MOORE DISLIKER and HELEN_WHEELS, ALL WOUNDED WARRIORS OF THE GOD OF WHORE !!!!

(and for those wondering about the presence of Helen here, I’ll specify that she was born on International Women's Day – simply).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_8

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/women/womday97.htm

When I was a lead singer and lyricist for punk band The Phallocrats (christened by your servant, but soon to be unbaptized under the pressure of progressive hippies and feminist ass licking zealots X, drummer, and Y, keyboard player), I met Z, who was to become my best friend and still is to this day. Z decidedly fell in love with me and I couldn’t fall in love with her. Not really. This caused many a tangle which forced me to look deeper into my beliefs (in a nutshell, Death To Patriarchy) and question my own intimate postulates in regards to the nature of femininity.

I perceived that the figure of the Mermaid – that Suave Obstacle to Brave Ulysses’s Quest For Home - was the one who best summed up the way I felt about women. My ma had rocked me as a child, but she had also rolled me all night long. The frigid, distant, sulking and chic approach of the Neo-Romantics of the ‘80s (a tribe I hated) was the one that suited me best.

I'm taking nothing
It's not my way
It's almost summer now
This bed's been made
Some time ago a figure strolled
Along the esplanade
Changing in the mist and light
Underneath the green arcades
A blurred girl
A blurred girl

Are we running still?
Or are we standing still?
Are we running still?
Or are we standing still?
Standing so close
Never quite touching
Standing so close
Never quite touching
A blurred girl
A blurred girl

Wounded in sleep again
The sequences move by me
A million miles across the room
A tearing sound of smiling
We're fixing distances on maps
And echo paths in crowds
The light from other windows
Falls across me now
A blurred girl
A blurred girl
A blurred girl
A blurred girl

Standing so close
Never quite touching
Standing so close
Never quite touching
Never quite touching
Never quite touching
Never quite touching
Never quite touching

This song by John Foxx (!!!) from his first solo LP “Metamatic” inspired the one I wrote for Z, with a little help from my friends Y and A (composers) :

It’s looking good
He’s looking good
She sat and he stood now she’s in the mood
He’s better than nice
He’s as cold as ice
He’s not here.

It’s looking at you
He’s looking at you
You smiled and he flew now you start anew
He’s better than sweet
He’s a piece of meat
You’re not here.

It’s looking like
They’re looking alike
They yelled and they died now who’s got the mike
They’re better than you
They’re bitter and blue
They’re not here.

It’s looking grim
It’s looking dim
It came and passed now it’s here to last
It’s better than new
It’s always been you
It’s just here.

She liked it.

Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles

Z was and is a radical feminist, who first introduced me to Valerie Solanas (whom I only knew by name) and her “SCUM Manifesto”. I didn’t fall in love with Z, but I fell in love with her Black Jesus Christ. So, if you feel so inclined, you can check the tribute I wrote for her, as well as for (originally) Upsize This, an absolutely terrible “left-wing”, “”””””pro-Moore”””””” site which, before the populace of the IMDb Fahrenheit 9/11 board, was to be the first to get a taste of my Dr Robert medicine, and to ban me for that (but that’s another story) :

http://michaelamour.blogspot.com/search?q=valerie

Now of course Valerie eats John Foxx for breakfast.

As for Mike, he did write a piece called “The End of Men” – a piece clearly inspired by this she-V -, for Stupid White Men.

Sadly and surprisingly, this text is (easily) one of his worst. Some critics mercilessly called it a rant and I didn’t try to dissuade them.

I guess that, to Mike too, women remain a Dark Continent. And of course patriarchy has made sure that they remain a Dark Continent to themselves, to complete the picture.

Britney Spears

So I’ll close this lecture on my favorite Feminist Anthem – a still of the situation and the broken record which both sums up and tears apart the Feminist Rut : X Ray Spex’s “Oh Bondage Up Yours !” in 1977 :

Some people think little girls
Should be seen and not heard
But I think, Oh Bondage, Up Yours!

One, Two, Three, Four

Bind me tie me
Chain me to the wall
I wanna be a slave
To you all
Oh bondage up yours
Oh bondage no more
Oh bondage up yours
Oh bondage no more

Chain-store chain-smoke
I consume you all
Chain-gang chain-mail
I don't think at all
Oh bondage up yours
Oh bondage no more
Oh bondage up yours
Oh bondage no more

Thrash me crash me
Beat me till I fall
I wanna be a victim
For you all
Oh bondage up yours
Oh bondage no more
Oh bondage up yours
Oh bondage no more

Bind me tie me
Chain me to the wall
I wanna be a slave
To you all
Oh bondage up yours
Oh bondage no more
Oh bondage up yours
Oh bondage no more
Bind me tie me
Chain me to the wall
I wanna be a slave
To you all
Oh bondage up yours
Oh bondage no more
Oh bondage up yours
Oh bondage no more
Oh bondage up yours
Oh bondage no more

It was 30 years ago today, Poly Styrene taught the band to play.

But she’s been going in and out of style, and now she has retired, like Leonard Cohen, in a monastery. For no Rut can be torn apart. It just doesn’t work that way.

Guaranteed to raise a smile ?….

Valerie died in material and moral misery. Poly Styrene wore off too early, too soon. As for Z, she has married an asshole who hates me to piss me off, and now she spends a lot of time complaining about her man being an asshole and wondering why on earth she married such an asshole to begin with.

….Well, the International Day of the Whore is still part of the month of Mars...

The Definitive James Bond Soundrack

Bond is the definitive male archetype today. A selfish, classless twit who serves the upper class so he can keep on shagging the best wines and drinking the best girls, and who's only attracted to already married women, so that he won't do what his Calvinist mom doesn't want him to do.

James BOND. So this is where the bonds of marriage are today... Hell-O-Hell.

Once upon our time, it started to end this way...

THE DEFINITIVE JAMES BOND SOUNDRACK

by Mr_Nike_Guy (Thu Mar 8 2007 13:00:43)

HYMN A L'AMUUUUUUUUUUUUUR TUUUUUUUUUUJUUUUUUUR.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD1L3iS9jB0

SIGNATURE : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUJjERiU4Oc#GU5U2spHI_

What is Feminism?

by Doodle1 (Wed Mar 7 2007 12:20:22)

Feminists want equal rigths. But what is the fundy definition?

Re: Montenegro and all that

by Waldo-6 (Thu Mar 8 2007 09:39:37)

Gypsies are cool.

SIGNATURE : Ma Ze Po?! Republikat Bananot?!!!!

Re: Montenegro and all that

by JackDelahunt (Thu Mar 8 2007 09:46:53)

Gypsies make cartoon movies. SANTUARY!

________________________________________

SIGNATURE : ----DEATH TO HIPPIES!----

Re: Montenegro and all that

by Waldo-6 (Thu Mar 8 2007 10:48:19)

Gypsies are like hippies, only they live in reality.

SIGNATURE : Ma Ze Po?! Republikat Bananot?!!!!

Re: Montenegro and all that

by Moores_watch (Thu Mar 8 2007 16:43:04)

Reality ?... It's immaterial...

....My wallpaper today.

SIGNATURE : Does anybody really know what time it is ? by Chicago Transit Authority.

MARS

2007-03-11T09:33:00.000-07:00

Written March 2, 2007. Slightly edited to fit the blog concept.

Mars is the God of War.

He's the brother and the enemy of the God of Whore.

Tis the Beginning of March. "March" is "Mars" in French. "March" is the sound of charging feet in English.

I've known very early that I was a Warrior. I wasn't 10 yet when I first discovered T. Rex's "Electric Warrior" - and took it for what it was.

But I didn't know WHOSE warrior I was then.

But T. Rex wasn't cool by the PEEPS' standards. They weren't even ever that cool in England, so I'm not even telling you about America in the '80s...

Marc/Mars Bolan was infinitely more sex conscious than the too celestial Zombies. But T. Rex were a GIRLY BAND. An anecdotal, not so important band for LITTLE 13 YEAR OLD GIRLS. Julie Burchill sorted that out very well for the NME, at the time when the NME was The Enemy - now, it's just ours. Even John Peel, who discovered Marc Bolan and was his Godfather, got it all wrong about him... HE DISOWNED HIS SON.

I vaguely knew all that. Still I said innocently to the PEEPS of my school that T. Rex was my favorite band. And as I was also NOT ONE OF THEM, an orphan, and especially GREAT, those worthy sleuths immediately spotted that frail, intellectual, 4-eyed weakling as A FREAK.

And this is how it all BEGAN.

When I got out of the lunatic asylum at 19, I saw "Roger and me" and immediately knew that I was a Warrior, and whose Warrior I would be. But still it took me a long, long time, to really KNOW it. Cuz I was A FREAK. And freaks are not supposed to be warriors - they're supposed to be hippies.

This never fooled me - consciously. But now I realize how SCARED I always was to be EXPOSED. I realized that I NEVER USED MY INFLUENCE IN THE OPEN, NEVER OPENED MY MOUTH PUBLICLY, along with Zinn, Chomsky and a thousand other professors. Cuz me * I * knew, in my guts, what THEY (and perhaps even MM) didn't know : that the USA is NOT a free country. Not any more. Since long.

And I realize how much I always liked SHADOWS, how much I always acted a lot, worked a lot and did a lot, but NEVER IN THE OPEN. I had (and still have) a NEW MODEL ARMY of devoted friends and students whose main function was to HYDE me. Internet was the thing for me. Really.

In spite of all that, I always felt kind of PARALYZED. Paralyzed by SHAME. Cuz I thought of myself as a COWARD, even though my activism was very efficient and threatening to the fascists.

And this is how it all BEGAN.

"Mars" is also a book by Fritz Zorn. A guy who finally let his St Anger be. But NEVER REVEALED HIS WORLDLY NAME. I won't comment on it. Read it.

http://www.amazon.com/Mars-Fritz-Zo...72857328&sr=8-1

Fritz Zorn died of cancer, in spite of having accessed the International Herald Tribune. John Lennon was murdered.

Michael Moore is alive and well and working on "Sicko", a DOCUMENTARY about health care.

Never mind the cigarettes. They are bollocks. They are the consequence of cancer, not the cause. So is GW. Et vice versa.

I don't know if I'm going to die. Cuz I don't know if I want to. I know that solar people usually DO beat the clock. And I do know how much I infinitely loathe and despise humanity, and, with all my might, want it to die - because I'm convinced that's what's really good and just and deserved. And I loathe it a little more with each and every new awkward move from one of the hicks.

Fritz Zorn and John Lennon died of fear and hate. Michael Moore didn't. Is it because he loves humanity so much, in spite of knowing much better than me what it's really worth ? I think so.

So, the Cure, for me, doesn't consist in stopping chain-smoking. THE CURE CONSISTS IN CHANGING MY MIND ABOUT HUMANITY.

And THAT's the reason why I'm doing what I'm doing.

Not for you, hicks.

HOT

2006-09-12T15:23:00.000-07:00

Michael Moore's forthcoming hotties unveiled at Toronto....

On September 8, Mike's appearance in a sold-out "Maverick Night" was the first of several political highlights at the festival. Wearing his sneakers and baseball cap, he gave the lucky audience a preview of Sicko, emphasizing problems getting health insurance in America, the contrast with next-door Canada and differences between what he described as a "me-first" American society and a gentler "let's help others" attitude elsewhere. He also showed a short clip of The Great '04 Slacker Uprising, a documentary recounting his 60-day, 60-city tour in the 2004 presidential election campaign to persuade Americans to vote, preferably not for Bush.

SLACKERS

The Great '04 Slacker Uprising, which may be released straight to DVDin late '07, after "Sicko" but before the 2008 U.S. presidential election, was presented first. Mike introduced it as the chronicle of his 60-day, 60-city attempt to get out the vote on behalf of Democratic challenger John Kerry.

While already working on "Sicko", which will be released by The Weinstein Company, Mike went to Bob and Harvey Weinstein with the idea for this post-election movie. In its opening moments, "The Great 2004 Slacker Uprising" is described on screen as the story of "one filmmaker's attempt to turn things around, " but festival technical problems marred Moore's attempts to show segments from the film, ultimately forcing him to cancel the clips.

"This is painful, " Mike said, after a second clip was scrapped due to persistent sound problems. While praising the festival as one of the best in the world, he was clearly frustrated with the situation.

According to movie critic Peter Howell, here's the surprise: what we'll see, set to a mournful rendition of "When Johnny Comes Marching Home, " will be more critical of Kerry than Bush. The documentary castigates Kerry for bungling his early poll lead on Bush, by failing to respond ina timely manner to a smear campaign on his Vietnam War record and his muddled stance on Iraq.

If it's true, I will be more than extremely pleased about that : I will get my rocks off. The first message that the Dems need to hear is that they suck, suck, suck. And suck. The appalling state of the Democratic party is, to me, a worse cause for concern than what it allows, lets be and sometimes helps happen.

SICKO

Three segments from Sicko were shown at Toronto. IndieWire promises that it will no doubt stir an even greater debate about the U.S. health care system than what we're already witnessing.

The clips presented stories of personal health care nightmares, including that of a woman denied payment for an ambulance ride after a head-on collision because it was not preapproved. "They try to find every way they can to deny it to you or not sell it to you, " Mike told the theater. "Or they try to find anyway they can not to pay the bill."

The "Sicko" excerpts also included an older Canadian couple who buy health insurance even for their short days trips to America, and another Canadian man living in America who had to return to Canada to have a tendon repaired for free, rather than pay $24, 000 for the procedure in the U.S. The comparison between Canada's public health care and the privatized system in the United States, concluded, would you have guessed, that Canadians have more equitable access to medical services.

Two months into editing this new movie, Mike admitted that he made the rare exception of showing something as a work-in-progress out of loyalty to the festival, where he first screened "Roger and Me." Normally, he explained, he avoids talking about or showing a new film until it is completed. "I have to [keep it secret]," he quipped, "Because I am up to no good."

And acknowledging any anonymous pharmaceutical industry reps who might be in the audience, he explained that when no insurance company would back him in the making of the film, he thought the movie might be doomed. "How did you get around that, " Larry Charles asked Mike. "I don't want to say," Mike responded, "'cause they're here..."

Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the trade group Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America, said industry officials were "freaking out and pulling their hair out" when they first got word of Moore's documentary. They have since calmed down, Johnson said.

"We can't control what a major Hollywood entertainer does," said Mohit Ghose, a spokesman for the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans. "Our focus remains on a positive agenda of high-quality health care for more Americans."

Indeed. They can't control what a major Hollywood entertainer does. That's why the health care representatives seem to have chosen to downplay the potential impact of Mike's documentary - a well known card. LOL.

But to those anonymous health care industry reps in the audience, Mike cautioned that his film "will not be necessarily what you think its going to be." In one example, the director compared the no holds barred tactics of American football with the seemingly more fair regulations that guide international soccer, as a way of apparently explaining that his movie will consider the deeper reasons for America undervaluing health care.

Ambitious, interesting and visionary like BFC was it seems. Will Sicko be a history of selfishness, like BFC was a history of violence ?

THE FANTASY OF BUSH'S ASSASSINATION

2006-09-08T08:22:00.000-07:00

A hypothesis or a fantasy ?

The ongoing Toronto film fest is going to feature Gabriel Range's Death Of A President, a "what if" taking the pulse of the nation two years after Bush has been murdered.

So, two years after the mini-scandal raised by Nicholson Baker's Checkpoint (2004), in which two characters spent the novel daydreaming on the subject and discussing the pros and cons of the possibility, the idea of Bush's assassination re-surfaces, this time under the form of a fake doco set in the future :

The hypothetical assassination of U.S. president George W. Bush, winner of the heated 2004 presidential election, has drawn a lot interest to Gabriel Range's "D.O.A.P." (Death Of A President"), a Toronto fest feature that TIFF co-director Noah Cowan calls "the most dangerous and breathtakingly original film" he has seen this year. The movie is structured as an investigative doc made two years after an unknown gunman kills Bush.

The film has drawn considerable media attention, stirring debates on U.S. news channels, and last week, Toronto fest organizers were compelled to issue a statement backing their decision to include it in the festival. Planners noted that the movie is screening in the Visions program, which "spotlights films which challenge our notions of mainstream cinema and explore new cinematic territory." Continuing in the statement, the festival said, "The Toronto International Film Festival is committed to the free expression of ideas and to engaging audiences in thoughtful discussion about issues of the day. 'D.O.A.P.' contributes meaningfully to the public discourse surrounding current social issues, demonstrates highly original storytelling techniques and utilizes innovative digital effects."

Continuing, the festival noted that the perspectives and/or opinions expressed in its films do not necessarily reflect those of the Toronto International Film Festival Group. And it added, "The film is not exploitative in any way and treats what would certainly be a great tragedy respectfully and un-cynically. In the tradition of great cautionary tales, a terrible and horrifying event unveils certain aspects of society's current fears and future trends."

Of course the topic forces the fest organizers and the makers of the movie to display an extreme brand of diplomacy, and of course Bush's assassination would be "a great tragedy" and "a terrible and horrifying event", yadda yadda yadda.

And of course I haven't seen the flick. Nevertheless, I'm more than skeptical about it being about "engaging audiences in thoughtful discussion about issues of the day" and "contributing meaningfully to the public discourse surrounding current social issues".

Beneath the inevitable (and tiresome) varnish of conventional respectability that such attempts are bound to wear, I don't think that the incentive lies in any sort of intellectual approach, but in a thumping and throbbing fantasy, deep-rooted and made fascinating by despair.

It's pretty obvious that such an event would solve nothing, and wouldn't even be half as satisfactory as one might expect. When I remember the inconsolable and hyperbolic tremoloes in so many voices when Reagan died in his bed at 93, I can't help but shrug at the thought of all the eager and feisty years of "Bush's martyrdom" legends in store for us from his devoted cronies and lackeys who hold everything. No, thank you... It wouldn't be a hangover, it would be a cirrhosis. Not worth the drunkenness.

However, just like Checkpoint was really about two people who had given up on any hope of influencing their country's direction, I suspect that DOAP really proceeds from the same deafeatist and all in all sad fantasy. Dreaming that Bush is killed is pleasant, but opiated. It's especially easier than getting him impeached. His virtual murder is the guilty pleasure of a nation of slaves, smacked down by absolutism.

Still, better dreaming of that than nothing. We're still in our prison cells, but at least we quit the Stockholm syndrome. The revolutions we get we deserve.

TORONTO SURPRISE

2006-09-05T18:28:00.000-07:00

Mike will give Toronto film festival audiences sneak peeks from his two new documentaries, one of which is Sicko, his U.S. health care shocker.

The other… is a work-in-progress called The Great '04 Slacker Uprising, a document of his political travels during the 2004 election campaign.

Who would have thought ? Just a few days ago I was still coming across rants from wingnuts yelling at Mike for his forthcoming treasonable treasonous snake in the grass yadda yadda yadda Katrina opus.

Well, even though I'm not convinced that Iran is one, I have to admit that wingnuts DO like windmills. Mike is not at all after Katrina for all it seems. (for now at least... ;) )

Back to the autobiographical tour filming method that did wonders in The Big One, he's working on - sorry, I meant cashing in on - his 2004 Slacker Uprising Tour, and therefore on FREEDOM OF SPEECH and APATHY.

Personally, I'm delighted to see him tackle those subjects. Besides the fact that I never was over-excited at the prospect of some kind of Return of Fahrenheit 9/11, even in the movie's heyday, I'd rather have Mike handle less burning and yet more thoroughgoing subjects than Katrina or Bush's too obvious and too narcissistically painful record. No "I told you so" message can hold water in that country, and Mike does need to get SOME of his popularity back in order be able to reach a decent audience and display some influence again. Of course he's going to be tagged as an egomaniac again, but that would be the lesser of two evils...

And finally I do think that apathy is our deepest - and sickest - disease, and a direct consequence of the war on freedom of speech. Why the fuck would you act when you can't even speak ?

A most excellent and promising news, then.

Thom Powers, who’s the documentary programmer for the Toronto International Film Festival and the Stranger Than Fiction series at Manhattan's IFC Center, writes on the TIFF site :

Moore’s goal during the election was to awaken apathetic young voters, and here we see Moore at his rabble-rousing best. But the real stars of the film are the immense crowds energized by his message. These scenes are an amazing foreshadowing – clearly not of Bush’s electoral defeat, but of the then-growing tide of public opinion against his administration, a tide that would eventually turn against him en masse during his second term. Moore will show segments from the work-in-progress that captures the birth of a new political generation.

Exhilarating.... no ?

The Toronto International Film Festival is now mere days away. It will run from September 7 to September 16.

The Moore night is scheduled for September 8.

I look forward to the reports (can't say "reviews", given that it will be only teasers).

GET A LIFE, BIOGRAPHER !

2006-08-18T14:36:00.000-07:00

From The Truth About Michael Moore to The Truth About Life.

It was originally called Michael Moore – A biography, but I’ve recently seen copies renamed The Making of Michael Moore. Sez about it all. However, it’s Mike’s first biography ever, and so I’ll still pay it with an in-depth review as such. But as such only.

THE TRUTH ABOUT MICHAEL MOORE

“What is it about this former Eagle Scout that gets people from around the world and from all political persuasions so worked up ?”, the cover anxiously asks as an opening question. Oh, but the book was written “without an agenda to prove Moore right or wrong” and author Emily Schultz just wants to “sort the man from the myth with in-depth interviews and research”. Oh, good. For a minute I had pictured Michael Moore as a guy that riles up people from around the world and from all political persuasions. Now I know that I’m going to be graced with an objective and moderate outlook that will enable me to learn The Truth About Michael Moore. I’m fully reassured.

Sure enough, I’ve always had this dream of me and Mike sprawled on deckchairs on some faraway beach, sipping exotic cocktails as he would unfurl for me the story of his life as it came. I would understand everything and nod gently, mentally finishing his sentences as he would begin them. He would stop and take this long, cool, friendly look at me, and say with that charming, tongue-in-cheek smile of his : “You’re the only one who can do the job properly, you know”. And I would simply reply : “I know”. And we would both sip from our glasses with a renowned feeling of peace. However, visceral jealousy is unfortunately optional to perceive the sad mediocrity of this hypocritical, center left but not too much, release.

Actually, and to be fair, it’s not as bad as that. The book is well researched. You learn things. Schultz explores important and little known aspects of Mike’s life : the Flint Voice epic, the Mother Jones episode, the Flint workers’ historical background. Of course you may ask yourself what she would have done had Ben Hamper not written Rivethead – but let’s not start with left-handed compliments.

The controversies are also scrupulously chronicled and their cumulated accounts shed a light on the formation and the manufacturing of the anti-Moore subculture. Only if you do the analytical work yourself though, since these stories are there for no other reason than marveling at Moore’s ability to rile up everyone without an agenda to prove Moore right or wrong, and therefore insipidly juxtaposed with the occasional glimpses of sympathy equally shared between Mike and his adversaries - but let’s NOT start with left-handed compliments, I said.

And finally, there are a few scattered intelligent and personal insights and remarks. Very few. Here’s one (about Roger and Me), showing a shrewd understanding of Mike’s cinematic approach of the collaborator character (p 72) : “With Smith missing from much of the movie – seen only from a distance or in news clips – his double becomes Deputy Fred Ross. The kindhearted evictor, with his just-doing-my-job casualness (…) appears after every failed attempt of Moore’s to contact the CEO. At the film’s devastating climax, Smith and Ross are intercut.”

Good. I’ve paid my dues to moderation and objectivity. Now for the rest. ;)

THE TRUTH ABOUT EMILY SCHULTZ

Even by the logic of Schultz’s agenda – oops, sorry, I meant lack of agenda -, some essential controversies are missing (the school years and his paradoxical relation to teachers and authority, the continuing story of the Nader-Moore feud, the love-hate relationship with the Democrats) or hardly tackled (F9/11 in particular !). But the most unnerving is her refusal to make any space for the artistic dimension and the subsequent absence of any analysis, any concept, any chapter devoted to the evaluation of Michael Moore as an artist. Hello, Emily !… Mike is a filmmaker !…

But Emily has decided that Mike saw himself as basically a journalist, in spite of his repeated claims that he was first of all a filmmaker who felt he had to do the media’s job since the media didn’t. And this is emblematic of the consistent suspicion that is the trademark of her total lack of agenda. Mike doesn’t tell the truth. SHE’s going to tell the truth about Mike.

Her introduction opens on an episode of Mike’s life she seems to regard as highly typical of the character, as she’s going to obsess over it throughout the book : how he cleverly used the media in 1985, at a time when he was unknown, to lay a piece of agit-prop action on Reagan as he prepared to lay a memorial wreath in a German cemetery that contained the graves of Nazi SS soldiers. Her conclusion will tag him as Citizen Moore, in reference to Citizen Kane who went on to confiscate truth through the power of his populist success. In between, a classic and unexcitingly told success story. Moore is but a media whore keen on self-promotion. Such is The Truth About Michael Moore that you get when you just sort the man from the myth without an agenda to prove him right or wrong.

Well, Emily, you know – gonna break it to you as a fellow researcher and writer : when little happens between an introduction and a conclusion, other than an obsessive interpretation of every joke, every statement, every staging as a deliberate will to feed an artificially made up image of “the everyday rebel” (when you could, I don’t know, admire his fidelity and truthfulness to his roots for example) – when you do little more than that, I’m afraid that you’ll only discover what you already “knew” right from the start. And that this “knowledge” barely exceeds David Hardy’s depiction of Mike as a pathological and narcissistic phoney in Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man.

And – still as a fellow mature observer as keen as yourself on justice and objectivity – let me consequently break, in turn, The Truth About Emily Schultz’s Lack Of Agenda : your aim, dear Emily, is to offer the anti-Moore stance the moderate discourse and therefore the credibility that it lacked until now.

THE TRUTH ABOUT LIFE

Was it an aim ? Or just the logical outcome of your lack of focus, vision, depth and ambition ?

For the few good moments that I have liked, I’ll give you the benefit of doubt. Perhaps it’s not Machiavellianism but just impotence. At any rate, you sure wrote down, if not the truth about Michael Moore, at least The Truth About The Times, and I’m sure that your work has been up to all of your publisher’s expectations.

But, Emily – and this will be my last advice – if you don’t believe that Mike is the “common man” he says he is (and I share this view, just not the suspicion attached to it), be logical. Don’t treat him like a common man. Don’t be a common woman when writing about him. A life is more than a linear, tedious, unimaginative resume. Lives have opinions. Mike’s more than anyone else’s. The life of an artist is more than the events that pave its progression. And being a biographer doesn’t boil down to spoil +200 pages to prove that tautology that no artist is literal. Yes, sure, Mike is partly a self-written character since he made his biography a part of his art and his self a part of his casts. To make it a crime, or at least something hidden and therefore shameful, only stems from the dominant and ignorant right-wing puritanical crap. Witnessing the life of an artist doesn’t consist in “sorting the man from the myth”, as if a myth was a lie, as if the myth could be separated from the man. It consists in just the opposite – sorting the myth from the man. It demands from the biographer some basic answers about the reasons why his subject deserves a biography, if you prefer.

You write (p 168) : “It’s this duality of cynicism and ethics that defines the character of Michael Moore”. That’s your thesis, without a doubt. Okay, so where is your definition of cynicism ? Where do you present his ethics ? Where do you confront, discuss them – in themselves and in view of your subject and of the society and the times ? Where is your personal slant about Michael Moore anything else than the ditty you hum while typing ?

And how the fuck can you write a biography of Michael Moore without uttering the words “personal responsibility” ONCE ?

DEMOCRATS - HOPELESS OR NOT ?

2006-08-16T18:12:00.000-07:00

Mike recently advised us to do some housecleaning. And me I always do as I'm told by Mike. :-)

But I'm afraid that this time the task includes him - or, rather, the political choice that he has made and would like to see us share.

Mike believes in improving the Democratic Party. He believes that its long time sorry behavior is but the fault of a handful of righties in disguise, namely the DLC, and that we can take over what's ours and always was and impose our will on the cowards that are supposed to represent us.

I never believed that. I believe that the Democratic Party is rotten to the core and exists only as the other side of an all-Republican coin to give an illusion of a two party system to a country that has long since ceased to be a real democracy, and to keep We The People drugged with a religion of better days, sentimental sex with supposed lovers and shows on TV owing more to sports than to debates. And only the terrible absence of any credible alternative, combined to the terrible evidence of the fascist threat (and also, to be honest, to my love for Mike and respect for his judgment) made me - superficially - change my tune.

But every time I get a chance to be broken the news that the Democrats are not our lovers but American imperialism's whores, it doesn't take a lot for me to convert to the stance. (and then I pour myself a drink, chill and pull out my Feingold 2008 sticker ; that's the usual pattern).

The text below is an excerpt from a grumbling article denying all sense and worth to Lamont's victory in Marxist media Revolution :

The Democrats Are Lashed to the Mast of the Ship of State--But Why Should We Be?

As much as there are Democrats who at times criticize how the war on Iraq was initiated, or even how it is being handled today, now that the U.S. has invaded they are concerned first and foremost with preserving the strength, unchallenged power, and overall interests of the U.S. as an imperialist empire, including in Iraq and the wider Middle East. If you listen, it is from this perspective of preserving America's strength that Lamont criticizes aspects of how the war has been waged: "We are a much stronger country; when it comes to the war on terror when we're true to what we stand for, and we've compromised a lot of that over the last few years. That weakens our country." It's not that the Democrats haven't noticed how many people in "their base" hate this war, it is that the particular role the Democratic Party plays is to pursue imperialist interests while at the same time leading "their base" to believe that it is their will that is being expressed.

In a recent article in Rolling Stone, Al Gore was quoted as saying, "We're all, in some ways, lashed to the mast of our ship of state here. Because the little group at the helm should resign. You know, Rumsfeld and that whole gang have made horrible mistake after horrible mistake..."

This metaphor, of madmen at the helm (steering a boat), and the Democrats lashed to the mast of the ship, is revealing about the role the Democrats play. They may not like the crew at the helm, but they are "on board" for the bigger agenda of imperialist world domination, and from that perspective, getting out of Iraq would endanger the whole ship.

You do not take over the Democratic Party; it takes over you. And the more you try to take it over, the deeper you are inserted into its pocket. The effort you put into it is like thrashing about in quicksand--the harder you thrash, the more immobilized you become until finally you are suffocated to death. Lamont is a perfect example--happy to take your money and your energies into channels that will just piss them away, while the Democrats on top continue to pursue what they perceive to be in the overall interests of the SYSTEM they serve.

Recall what happened several months ago, when the progressive world was abuzz with confidence about impeaching the President. At that time a poll executive admitted that among the population the most requested poll was one about impeachment, but stated that his firm wouldn't conduct it because it was not being discussed by leading Democrats and therefore wasn't legitimate. Then, recall how when Wisconsin Democrat Russ Fiengold made a motion for censuring the President and, despite overwhelming support from the people, was only supported by two of his fellow Democrats.

I know how Mike sees things. I know what he would say.

Mike believes that there is but one ship, and that it's the idea that we can escape it and act outside of it which is an illusion. He would say that the Democratic Party will pursue imperialist interests only as long as "their base" believes their crap and lets itself be led by the leash and by the lies. He would conclude that alienation is not a fatality, and that democracy consists in everyone having a voice, a homeless tramp just the same as Bill Gates, period, and that it's why as soon as we know we will win, PERIOD.

Mike believes that personal awareness and personal responsibility can circumvent, change or topple the laws of sociology. Mike is a Christian before he's a Marxist.

I don't know if I believe that "You do not take over the Democratic Party; it takes over you." I really don't know.

I wonder what I am...

TRAVERSE CITY FILM FESTIVAL : 2 - 0 FOR CULTURE

2006-08-15T07:17:00.000-07:00

We could use a few good news, couldn’t we ?

Well… This time this is it ! It's happened ! The “second coming” of Mike’s TCFF has enjoyed everything it was deserving, aiming at and hoping for : a nice coverage, a good attendance, a friendly atmosphere, one or two controversies (the “Jesus Camp” one in particular), a few more Republican redemptions (Mike boasted “a lot of Republican hugs” ;)), a few less Republican copycats (no counter-festival from the local wingnuts this year) AND - from scratch - a strong and positive message.

MIKE’S NEW MESSAGE : SAVE THE CULTURE

It is very moving and heartwarming to see Mike take on the fight for culture now that a whole country has just finished to lose it : Italy, our main and ever so talented rival in movies, is now mourning the death of Cinecitta, killed by local fascist Berlusconi after half a century of artistic "cold war" with a then brilliant Hollywood.

Now we're on our way to lose everything we've ever had as well, drowning in seas of insipid superheroes for cowards unable to raise a finger against the unbearable and devastated by tsunamis of asinine blockbusters turning our souls into ruins.

The Traverse City Film Festival is Mike's personal initiative to save American culture from Hollywood. He has made it clear when launching the 2nd event of the name. What a great, exhilarating kind of crusade !...

Moore also regards the festival as part of a mission to combat what he considers Hollywood's slide into mediocrity.

"Hollywood has become an assembly line, not unlike GM, where it churns out the same old, same old year after year," Moore told The Associated Press. "Trying to play it safe, not taking any risks, and giving the people what they think the people need as opposed to listening to them and asking them what they would like."

Obviously, it will take more than one festival in a small Midwestern town to stem the tide. But, hey, Moore says, Michigan has been a trendsetter before -- think automobiles.

"I guess in our own small way, we'd like this festival to be the birthplace of this particular movement to reclaim the cinema as one of our few indigenous art forms."

According to Mike, people of all political stripes hunger for quality films :

"We all walk into the theater hoping to see something that ... will take us back to that sense we had when we first started seeing movies, that sense of awe and wonder," he said. "It's rare to have that feeling today.

"For me, a great movie is a movie that takes me someplace I've never been before, that leaves me with a feeling of exhilaration, that sends me out of the theater perhaps more enlightened. And the best ones of all give me a good, hearty laugh."

POPULAR CULTURE vs UNPOPULAR PRICKS : 2 - 0

This year's festival lineup, while revolving around a salute to Stanley Kubrick, Mike’s favorite filmmaker, was an eclectic mix -- timeless classics such as "The Wizard of Oz" and little-known indies; comedy and drama; humor and tragedy.

Two scheduled showings of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" quickly sold out, so a third was added. Also requiring additional screenings were Jeff Garlin's romantic comedy "I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With;" "The Prizewinner of Defiance, Ohio," starring Julianne Moore and Woody Harrelson; and "La Moustache," a French tale of a man who shaves off his mustache and goes into a psychological tailspin when no one notices. The closing night feature was Woody Allen's "Scoop."

As of August 2, festival organizers were predicting 75,000 tickets would be sold to the paid screenings at three venues, and at a panel discussion at the City Opera House titled "What's Up Hollywood?" Moore said the festival box office had taken in $250,000 already, and "70 to 75" of the 88 ticketed screenings were sold out.

"I can say with some certainty we will be back next year," Moore said.

First inning : MIKE vs WINGNUTS : 1 - 0

As I said earlier, the local wingnuts’ “Freedom FilmFest”, did not return to Traverse City this year. According to their co-founder (who BTW is called Hubbard, one of those coincidences that are too good to be true) , it is in part because “the event became focused on politics and the 2004 election "and that's not what our organization is about", and in part because “it was so contentious last year and a number of our people received threats to their lives.”

But according to Traverse City Film Festival co-founder and author Doug Stanton, it was rather because the "anti-Traverse City Film Festival" was a "non-issue" last year and that its absence this year has no impact on the existing festival.” LOL. I do believe Freedom Fries FilmFest's president when he promises a come back, though. If his ilk was able to learn anything, anyhow, we'd know by now.

Second inning : MIKE vs COLLABORATORS : 1 - 0

Take Eamonnn Bowles of Magnolia Pictures, who construes the noble American spirit of pragmatism in accordance with the size of his own morals and also the typical American ethics of our times....

Mr. Bowles, feeling like a man with some power, asked Mike to remove Jesus Camp, a documentary about summer camps for children who are born-again Christians, from his Traverse City Film Festival, on this irrefutable ground that Mike’s stench would harm his precious product. You just gotta love the head of movie studios - even small ones. The confidence. The ego. The arrogance.

We and the filmmakers are concerned that showing the film at a festival so closely aligned with Michael Moore will create the misimpression that the film is left-leaning and critical of its subject matter, when, in fact, the Film is a balanced and objective work. That is so in part because of the overwhelming public perception of Mr. Moore's affinity to liberal causes and anti-conservative agendas. We feel it is very important that, for this film to reach its widest possible audience, the neutrality and objectivity displayed in the film be reflected in the outreach to the public, something Mr. Moore's association does not engender.

As an observer put it in his blog, it's dubious at best to brand the guy with the equivalent of a scarlet letter simply based on his political beliefs. Well, Mike’s response was up to the challenge :

…crickets…. crickets…

Hey Eamonn… Pragmatism is a philosophy based on the idea that what is good is what is successful – not on turning heroes into pariahs, asshole. And in the noble American spirit of pragmatism, the beliefs rule the action. Not the opposite.

TCFF LIFTS OFF….

Notwithstanding these few losers, fact is that the TCFF went worldwide as press converged. Thanks to dozens of visiting journalists and news agencies, stories about the festival have been broadcast or printed all over the world.

"It's kind of funny because last year I was pitching a straight story about the film festival all over the place and I couldn't get any takers," said local free-lance writer Jane Boursaw, who writes a syndicated movie review column specializing in films suitable for families and children. "It's picking up steam, I guess." There's even a possibility that National Geographic could collaborate on future festivals.

All’s well that ends well… And should this chronicle make you feel like finding out more about what looks like the beginning of a beautiful adventure (the TCFF is already the next best thing to Sundance in the indie world), go and check the site :

http://www.traversecityfilmfestival.org

EROTIC

2006-08-14T16:21:00.000-07:00

Found that on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FHdOti48vc

AWESOME !!! I always thought that Franz Ferdinand's "Michael" had been written for Michael Moore. Or should I say, I can't imagine it may have been written for anybody else. Mike is the embodiment of desire. He "laid it down for all to see". He's Sexy Sadie...

And so, each time I listen to this song I close my eyes, open my arms, throw back my head, loosen my limbs, slightly open my lips, lean back... and that's it, I'm dancing like mad in communion with the most "beautiful dance whore" the world has ever seen, and it feels like he's there, so close he could touch me, forgetting everything about the world on his shoulders and dancing his life away by my side for a while in the Ballrooms of Mars...

ATTENTION ! The part with Bush is hardcore and somewhat vomit-inducing. Personally, it did make me feel like barfing. But it's also hilarious, and should make you laugh providing you don't let go of your imagination... or are a toughie like myself :-)....

This is what I am, I am a man
so come and dance with me Michael
So strong now, its strong now
so come and dance with me Michael
I'm all that you see, you wanna see
so come and dance with me Michael
So close now, its close now,
so come and dance with me, so come and dance with me, SO COME AND DANCE WITH ME

Michael,
you're the boy with all the leather hips,
sticky hair, sticky hips, stumble on my sticky lips

Michael,
you're the only one I'd ever want
only one I'd ever want
only one I'd ever want
Beautiful boys on a beautiful dancefloor

Michael,
you're dancing like a beautiful dance whore
Michael,
waiting on a silver platter now ... and nothing matters now
nothing matters now, nothing
Matters now but you

YEAH

POST-FAHRENHEITISM

2006-08-13T10:48:00.000-07:00

THE SOUND OF BACKLASH

Two years ago, I wrote a piece entitled Triumph of his will, or the ideology of slander, in which I detailed all the attempts from a furious and then desperate right to smear, hurt, shake and in a word trip up a furious and then almighty movie going by the name of Fahrenheit 9/11, which was pitching tents and flags of left and truth all around an until then gray world with black horizons, threatening the control rooms of threat and terrifying the specialists of fear.

The cold, paranoid, nihilistic Machine already looked pretty daft and frightening at the time, but also, and all in all, ludicrous and pitifully helpless. It was biting the dust. It was going to be defeated. It couldn’t possibly survive the worldwide onslaught from We The People led by the Commander-in-Chief of our choice. Rage, truth and reason seemed enough. It was, in Mike’s words, the sound of a dying dinosaur.

Two years later, the dinosaur is still dying, for dinosaurs will die, but it isn’t dead. At all. It tears us apart with its claws and keeps us crushed under its belly, while polls regularly and solemnly inform it that We The People are not glad at all – but won’t go as far as to actually move our asses to bump it off. For BUSH WON. And MOORE LOST.

Backlash. The infinitely bitter taste of backlash, well known from the ancient Rome. Vae Victis.

History is written by the victors, and We The People generally agree that this is the way it should be. Few of us have taken the lies, and those of us who abhor Bush and his policies are even more numerous than they ever were. But most of us have adjusted to reality and drunk the Kool-Aid. And so yesterday’s slander and propaganda have become today’s normality and obviousness. In spite of the low profile he has kept, Mike has not been forgotten by the Machine, and he’s getting duly mocked and ridiculed by its slaves old and new.

Everywhere we hear the sound of marching charging feet… Er, no. Try again.

Everywhere we hear the sound of magical chants of obsessive and childish hatred against Bush, with tiresome litanies of sensational revelations about Bush’s real agenda, far-fetched and impossible to impose conspiracy theories about Bush’s real crimes, tedious rehashing of Bush’s real level of stupidity and real records in incompetence. As if what’s plain to see and what’s at our disposal in a democracy weren’t enough to make us damn him and drive him out. As if the left valued its narcissism more than its action. As if the only real secret worth telling wasn’t that Bush and his ilk have become the closet fascination of their opponents, and their only true heroes now that We The People have bowed to the masters of the world and made ourselves willing orphans, by tacitly accepting to disown yesterday’s positive counterpart to what we pretend to hate and to spout the enemy’s propaganda in the enemy’s words.

With Bush’s victory, it is the temptation of Personal Irresponsibility that has won over the weak hearts. In the wake of triumphant immorality, open cynicism, unpunished inhumanity, minds that were simply mediocre, conventional or aimless in life until then got literally aroused by the sirens of Bush’s “Why not ?”, as if their call was the only kind of challenge they could take up. Ah, to be a winner by proxy. To identify with a no good jackass as useless as yourself, but so much mightier. To feel powerful even though you’re a nobody through simple behavioral changes such as gang mentality, invasion of privacy, playground bullying, warlike attitudes, cult of strength and random violence or cruelty. To forget you are really screwed up to the bone and but one of the casualties of that dead hope that once lent you its wings. Moore had showed you that silver lining that faded, and you will never forgive him THAT… until, or unless, the bastard wins again for your entertainment.

All it takes is forgetting about your varnish of morals. All it takes is a long, good, deep dive into confusion and unbridled principle of pleasure. Talk like them, behave like them, think like them – but don’t forget to be against them. A lot a lot a lot. Show that you are free thinkers who won’t let themselves be told what to think nor what to do by ANYONE. Be both a rebel and one of Bush’s kind. In “counter-revolution”, there is still “revolution”. It’s all that matters.

THE KILLING OF FAHRENHEIT 9/11

The history of this alchemy of communicating vessels can be tracked down very easily. A single article is enough to get the general idea of what happened : Richard Goldstein’s excellent and unfortunately all too prophetic Mauling Michael Moore : The Attack on Fahrenheit 9/11 - Fox lays back while ABC and NBC pile on, published in The Village Voice only a few days after the movie’s release.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikeinthenews/index.php?id=43

With the benefit of hindsight, the actual subtlety of the media’s well orchestrated campaign of slander will become apparent to the most honest among us pretentious conceited lot, always so busy laughing at the stupidity of the right while the man is quietly sticking it to us.

When it became clear that a two hour movie would seriously threaten the masters of the world, the White House didn’t follow the gross advocates of open censorship like David Bossie and his Citizens United. No. Dodging ridicule, they entrusted their media whores with that mission.

I remember how dumbstruck I was when I read Fox’s angelic, praising review of Fahrenheit 9/11 – even though it was Bush’s most servile channel and Mike’s most molested target. Where was the con ?

Nowhere. It was just beautiful team work. While the limelight was on the root of all evil, the crooks kept a brave face going – and it was two “moderate”, “objective” channels which enacted the essential of the dirty work. ABC ran “Fact or Fiction ?” across their screens during Good Morning America and World News Tonight, and never used Mike’s responses to George Stephanopoulos’s vicious questions and harsh criticisms on This Week. NBC ran highly negative assessments of the film on both its Nightly News and its cable channel MSNBC, called its coverage a “truth-squad report” and made no mention of the readily available rebuttals to its accusations. CNN and CBS, whose audiences lean slightly leftward, took a decent but quite forgettable pro-and-con approach to Fahrenheit 9/11, as timid and pale as the Democratic challenger who could (you never know) win the election. In both cases, it was not to be what the populace remembered.

As Richard Goldstein correctly sums it up, “What ABC and NBC called into question is Moore's extrapolation and interpretation of information; in other words, his slant. But by using loaded phrases like "truth squad" and "fact or fiction," and by omitting Moore's answers to key questions, these networks did the very thing they accuse him of doing. I would argue that this sort of distortion is far more dangerous in the context of a news broadcast than in a clearly opinionated film.”

And, as Richard Goldstein correctly emphasizes, one of these “moderate” and “objective” channels (NBC) is owned by General Electric, a prime defense contractor, and the second of these “moderate” and “objective” channels (ABC) is owned by Disney, Jeb Bush’s lackey and all time Conservative champ.

Two years later, this is how a self-proclaimed “interested observer who stands for reason, compassion and tolerance between human beings” percipiently (and typically) analyses Fahrenheit 9/11, all by himself and in all moderation and objectivity :

A LAMENTABLE PIECE OF INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY

Dear all,

I watched this film with a sense of rising dismay. Lest fiery fellow posters start pinning insulting labels on me and drawing the lines of battle right away, I hasten to add that I am not a conservative, or indeed a "liberal" in the sense that this word has been mangled today. I am just an interested observer who stands for reason, compassion and tolerance between human beings.

Michael Moore has clearly made it his mission in life to expose the bigotry, hypocrisy and self-interested greed of some conservatives, as well as their deceitful dealings in coming to power. But unfortunately, in his dangerous single-mindedness Moore cannot resist the easy temptations of intellectual dishonesty. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a veritable dictionary of all the traditional dirty tricks of propaganda: soundbites and speeches taken out of context, moralistic oversimplifications, emotional manipulation, fakely spontaneous testimonials, mood-altering soundtracks, cynically staged melodrama, misleading footage, and clearly biased and selective interviewing styles (meek, leading and conciliatory towards those Moore agrees with, aggressive, dismissive and obstructionist towards those with whom he does not) are all recurring features of his extremely subjective analysis. It is true that aside from the important matter of Moore's methods, I have no way of verifying or disproving most of the factual basis for his claims, even if much of the film is grounded upon unsubstantiated conjecture and circumstantial evidence anyway - but in any case I would not trust the motives of anyone trying to convince me of anything in such sneaky and underhand ways.

Moore’s highly partial style of reporting is all the more cause for dismay because he does have truth on his side. The deep flaws of those he condemns in Fahrenheit 9/11 are genuine, as many alternative sources from all over the political spectrum have long suggested; so is their corruption, self-righteousness, arrogance and the dangerous dogmatism of their views, and these are indeed cause for the greatest concern. But truth speaks loudly enough for itself and should be left to make its own impression, otherwise it is made into a farce, as George Orwell rightly pointed out when he said that “all propaganda is a lie, even when it tells the truth”. Moore’s documentaries incidentally include direct quotations from Orwell’s works, which suggests that Moore has at least some peripheral knowledge of his ideas. It is very telling, therefore, that he merely chose those that suited him whilst deliberately disregarding the one above, in spite of its crucial significance in interpreting all of Orwell’s political philosophy.

The fact that Moore gave in to embellishing his findings so ludicrously robs him of all credibility, something which his opponents (incidentally the primary target audience of his documentaries) will certainly not fail to point out, and thus his careful -and in many respects, valid- examination of the injustices that go on in conservative America will be utterly lost except on those who already share his opinions. Those who do not, on the other hand, will merely become even more incensed at this new evidence of what they see as the unshakable dishonesty and untrustworthiness of the liberals, and their view in this instance will be fully justified: even being a hardcore liberal (and therefore, ironically, a proponent of the inherent validity of several different points of view), Moore still cannot quite shake the puritanical orthodoxy that dictates that his is the only “right” view and commands him to annihilate all opposition to it, regardless of the means employed. Moore, like too many in America, proposes to fight unjustly for the sake of justice, untruthfully for the sake of truth and intolerantly for the sake of tolerance.

I am surprised that in discussing this film, no one else seems to have had the vision to leave all the partisan ranting aside, and simply take the film on its own merits, which are few indeed. I urge all those who would like to learn more about the hidden facets of the Bush administration, whatever your political affiliation, to give this dangerously biased film a miss, and rely instead on sources which look at these issues with a genuine respect for the truth.

Kind regards,

C

DO THE POST-MODERN

I skimmed through this review without the slightest interest, the heading A lamentable piece of intellectual dishonesty already containing everything required for an OD of anti-Mooreness of the lethal kind (and it's the only kind around), and I found exactly what I thought I'd find : "dirty tricks of propaganda"... "no way of verifying or disproving most of the factual basis for his claims"... Orwell used against a socialist... "he merely chose those that suited him"... "unshakable dishonesty and untrustworthiness of the liberals, and their view in this instance will be fully justified"... "unjustly for the sake of justice, untruthfully for the sake of truth and intolerantly for the sake of tolerance."... The pleasant phraseology, the educated style only made the lack of imagination, of common sense, of everything, more obvious.

There was, of course, no possible reply to a naive masterpiece of such dimensions.

But the cruel innocence of this infinitely sad tirade (what is sadder than a nice, open-minded and civil person who spouts garbage, unaware of the ventriloquist who first sneaked the “free”, “spontaneous” opinions inside his head ?) put me through such an agony that I couldn’t leave it unanswered.

What on earth could I say ? What would you have told him ?

I said that it wasn’t true. I said that it was a string of stereotypes. That all of the cliches which survived the defeat were here. A string of nonsensical, groundless propositions selected by the collective unconscious like the atheists say that randomness chose in the dance of atoms, to form the apologetic, self-hating discourse which explains reasonably, level-headedly, rationally why Fahrenheit 9/11 sucked, why we should never trust nor have trusted Michael Moore, and how beautiful we would be and look if not for him.

I told Mr Nice Guy that he was dreaming awake. That his piece was reasonably, level-headedly, rationally stark raving mad. That this was the kind of stance which appealed to confused, mediocre and cowardly minds who find in it a reason to think of treason as tolerance, of gross lack of realism as nuance, of cluelessness as subtlety, of lack of identity as broad-mindedness and of lack of sense of class and empathy as evolved enlightenment. That this was ass fùcked by Bush. That this was the reason why we lose and lose and lose and lose, and the reason why we will lose again for a long, long time.

That this was centrist.

Mr Nice Guy replied. For the life of me I couldn’t paste this second dissertation here. Suffice to say that it was so kind, so polite, that I couldn’t read until the end.

I told him :

”Your post begins with the supposition I must be quite keen on the post-modern school of social science. I loathe post-modernism. Post-modernism says that there is no truth. It's one of the factories of cynicism, apathy and trendy chic despair. Post-modernism is what Michael Moore defeated in 2004, before being himself defeated by the beast.”

I told him :

”What do you want me to tell you ? Uh ? What do you want me to tell you ? I'm sure you're very nice. But you're like a lot of other people. Absolutely clueless. Clueless beyond words, beyond anything I could ever express. Well, I tried.”

And then I ran.

WAS IT JUST A DREAM ?

Fahrenheit 9/11 has carried the immense hope of a whole nation – perhaps of a whole world – and opened the door for a string of important and often difficult political documentaries, bringing us unprecedented awareness and a genuine mutation in art whose depth and impact are too considerable to be measured as yet. And still.

Still… It seems like there is, as a rule, NO real possibility to explain that a new political movie is important, serious and accurate WITHOUT trashing Michael Moore while doing so. Moore is the foil that every director, every critic will use to swear he's "not like Moore" or that such movie is good because it's "not like Moore". Anything will look greater, deeper and more lasting if you DO belittle Fahrenheit 9/11 while praising it (“The opposite of Michael Moore, honest”). The more it's like Moore, the more it's not like Moore. At best, Fahrenheit 9/11 is just cut down to an "electioneering documentary" (polite phrasing for “kleenex propaganda”), now out of time and past its sell-by date.

To start like a flag and to end like a yogurt. What a sad fate.

In real life, Mike is forgotten or gets mindlessly smeared on the “obvious” mode : “Moore may be a fraud, but Bush…”, “Sure, Osama likes him, but Bush…”, “Yeah, he’s a hack, but Bush…”. Across the Internet, part of the once hyperactive pro-Moore sites are now dormant, and part have turned to Crocodile City and Rattlesnake Gulch, attracting the worst scum (true right, fake left, real swines, real jerks, real bastards) and functioning like more insidious, more hypocritical versions of moorewatch. And when once in a blue moon Mike is actually discussed, it’s always on negative, absent mode : Damon’s ridiculous suit yes, the Traverse City Film Festival no.

An armless jackass makes up a new deceit (YAWN !!!!!!), and woosh – it gets Smalltown slightly going. As that stupid affair of “no-problem with a name” functioned as a minor political fad lately, I could only make note of the persistence of the general blackout on any kind of positive or normal (ie professional) news about Michael Moore over the weeks and over the months that it made obvious. A rather strange silence in view of the positive and important news about the Traverse City Film Festival, his Freedom of Speech Scholarship, a bit about "Sicko", his note on "An Inconvenient Truth"… and finally, of course, the imperturbable drone of the neo-con slander machine.

He’s not there.

That’s what post-modernism does : it doesn’t debunk, it dissolves. There is no truth, therefore there is no truth-teller. If one turns up, let’s bring on the bath of muriatic acid for him then. Post-Fahrenheitism.

There was no sell-by date to Fahrenheit 9/11. It's a timeless work of art in its own right portraying the power of the artist against the power of the power, and, in parallel, the power of awareness in a common woman against the power of blindness in the master of the world. There is no opposition between Moore and Spurlock, Moore and Greenwald, Moore and Moretti. Different filmmakers do different parts of the same immense tasks.

But Fahrenheit 9/11 is a kind of "matrix", whose meaning is primary, basic, fundamental, and generates all of the other meanings. All we need to know and do is in F9/11. That's why it shook the world and that's why it also took all the backlash. Dura media lex, sed media lex. What if anyone was going to realize that the normal, healthy fate of Fahrenheit 9/11 would have been to spread out harmoniously into the ongoing fights to function as their pattern ? What if all the movie-goers of all like-minded movies should connect the dots between the different parts of the same work ? What if the American left was to turn into something else than tribes and factions engaged in power plays and ego trips with no real leader, no real agenda, no synthesis and no vision ?

Hush….

Somebody once told me that my response to attacks against Fahrenheit 9/11 was "comparable to the response of the Jewish to Holocaust Denial". He was only half-joking and I only half-smiled. This denial is a crime against collective conscience in the spiritual order. It killed nobody, but it kills millions of minds. There's no torture but the cynicism is there, the lie is there, the death wish is there, the machine is there, and it's moved by the "Jews" more and better than by anyone else.

Can a great movie ever really die ? Of course not….

But it can be killed.

Nighty-night everybody. Sleep tight.

MIKE'S KIND OF PILLOW TALK

2006-08-09T09:43:00.000-07:00

Thoughts about todays's letter from Mike, "It's All About Who You Sleep With ... a Cautionary Note from Michael Moore".

Heart-wrenching, but necessary. And now soberly, manly done.

I'm not so conceited as to point out that great minds think alike, but I have to admit that the facts do suggest something like that going on between Mike and me... ;)

In his previous letter, a month ago, Mike had quickly mentioned, with ironic serenity, that perseverance in persecution from the right whose effects on the left I was sadly observing at the same time.

Now, from that he infers that it's housecleaning time for us. I can only nod in agreement (that's exactly the work that I did in various places, both online and in real life) - and admire his usual straightforward courage and simplicity in addressing what needs to be, and to whom it may concern, no matter the implicit heartbreak.

Yes, "the real Mike" owns up, and he does so because it's the right time, not because Ralph "Know It All" Nader has ordered him to. The time to bury Lieberman, and to root out the long time disease that has pushed him forward, by naming those who have fed it.

And so Mike names and disowns Kerry and Edwards at last, after jiving us that Kerry was "the #1 Liberal" for so long when he had to.

And so Mike names, disowns and warns Hillary, his all time "secret" impossible love, truthfully putting her at Lieberman's level and calling her "Bush's biggest Democratic supporter of the war", because it's true and because enough is enough.

I fully understand how hard and how painful it has been for him to admit, first to himself and then publicly, the existence and the seriousness of the flaws of those he sleeps with... so that they become warier themselves of their own way of cheating on him. I know how cruel political love stories can be. And I am, once more, delighted by Mike's honesty and refreshed by his righteousness.

Boy, is it more rewarding and pleasant than dealing with Gibson's latest feats.

ABSURDO FOR PSYCHOS

2006-07-22T14:34:00.000-07:00

The Corporation is a brilliant movie, whose main force is that it both supports a real left-wing stance but carries it in a universal language that honest right-wingers can accept, and with some help from sensible capitalists and capitalists with a soul. But this force is part of Michael Moore’s, whose contributions to the movie are besides amazing and quasi-inspired (concise, impartial, accessible, close to home, to the bone, only the essential), and The Corporation would never have existed without the warnings, the imagery and the articulate criticism he patiently elaborated in Roger and me, Downsize This and The Big One before he felt called on to an even higher destiny.

The most clever point made by the film was that a corporation is a psychopathic person as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV). Again, the comparison between a corporation and a psychopath appears in outline in all of Mike’s early works, under different forms : the description of the obsession of profit over everything else, of the corporates as “aliens”, of the schizophrenia of the workers who lay off before they are laid off themselves, of the cynicism of the responsibility game…

The three works that I quoted are exhibits A, B and C for Moore vs The Corporation. They form a consistent whole. Downsize This is the extension, systematization and formalization of his personal experience with GM in Roger and me. The Big One shows the propagation of said extension and depicts of the walls that you meet when you break the silence, and particularly censorship. It's incredibly percipient, deadly logical and powerful... It's not only sound, it's permanent and with always more consistence and evidence. The Corporation is only a spin-off of one of his themes. An excellent one, an important one, but a spin-off. Everybody owes it all to Michael Moore anyway, as Jonathan Demme recently acknowledged it. Everybody. I mean, all those who chose to deal with the essential.

Here is an excerpt from Downsize This, which shows where the origin of the whole idea of the insanity of corporations comes from, down below. And not only that : also, how to fight it.

Fire with fire. Madness with madness.

Apart from the fact that it’s a magnificent text and one of the best he ever wrote, everything’s there – everything.

Excerpt from "Why Doesn't GM Sell Crack?"

DOWNSIZE THIS, Chapter 33

by Michael Moore

Today the guy in the seat next to me is the owner of an American company that makes office supplies-in Taiwan. I ask the executive, "How much is 'enough'?"

"Enough what?" he replies.

"How much is 'enough' profit?"

He laughs and says, "There's no such thing as 'enough'! "

"So, General Motors made nearly $7 billion in profit last year-but they could make $7.1 billion by closing a factory in Parma, Ohio, and moving it to Mexico-that would be okay?"

"Not only okay," he responds, "it is their duty to close that plant and make the extra $.1 billion."

"Even if it destroys Parma, Ohio? Why can't $7 billion be enough and spare the community? Why ruin thousands of families for the sake of $.1 billion? Do you think this is moral 7'

"Moral?" he asks, as if this is the first time he's heard that word since First Communion class. "This is not an issue of morality. It is purely a matter of economics. A company must be able to do whatever it wants to make a profit."

Then he leans over as if to make a revelation I've never heard before.

"Profit, you know, is supreme."

So here's what I don't understand: if profit is supreme, why doesn't a company like General Motors sell crack? Crack is a very profitable commodity. For every pound of cocaine that is transformed into crack, a dealer stands to make a profit of $45,000. The dealer profit on a two-thousand-pound car is less than $2,000. Crack is also safer to use than automobiles. Each year, 40,000 people die in car accidents. Crack, on the other hand, according to the government's own statistics, kills only a few hundred people a year. And it doesn't pollute.
So why doesn't GM sell crack? If profit is supreme, why not sell crack?

GM doesn't sell crack because it is illegal. Why is it illegal? Because we, as a society, have determined that crack destroys people's lives. It ruins entire communities. It tears apart the very backbone of our country. That's why we wouldn't let a company like GM sell it, no matter what kind of profit they could make.

If we wouldn't let GM sell crack because it destroys our communities, then why do we let them close factories? That, too, destroys our communities.

As my frequent-flier friend would say, "We can't prevent them from closing factories because they have a right to do whatever they want to in order to make a profit."

No, they don't. They don't have a "right" to do a lot of things: sell child pornography, manufacture chemical weapons, or create hazardous products that could conceivably make them a profit. We can enact laws to prevent companies from doing anything to hurt us.

And downsizing is one of those things that is hurting us. I'm not talking about legitimate layoffs, when a company is losing money and simply doesn't have the cash reserves to pay its workers. I'm talking about companies like GM, AT&T, and GE, which fire people at a time when the company is making record profits in the billions of dollars. Executives who do this are not scorned, picketed, or arrested-they are hailed as heroes! They make the covers of Fortune and Forbes. They lecture at the Harvard Business School about their success. They throw big campaign fund-raisers and sit next to the President of the United States. They are the Masters of the Universe simply because they make huge profits regardless of the consequences to our society.

Are we insane or what? Why do we allow this to happen? It is wrong to make money off people's labor and then fire them after you've made it. It is immoral for a CEO to make millions of dollars when he has just destroyed the livelihood of 40,000 families. And it's just plain nuts to allow American companies to move factories overseas at the expense of our own people.

When a company fires thousands of people, what happens to the community? Crime goes up, suicide goes up, drug abuse, alcoholism, spousal abuse, divorce-everything bad spirals dangerously upward. The same thing happens with crack. Only crack is illegal, and downsizing is not. If there was a crack house in your neighborhood, what would you do? You would try to get rid of it!

I think it's time we applied the same attitudes we have about crack to corporate downsizing. It's simple: if it hurts our citizens, it should be illegal. We live in a democracy. We enact laws based on what we believe is right and wrong.

Murder? Wrong, so we pass a law making it illegal. Burglary? Wrong, and we attempt to prosecute those who commit it. Two really big hairy guys from Gingrich's office pummel me after they read this book? Five to ten in Sing Sing.

As a society, we have a right to protect ourselves from harm. As a democracy, we have a responsibility to legislate measures to protect us from harm.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/dogeatdogfilms/whydoes.html

The absurd is not absurd. It's a devastatingly efficient logical tool for rational and honest minds. In philosophy, reductio ad absurdum, or "reduction to the impossible", is commonly used and an old favorite of Aristotle. It's a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, arrives at an absurd result, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong, since it led to this absurd result. This is also known as proof by contradiction.

In Mike's text, the premise is not his, but a statement made by the owner of an American company that makes office supplies-in Taiwan : "Profit is supreme".

Good. The writer takes this premise and follows it until a contradiction shows that it was false. If profit is supreme, why doesn't a company like General Motors sell crack? he asks. Crack is a very profitable commodity.

This contradiction shows the necessity of the ethical factor, which would be invisible otherwise. It shows even more : its very existence, since GM CANNOT sell crack, more than it doesn't want to.

Therefore, the use of formal logic allows the author to show us how precious are those "obvious" and invisible existing limits, put by the government, and how INSANE it would be to allow them to be shaken.

Personally, I think this method actually changes people's minds. And Aristotle does too.

Rational and honest minds, of course.

Fire with fire = water. Madness with madness = reason. Less with less = Moore. Porno for pyros. Absurdo for psychos. And if it doesn’t work, don’t be surprised, and don’t lose heart : you should have known from scratch that rational and honest minds are hard to find.

.....THEN COMES COLLECTIVE VIOLENCE.

2006-07-17T07:13:00.000-07:00

It doesn't surprise me in the least bit that the distributors of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" should stir up this kind of very ugly poop. It's a pattern whose truth I have personally and thoroughly experienced : you tell simple, obvious, basic but forbidden truths. Without thinking. Not because they are forbidden. Just because they are simple, obvious, basic. And because you naturally tell the truth when you see it.

That in 1966 the Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ.

That Bush is unfit for command and therefore dangerous.

That a part of the international Western left has betrayed itself and absorbed Bush's values after Bush won.

Then you realize that such truths are forbidden.

They are forbidden because they are simple, obvious, basic, and therefore impossible to refuse. They are forbidden because they break the vicious circle of intellectual dishonesty. They are forbidden because they are truths that EVERYBODY KNOWS.

Then comes collective violence.

Film shows government plot against Lennon

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, July 16 (UPI) -- The upcoming film "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" is set to expose a plan by the Nixon administration to kick the Beatles singer out of the United States.

The Independent reported that the documentary on Lennon's life -- from the distributors of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- is based in part on more than 281 pages of FBI files, and will reveal how government agencies worked together in an effort to deport the outspoken singer.

Lennon sparked outrage when he compared the Beatles to Jesus Christ and was a highly visible critic of the war in Vietnam.

"The U.S. vs. John Lennon" is being backed by Lions Gate Entertainment, which distributed "Fahrenheit 9/11," The Independent said.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060716-071742-6658r

LOSERVILLE

2006-07-14T02:35:00.000-07:00

I don't like Leonard Cohen. For lack of a better word. But I need a better word. For there ARE people who actually like him. Enough of them to have made him famous, even. But not enough of them, or not well enough, to have prevented him from retiring in a Greek monastery where he will keep his wretched Jewish mouth shut and his truths of absolute desperation roughly to himself at last.

I wonder what people who like Leonard Cohen like about him. Me I’m not afraid of death but I’m afraid of Mr Grim Reaper. His stone face who won’t lighten up, ever, and is not even a mask. His low-fi, bleak, defeated tombstone voice free of anger and free of hope. His useless, unwanted ghosts who can only be persecuted more and endure always further persecution because they tell about a brand of evil so impossible to face that the only way to handle it is to pretend that it’s not evil but something more daily, more ordinary – or just crush it as being the evil itself.

The only way ? No, I don’t think so… Just the Good Germans’ way. The Good Germans were good. They were just not heroes. They were “just men”.

Heroes like Michael Moore grant you the right to be “just a man”. They accept the apologies of the people who once crossed the street to spit on their truthful, lonely self. They accept the redemption of war criminals like Wesley Clark, and they would accept Bush’s or Cheney’s supposing that it was to happen. But sulking kids like Leonard Cohen don’t. When all is said and done, they just move away from the pulsebeat.

“Everybody knows” is about intellectual dishonesty as a means of survival. It must be his grimmest, gloomiest song ever. It tells about the necessity of mental death to face material life for those of us who like to see themselves as “just men”.

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

This Casino Royale is the property of the Devil, and this Chiffre is 666. Poker isn’t based on candor. And it’s not true that you play just to be part of. You play to win. But it’s not true that anybody can win. It’s not true that the game is poker. It’s not true that cleverness makes you win. It’s not true that it all can still be called a game. There is no such thing as a game where everybody loses but one in a million. Michael Moore said that the American dream is dead. Bad news bringer.

Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died
Everybody talking to their pockets
Everybody wants a box of chocolates
And a long stem rose
Everybody knows

Oh dear what can I do, baby’s in black and I’m feeling blue, tell me oh, what can I do. We know we should avert the disaster, but now the window pane is broken and the water is flooding in. We’re all in mourning of what mattered the most to us and that we collectively killed : our compass and our fidelity. We need love and consolation for having been so stupid, no smart ass accusers, who are they to feel innocent of the mess anyway ? Surely they have to be for something in it. Who knows if it’s not entirely their fault after all, that’s what I say.

Everybody knows that you love me baby
Everybody knows that you really do
Everybody knows that youve been faithful
Ah give or take a night or two
Everybody knows youve been discreet
But there were so many people you just had to meet
Without your clothes
And everybody knows

Ever wondered how a bunch of cruel, suicidal fools such as us has ever managed to survive over the ages – even if these ages are in fact ridiculously short and should soon meet their end anyway ? Well, it’s because love is real, real is love, love is feeling, feeling love, love is wanting to be loved. In our darkest hour, there’s always someone, somewhere, who loves us tender and loves us true. And the people who can achieve that – have mercy on the Untouchables and love the Untouchable in a worldly moron – are naturally sincere and everybody’s friends. They behave in life as open bridges. Such a shame they sometimes mistake themselves for whores.

Everybody knows, everybody knows
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows, everybody knows
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

Yeah, but what to do, Grim Smartypants ? Uh ? What to do ?

And everybody knows that its now or never
Everybody knows that its me or you
And everybody knows that you live forever
Ah when youve done a line or two
Everybody knows the deal is rotten
Old black joes still pickin cotton
For your ribbons and bows
And everybody knows

War.

And everybody knows that the plague is coming
Everybody knows that its moving fast
Everybody knows that the naked man and woman
Are just a shining artifact of the past
Everybody knows the scene is dead
But theres gonna be a meter on your bed
That will disclose
What everybody knows

This is a song about dying and rising, this is a song about the death and resurrection of Marx and Engels, this is a song about the death of honor and fidelity, this is a song about the rise of fascism and the rise of the prostitution which opens to it a French boulevard, this is a song about Michael Moore who has disclosed what everybody knows.

Who has disclosed
What everybody knows.

And everybody knows that youre in trouble
Everybody knows what youve been through
From the bloody cross on top of calvary
To the beach of malibu
Everybody knows its coming apart
Take one last look at this sacred heart
Before it blows
And everybody knows

Saint or scumbag, hero or coward, Resistant or Good German, we’re all in the same boat and chew on life’s gristle at the same table. We’re all deep in shit, we’ve all been through more pain than we could ever tell, we’ve all been crucified and we’ve all been baking under the sun. But Christ’s heart is the only one left that still has the pity, and it’s so full of lonely sobs that surely it’ll soon blow.

Everybody knows, everybody knows
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

Oh everybody knows, everybody knows
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

Yeah, but what to do, Grim Smartypants ? Uh ? What to do ?

Everybody knows

To accept to know
What everybody knows.

MONSTERS

2006-05-02T13:21:00.000-07:00

Ineffable Sean Hannity discovers the Phelps family. In shock and awe, but not so moved as to drop the fair and balanced headmaster-like, apocalyptic priest Fox News tone. In shock and awe, but not so moved by their need to burn the fags as to outrage the memory of the fallen in Iraq.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/114818/thank_god_for_september_11/

Ineffable poster ineffably called Hurleyfantasyworld (to mock the illusions of another one) obediently (and ineffably) cried out on the ineffable IMDb F9/11 board, where everyone has turned his back on the movie and practice the opposite of what it stands for and conveys : “Just look at this nutcase ! This could be something both conservatives and liberals can agree on. That this lady must be banned from military funerals.” I couldn’t have thought of a better cue for a satirical piece if I had tried.

Something both conservatives and liberals can agree on. A fucking MONSTER. You betcha.

Such a rare instance. Such a positive proposal from the pro-Bush uniters. Really doesn’t happen every day, does it ? Except for that Muslim carrying a threatening sign lately. Except for Zacarias Moussaoui. Except for that woman who killed her baby because God told her to. Except for Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris who bowled for Columbine, because of… another rare, exceptional monster (Marilyn Manson), what else ? Yup, such a RARE occasion for ALL of us to agree on something. Brought to you by Sean Hannity and Fox News.

Let's ALL look at THIS nutcase and rejoice in the warm certainty of the world going round as we read in each other's virtual eyes the proof of our own sanity. Let's just ALL stone the Phelps woman - libs and cons - and feel the power of the daily Two Minutes of Love.

Why not, after all ? She is a freak. Why not accept to be floored, why not marvel in a chorus that such people actually do exist, just because it was a topic from Fox News ? Wouldn’t it be childishly partisan ? After all, more power to them if they perceived that the Phelps were nuisances. After all, looking at her doesn’t prevent us from remaining critical toward Minitrue’s official propaganda. No ?

No. As a matter of fact, no.

My point is not that we should or shouldn't look at that woman. My point is that, and why, we are ordered by Fox News to look at her on this occasion. The heading of this thread, "Just look at this nutcase!" shows that Hurleyfantasyworld faithfully conveys exactly what Fox News wants us to do : look THIS way, not THAT way. And no, it's NOT possible to do both. By accusing the Phelps woman of what Bushco does every day in a less spectacular and more encoded fashion, Hannity operates a DICHOTOMY and a SUBSTITUTION : look at them, THEREFORE not at us. He distances himself from the caricature of what he is, and we buy it because it makes us SANE - sane for having elected monsters or doing nothing to bring them down. SO sane.

Bushco are often insulted in various ways but rarely called "monsters". That's because the "monsters" are SHOWN every day on TV. "Monster" etymologically comes from Latin "monstrare", "to show" : a monster is a huge thing that was hidden and suddenly comes to light. It’s not something bad in itself. It’s just something that you got to look at because it is shown. It only gets evil connotations because of the tight interconnections between what is hidden and what we fear. And the media decide of who is a "monster" and who isn't.

Michael Moore has been speaking out against monsters like the Phelps family for ages. Did Hurleyfantasyworld and Fox News give the slightest shit then ? Who cared as long as those freaks JUST harassed the burials of gays who had died from AIDS or been beaten up to death ? What did Fox News have to say about Matthew Shephard's death ? Where were the pro-Bush talking heads then ? Uh ?

I'll tell you where they were !

WAR IS DECLARED: The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens - and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.

NO MORE PROFOUND AN ATTACK: This president wants our families denied civil protection and civil acknowledgment. He wants us stigmatized not just by a law, not just by his inability even to call us by name, not by his minions on the religious right. He wants us stigmatized in the very founding document of America. There can be no more profound attack on a minority in the United States - or on the promise of freedom that America represents. That very tactic is so shocking in its prejudice, so clear in its intent, so extreme in its implications that it leaves people of good will little lee-way. This president has now made the Republican party an emblem of exclusion and division and intolerance. Gay people will now regard it as their enemy for generations - and rightly so. I knew this was coming, but the way in which it has been delivered and the actual fact of its occurrence is so deeply depressing it is still hard to absorb. But the result is clear, at least for those who care about the Constitution and care about civil rights. We must oppose this extremism with everything we can muster. We must appeal to the fair-minded center of the country that balks at the hatred and fear that much of the religious right feeds on. We must prevent this graffiti from being written on a document every person in this country should be able to regard as their own. This struggle is hard but it is also easy. The president has made it easy. He's a simple man and he divides the world into friends and foes. He has now made a whole group of Americans - and their families and their friends - his enemy. We have no alternative but to defend ourselves and our families from this attack. And we will.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_02_22_dish_archive.html#107764340071973047

The same Michael Moore has been explaining AT THE SAME TIME that "monsters" were red herrings, and his message is, for a great part, "Don't LOOK at these monsters, follow their trail and FIND the real monsters". And a monster you cease to look at ceases to be a monster. This way, you can see the BIG monsters that they hide.

The media do that all the time, every day. They choose a monster and by doing so keep us out of touch of the real monstrosity by moving it on harmless (ie powerless) targets. The Phelps woman has suddenly BECOME a Fox News freak just because she has distastefully attacked a forbidden taboo, instead of sticking to acceptable ones like "Fags will burn in hell". The troops are a taboo because nobody mocks and outrages them and their memory more than Bushco, so the Phelps family's rants are a wonderful opportunity to convert the tags and the labels of hatred into a DIFFERENT CODE than theirs.

"Bowling for Columbine" started from the "monstrous" act of two "monster" kids and then brilliantly spread its attentions increasingly wide, considering and concocting connections among Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris and the Lockheed Martin missile-making plant that provides much of the employment for Littleton denizens, as well as the bullets sold so cheaply by K-Mart, the NRA's birth just as the KKK was declared a "terrorist" organization, South Park, Cops, and U.S foreign policy. Which made things somewhat more complicated.

Here is an excerpt from one of his interviews at the time :

MM: I'm not drawing an A to B connection, that because they build missiles in Littleton, that's why these kids did that. It's not that simple. I'm just saying that it's worth looking at, how all these things weave into each other. If you were from another planet, and you came here and observed, it would not be lost upon you that in the town where this school massacre took place, the parents of these kids build weapons of mass destruction. It's not just a coincidence. Just as plopping my camera down in Flint, within a two hour radius, you find Charlton Heston; Eric Harris, who grew up there; the Nichols brothers, from the Oklahoma City bombing; and the Michigan Militia. But you could plop that camera down any place in America and within a two-hour drive, draw a similar pattern of insanity.

CF: Insanity that becomes so normalized...

MM: ...That you don't even think about it, you just accept it. Nobody would think about Lockheed Martin and Littleton, nobody did. All those reporters were out there, all these satellite trucks. Did anybody notice that the Lockheed Martin plant was down the road? Hmmm. What's the lesson we're teaching our children here?

CF: You demonize the individuals who commit violent acts, and contain the fear, not having to consider the systemic underpinnings.

MM: We don't want to think that Eric and Dylan are "normal." We need them to be "monsters." It's why we were taught to call them Nazis in WWII, instead of Germans. Germans are "normal." If the guy out in the woods with the Michigan Militia is a real estate negotiator, instead of some crackpot, and has a normal life, that's unnerving. You don't want to think it's as normal as the guy next door, hedging his lawn. It's easier to demonize or separate them off from "us."

http://www.morphizm.com/recommends/interviews/mikecolumbine.html

And now just think of the implications and the ramifications when the "monsters" are terrorists...

Of course we agree to look at the Phelps woman, ALL together, where would we be without her ? We couldn't snicker at those, erm, other freaks who scream blue murder about the Bush regime being a fascist regime. We couldn’t pretend that what we’re living through doesn't really exist. Thanks to the Phelps woman, we know where fascism is, and thank God it isn't in power. The cons can be sure that the government holds the troops in high regard. The libs can have cheap thrills wondering where gays would be if the Phelps freaks had their way, and disregard where gays ARE with the Bush freaks ACTUALLY having their way.

I fuck the Phelps family every day of my life, EXCEPT WHEN SEAN HANNITY TELLS ME TO. I’m just an antisocial leftist freak who only wants to rain on consensual parades and who just can’t be pleased, but I know what I like.

BROTHER DUMBO

2006-04-28T08:03:00.000-07:00

Mark Everett, moody leader of The Eels and patron saint of the misfits and the fragile, is best known for a bunch of songs, among which "Beautiful freak".

The lyrics of this song are the ones which I have to go with when I try to capture (as I do time and time again) the essence of what I love so much about my friend the Moore disliker, who doesn't speak of Michael Moore anymore. What it is in him that dives into my heart through storms, rifts and differences, and makes me do my "significant other schtick", as he said on an occasion when he tried and failed to be cynical (as he does time and time again).

But as I was proceeding to copy/paste them and just post them without comment, I perceived that they fitted Michael Moore too. And most of my friends. And a lot of my heroes. And myself.

All those that society calls freaks, turns into freaks and who still manage to handle it beautifully, without being particularly proud of that, just because they are artists, irremediable artists, unable to exist without being different and yet unable to survive without doing it in style somehow.

You’re such a beautiful freak
I wish there were more just like you
You’re not like all of the others

And that is why I love you
Beautiful freak, beautiful freak
That is why I love you
Beautiful freak, beautiful freak

Some people think you have a problem
But that problem lies only with them
Just ’cause you are not like the others

But that is why I love you
Beautiful freak, beautiful freak
Yeah that is why I love you
Beautiful freak, beautiful freak

And though my right-wing friend is jealous of the elephants that he despises, though he can make friends with them and cleverly entertain or aggravate them, cause them to like or dislike him, laugh with him or at him according to his whims, needs or moods, he too belongs to the air, the clouds and the sky.

My friend the Moore husher has big, ridiculously big ears. He hears everything in such a ludicrous fashion that the only thing he can think of doing with what he hears is laugh at it in a dry, sarcastic way, with a lot of insanity and very few words. But everything he says is important.

My right-winged friend can do everything he wants with an audience, except make it understand the secrets he knows and the truths that are vital to him.

My friend knows that flying on the ground is wrong. He knows the story of the ugly duckling. But he’s in need of a feather. The dumb asses called him Dumbo and he saw “Dumb and Dumber”. My friend can’t help turn water into wine, but he doesn’t drink it.

And yet he always ends up dancing his fears away with infinite grace.

Too good for this world
But I hope you will stay
And I’ll be here to see that you don’t fade away

You’re such a beautiful freak
I bet you are flying inside
Dart down and then go for cover

Clogged with shields and chained to an unpleasant despair. But he has the grace.

And know that I
I love you
Beautiful freak,
You know that I
I love you
Beautiful freak, beautiful freak

WE SHOULD LEARN FROM FRANCE

2006-04-25T11:07:00.000-07:00

Excerpt from a letter received from a new volunteer and supporter with the World Can't Wait - Drive Out The Bush Regime:

"You know you should be on the streets, and yet you are not"

I travel a lot in France these days, and for a long time I was irritated by the anti-Americanism when it was blindly directed toward me. After all, I thought, French people read the paper enough to know that least 50% of our population opposes Bush, the war, and so on. Then, at one point, over a beer at a highway gas station bar, an older French man said to me the following (and it's all the more compelling after the news of the repeal of the youth labor law):"We're not upset with you because we think you support Bush," he told me. "In fact, we know that most of the Americans that come to France, in particular, don't support him.

The point is, if this were happening in France, the vast majority of our students would be out in the streets protesting. Because we believe in political protest, and you don't. That's why you're such a dangerous country in the hands of Bush -- public opinion doesn't matter in your country, because you don't have the power of protest as a check against your President. Every time we see a picture of your city streets with the protesters missing, we blame America not for its idiots that support Bush. Every country has its idiots. Rather, the fact that Bush is still in office is the fault of you--" (he pointed his finger at me) "--you who know that you should be on the streets, and yet you are not."

http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?...=1367&Itemid=61

I have been following the CPE issue in France last month.

The French government, within the context of its stubborn and corporate-driven attempt to dismantle the rightly envied social rights of its people, has tried to push through a new youth job contract that would allow employers to fire or layoff workers under 26 years old who have been with the company less than two years, without any other justification than their interests, oops, sorry, I meant the common good.

Unsuccessfully.

:-)

The French KICK ASS. They buried the European Constitution, and now they killed that thing. THEY can make themselves heard. Hey, it's been two months. TWO MONTHS OF STRUGGLE AND STRIKES !

The American media did their best to discredit the protests. Talks of riots, of terrible unemployment rates, of nasty unions, any lie, anything - to make you think that one is SO MUCH BETTER OFF WITHOUT PRIDE AND FREEDOM.

The funny part is that I didn't believe them either when they said that the protesters were blockading the classes and blocking bus depots and I was asked whether I commended that too. Well, it was true !

Let's chill, anyway. This was not the Apocalypse. This was determination. First, blocking is a language. It's an elementary way of saying no. If you just nicely carry a "NO TO THE CPE" sign and nicely step aside for everything to go on just like nothing special is happening, nobody will read your sign, and nobody will understand that its meaning is basically that something special is happening, precisely. That's a first meaning. A second meaning is that stopping a bus is enacting the stopping of the law you want to oust. It's not violence. It's a symbol.

In a country of free men where strikes still mean something, solidarity must prevail over individual freedom during the action, if the action is to succeed. Strikebreakers invariably break unity, castrate the action, have a bad influence on te undecided, give a bad image, are exploited that the media and often hurt not only the cause but the activists involved by resulting in their shunning.

Therefore :

1 - Action works. Mass protests work. With this culture, values and means, the students have WON. WON, understand ? WON, as in "BUSH WON".

2 - There is no relation between blockading classes and blocking depots and burning cars. NO RELATION,, understand ? NO RELATION, as in "NO RELATION BETWEEN POLITICAL DETERMINATION AND RANDOM VIOLENCE", and as in "NO RELATION BETWEEN POLITICAL PROTESTS AND RANDOM DESPAIR".

What was the question again ? If I commend blockading classes ? Well, I would, 100 %, if it only could happen here.

A Working-Class Superhero Is Something to Be - "V".... FOR MICHAEL MOORE

2006-04-24T13:48:00.000-07:00

Michael Moore has been advertising for “V for Vendetta” on the front page of his site since it’s been released. After seeing the movie, I can easily understand why. Mike wields dynamite, so does V. Directed at the White House or at the Old Bailey – the symbol of the democracy which failed us. “V for Vendetta” conveys the same message as “Fahrenheit 9/11”, but under the form of a superhero rather than one of a story.

V is essentially a mask, like Mike is essentially a blue collar gear. As he says himself, there’s a face under this mask, but it wouldn’t be him. This mask, Guy Fawkes’s, is the face of the anger of the people : neither good nor bad, half-freedom fighter, half-terrorist. V for Vox Populi.

V is essentially a product, too. He was spawned by totalitarianism like Mike’s character – blowhard, biased, critical, scathing, inquisitive – was begotten by the American media’s “fair and balanced”, lethal sleep. Neither right nor wrong, but necessary.

Less obviously, but essentially still, V is a cultured man and a borderline artist. I could picture the dreamy smile on Mike’s face, and the sigh in his soul, as V delivered his cue : “The artist lies to tell the truth, the politician lies to hide it”.

And finally V is a miracle, like Mike. He happens in spite of, or perhaps because of, the dark forces whose sole purpose is to make sure that someone like him never happens – like the cry in the throat as it is strangled. And as he happens motionless crowds set out to march, like the hooded kids in Eminem’s “Mosh” clip, like the dominoes under V’s “flick” (pun intended…).

Of course it’s only a movie, and Mike is only a filmmaker. But the film tells that, too : V must die so as a crowd of masked Vs can emerge and reveal the thousand faces of their humanity, just like Mike’s character has to be assassinated so that people could feel the murder of America.

Of course, what everybody will ask first is whether V is “good” or “bad”, even though it’s a stupid question : V is less a hero than an ongoing mechanism and a warning against his very existence. Pointless issue, but a mandatory one, since the modern brainwashing partly consists in turning politics into morals, and the oppressed into delinquents. Pointless issue, but real problem too, since V is nonetheless not universal unless you want to fall into moral relativism and moral equivalence, and settle for the facile, unsatisfactory and unpleasant philosophy that a freedom fighter is just your enemy’s terrorist, and vice versa.

And then there are all the peripheral questions, even trickier to handle and even to phrase : those revolving around the possibility of liberation through its opposite, the relations between vengeance and justice, the necessity or the contingence of the people’s sympathy for this kind of devil.

As these questions are carefully avoided in the real world, and impossible to really ask anyway because people have forgotten the art of debating (okay they have been helped). Thanks to them, and like “Fahrenheit 9/11”, “V for Vendetta” is not a manichaean movie. Rather, a clear cut movie. A movie with a question, a stake, a plot, a model, and lots of debates. I don't go for the Wachowskis' fast-paced, baroque, dense and still conventional style, but their new opus raises exactly the issues I want to see raised. It's a syllabus for a course on the questions that President Bush doesn't wish to see raised.

With the increasing dispossession of the teaching power in the places where it normally belongs (I'm referring to the ongoing McCarthyist persecution in the academia, but also to the fashionable confusion between authority and the authority argument and the supremacy of entertainment over thought and of industry over knowledge which make it possible), the spiritual needs or if you prefer the demand for sense has moved from classroom to pictures, in an accessible but also "democratized" fashion. "Fahrenheit 9/11" was such a movie and Mike commends and recommends this evolution. He has always claimed the need for intelligent socially significant entertainment, and he likes to see himself as the heir of Capra and Chaplin. And that's what he is, indeed.

But Mike is a genius, and the others are not. There's no cure for that. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is informative and educational, like Capra, angry and funny, like Chaplin, AND a syllabus, like "The Matrix" or "V". And more. It's a world movie. It's total. It has ideas, facts, story, myths, style, unity, diversity, simplicity, complexity, answers, questions, everything. Entertainment AND thought. That's what they all find so unforgivable about it (and him), deep down. The genius. The genuine popular genius. A prole with genius. Nothing more devastating, disturbing and dangerous.

"V" is no such thing. It's unfulfilling because it's just a restless bar where customers meet, socialize and say anything about anything not trying to get anywhere while feeling philosophical or political. Still, better than nothing, and it can polarize the energies on the relevant issues. A good question is half a good answer.

So, what’s “V for Vendetta”’s good question, if we dismiss the good guy/bad guy red herring ?

Well, in our “V for Michael Moore” perspective… It’s all about personal responsibility, of course. Heh. What else ?

V may be a consequence and a product, but this doesn’t mean that he has no personal responsibility. Rather that his personal responsibility is alienated, pre-determined and doomed. He’s still a subject, but no longer a man. He’s a mask. A personal vengeance sublimated into an impersonal lust for justice.

The relation between justice and vengeance is neither simple nor clear. Israel has used both. Justice against Eichmann, when the situation allowed it, but vengeance against Black September, when they felt that the international community would let them down and that they needed to show that they could manage on their own anyway, and that you don’t fùck with the Jews.

I believe in justice
I believe in vengeance
I believe in getting the bastard

I like this verse from a song by New Model Army and I find it both truthful and psychologically satisfying. The song is called "Vengeance", not "Justice", like the movie is called “V for Vendetta”, not “J for Justice”. Because vengeance is primary. The need for justice is grounded in vengeance, in a personal sense of wrongdoing. With a little imagination, a lot of American citizens will recognize themselves in V’s path.

As a democrat, justice is what you want first, and to get it you first try legality and dialogue. Then you find that “there is no justice”. It happens silently and flatly, on a blunt and daily basis, and it's hardly personal, without glory, and not a bit as romantic as in Alexandre Dumas's novels. You find that Bush is laughing at Richard Clarke, at Patrick Fitzgerald, at the DSM, - at you -, that Bushco is only playing cats and mice with the activists who want to get him impeached, that it only exhausts them like hounds on the trail of a dummy, only stages stunts to keep them occupied and discredit them and make them look ridiculous, that there is no hope, that there never was any hope, because they have everything and you have nothing, because they have no intention to play fair whatsoever, and no intention to stop until they've crushed you to death, cut you down to nothing, some way. You are then left with despair or vengeance.

When there’s no justice, if there’s no vengeance, there’s nothing at all and the hero is crushed (as it happens in “1984”, in Terry Gilliam's “Brazil”, and in reality).

When you're ripe for vengeance, it’s because you have acknowledged the death of what meant the most to you, in you - democracy and humanity in V's case, and that you won’t get any justice through what makes sense to you - democratic means. Rather than dying alone, you decide to find the sense in killing what has killed you. Which is why V could care less about the coroner being sincerely remorseful. He feels like the tool of a mechanical retributive karma, and what acts in him is both impersonal and already dead, and therefore can't be reached.

Vengeance is at the cost of democracy (V's project is to pulverize the Houses of Parliament, ie the symbol of democracy). Which is a paradox in the sense that you kill what’s already dead – but a fake one : in fact, you stage the death of democracy as you acknowledge it, AND you kill the very democracy that you want, in the same breath (since there’s no other democracy than the one the Houses of Parliament stand for). You destroy the reality of the corrupt mockery AND the symbol. And if you don’t take this step, well, you destroy none – the symbol is safe, but so is the mockery, and with lasting and devastating effects.

Vengeance is just and ethical, in my opinion, but in a "No future" perspective. To reach justice and gain redemption status, it needs the others. And here the determining element is THE ATTITUDE OF THE POPULACE. More than a terrorist or a freedom fighter, the mythical archetype that V stands for (Robin Hood, Monte Cristo, Phantom of the Opera, Michael Moore) is a gambler. An optimistic gambler, who believes that people will like, follow and imitate him. A Kantian superhero.

In the movie, the populace is supposed to follow, Evey is supposed to understand, neither is a problem, whereas of course it's not only far from being a given - but there would have been no need for V for starters if the populace was THAT enthusiastic over V. In a really advanced, sophisticated fascist government, the government ALSO makes sure that the populace is on its side – ie numb, apathetic, or deliberately siding with it and relaying its constructions. Which is the meaning of BUSH WON. So, the consensual harmony is a postulate, an ENORMOUS postulate. Easily settled in the movie. Well, if they hadn't been, it wouldn't have been a political thriller, but a film d'auteur.

A Kantian superhero who succeeds causes a revolution or is at least part of the resistance. That’s what V means when he says that governments should fear the people and not the opposite. And that’s the promise that he keeps on behalf of Michael Moore, who made it two years ago, at Cannes, at a time when the face behind the V mask was his.

V… because “someone had to do it”.

V… for Michael Moore.

WINDMILLS ?

2006-04-21T06:41:00.000-07:00

That's how Cindy Sheehan called them in her piece “Don’t attack Iran” :

The doctrine of preemptive war is an abominable doctrine, especially when we have such a vacuum of leadership in this country that rubberstamps any maniacal thing that this president wants to do. We cannot allow our leaders to destroy the world by jousting with windmills that are no threat to our safety, or our way of life.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=628

The doctrine of preemptive war is an abominable doctrine, hell yes..

windmills that are no threat to our safety, or our way of life, I don't know...

Now a lot of people can helpfully prove that Bushco just wants to wage a war after another, and that it’s irresponsible and dangerous... Still haven’t found anybody to validate convincingly this “stretch” that Ms Sheehan has let out…

“Call them windmills, vipers, Hounds of Hell, whatever…” a friend suggested impatiently. As if it didn’t matter.

It does.

"Hounds of Hell" is a ridiculous name with Jihadist connotations which shows that he can't conceive that this "Axis of Terror" can be anything else than a scarecrow, one of the jacks in the box of our theocracy. His vipers are harmless too, since they sleep when you don't stomp on them. His hounds and his vipers are windmills.

Well, no : these vipers don't sleep, they unite and call to the annihilation of a country.

If you scrutinize the far left discourse on the Middle East, you're bound to be struck by the derogatory connotations for Israel ("the US attack dogs", generally - ie Hounds of Hell for atheists I suppose), and the moving leniency over the aggressive far right theocracies whose stand against the American interests makes angels. Check this cautionary piece :

http://gowans.blogspot.com/2006/01/why-iran.html

The author devotes the major part of his article to the exposure of Bushco's true motives for screwing Iran rather than ex-public enemy North Korea, or Singapore, or Iceland (scrolls, scrolls). Then he tackles the Western propaganda against Ahmadinejab and launches into the demonstration that this leader really is a good man who only wants justice for the Palestinians and not a half crazed loon at all. He shows that Mr A's wish to "wipe Israel off the map" is only a tender way to advise Europe to deport the Israelis in some place where they can be really at home, like Canada or Australia, and to him this stance is normal, reasonable and acceptable. In the same breath he has noticed, a few paragraphs earlier, that the Western powers that be will demonize the Third World leaders by falsely comparing them with Hitler.

Falsely ?

This is infuriating.

Before WWII, the overwhelming majority of the French left wing intellectuals such as Sartre advocated "peace at all costs", bearing in mind the pointless horror of WWI and the fact that it was a deception made up by the capitalists in the sole purpose of lining up their pockets, no matter what it would cost in cannon fodder. What they didn't want to see was that Hitler was NOT a nice man. The English knew better but could not prevail. In France, only a tiny fraction of the intelligentsia as embodied by Nizan saw the "imminent threat" but couldn't make itself heard.

Parallels have their limitations. I have no clue about the political and ethical worth of the French government then, I doubt it could be as bad as ours. My point is about the difficulty of IDENTIFYING little Hitlers for sure, and also about the casual ease with which the far left has kept on dismissing a few of those who turned up over the ages, as if under the spell of their anti-American potential. And the attitude of leaders like Chavez, who sucks up to Ahmadinejab for strategic reasons, only fosters the confusion.

We radicals don't like to see things that way. Like the other side, we need a good guy and a villain. And if Bush is a villain, then Mr A must be a good guy. I mean, he MUST be. The main ongoing petition says this :

The most effective way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons would be to closely monitor its nuclear energy program, and to improve diplomatic relations -- two tasks made much more difficult by threatening to bomb Iranian territory. We urge you to lead the way to peace, not war, and to begin by making clear that you will not commit the highest international crime by aggressively attacking Iran.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/iran

This can work ONLY if Mr A is "not a demon".

But "not a demon" means nothing. No one's a demon. Hitler wasn't. "Not a demon" doesn't mean "reassuring". It doesn't mean "threatening" either, granted. But it leaves the question mark beneath the propaganda and the counter-propaganda unanswered.

My friendship with a Zionist Jew has opened my eyes to cognitive dissonance and complexity. It made me see things I didn't see before, because it was easier this way. An American far left winger doesn't want his country to be a disgrace and he sees no further unless an emotional interest is raised, shedding an uncomfortable light in dark corners he never cared about. You can't care about everything. It's your desire leading your priorities. Only your desire.

This guy has conveyed to me his passionate desire for Israel's survival. Don't ask me why, I don't know. I think it's because he expressed it honestly, powerfully and truthfully enough to touch something universal in me and open it to his particular cause. I had always thought that if I had been a Jew I would have been a Zionist anyway. But I never paused to consider the implications - why would I have ?

As a conclusion…

Unlike the saber rattlers and the orthodox radicals I * DON'T KNOW * whether we should attack Iran or not, because, to me, there's no "good guy" in that, and it's hard to tell a mofo from another and which one should be stopped before the other one.

This position, "I won't take pre-emptive war except for...", I think it's mine, but I don't agree with it. I mean, I wonder what else can be done with those loons. And I think that the peace stance is misleading. Iraq is not Iran, Iran wouldn't be Iraq. Another friend solved this dilemma in terms I find a bit theoretical (what else can they be ?), but accurate :

"I believe it is compatible with the creed of non-interference to pre-emptively strike a country which is clearly gearing up to attack another regime. I have said previously that I think that the one thing a tolerant regime cannot tolerate is intolerance, and a similar principle may apply in international politics - especially with the additional pressure of knowing that failure to act first may cost literally millions of lives."

And so I pass on the petitions, because I'm unable to say AT WHAT POINT the Axis of Terror is "clearly gearing up", and knowing Bushco as I know them, I just doubt it's now and I think we could do with giving peace a little chance. But I don't sign them because I think they do. They're gearing up to attack Israel and I can't let them do that... I can't.

THE CHAIR IS BITING MY LEG...

2006-04-04T19:19:00.000-07:00

How did I miss that ? Robert Sheckley, the 5th Marx Brother, the yiddish Merlin, the I Ching's sophomoric counterpart, the zen master who fought madness with madness, the man who put the fiction in science fiction, the first and only Douglas Adams, has been dead for 4 months and I've known nothing about that until now... God be praised for this postponement, as opposed to the excellent friend who brutally broke me the news (she didn't know it was one to me).

They say Sheckley wrote science fiction. If he ever did, it never was anything more than a clever jump on a then fashionable bandwagon, a modern encoding for his own unique, metaphysical epic of the absurd. His short stories were no shape of things to come, but timeless, hilarious and incredibly wise fables featuring the smallness of man in his ridiculous and touching quest for sense in a big, bad, and especially indifferent world where only chaos is real. Yes, Sheckley was a profound Chinese philosopher in Jewish clothing, and a classy, razor sharp stylist spicing up everything with a cruel, grinding, and sometimes tender humor. Robert Sheckley was a writer.

Sheckley wrote so many tight, bright, tiny masterpieces that his works will look like an Ali Baba's cave of gems to the layman who'll feel like venturing into the labyrinth of his spells. I'll quote the ones which jump to my mind right now, in a stream of consciousness :

- "Options", a novel which is really a patchwork of short stories, is without a doubt his key masterpiece and the title that will always jump to my mind first thing when thinking of Sheckley, whatever the course of my stream. An astronaut, mockingly called Mishkin, runs into some trouble with the engine of his rocket and goes to the shop round the corner to get himself the thingy that he needs to fix it. It's the beginning of a quest through all kinds of alternate universes, each depicting a possible meaning of life, or a related symbol, riddle or staging. One of the highlights must be the brief, memorable dialogue between Mishkin and the four men quietly playing cards on a bridge suspended above the abyss...

- "The Leech" is the story of a tiny seed from outer space who simply feeds and grows on anything it touches - and, even more, of the powerful but not very smart general who fights it with sophisticated, delicious bombs, and of the very smart but not powerful scientist who warns him quite pointlessly not to do it.

- "A ticket to Tranai" tells the story of your favorite utopia come true. On this dream planet, you'll find everything you've ever dreamed of, freedom, fun, sex, land, everything. Of course the place is a decent enough embodiment of hell - but it's still enthusiastically depicted in apologetic mode by the unruffled narrator as he summons glimpses of Guernica for the reader.

- "All The Things You Are" is a hymn to American imperialism and the wisdom of bringing democracy to savages. In this humorous and for once optimistic tale, the Earthlings are not obnoxious and murderous, but pitiable and naive. Eager to do their best and to be good role models, they cause one disaster after another, until their lame and awkward ways finally touch the heart of the savages and even turn out into something unexpectedly good. Yes, the short story was written before the war in Iraq.

- "The Laxian Key" is a wonderfully uncluttered sketch of the logics of capitalism. Arnold and Gregor (Sheckley's Laurel and Hardy) discover a machine which can manufacture a gray powder out of nothing and forever, and they also find that this worthless substance is in fact the food of the inhabitants of a whole planet. On top of all that, the secondhand dealer is willing to sell it for zip, because the machine can only be stopped with a Laxian key, and he has lost the only existing one. Of course Arnold and Gregor could care less about that useless thing, and they buy the gray powder factory in glee and bring it to the accurate planet, hoping for riches and fame. But the natives get mad at them and give them the boot in no time, for their whole planet is already gray with the stuff, all of their houses are gray from the damn thing, they're drowning in it, and their one and only dream, the only thing they'd ever buy, but at any cost, would be... a Laxian key.

And then there are two incredible short stories, whose names unfortunately stubbornly elude me at the moment, but whose genius is up to the others' :

- A terrifying short story on the nature of reality : a man is about to go meet his girl, he's happy, it's a day like any other day, and for once in a Sheckleyan world nothing wrong happens thank you. Except that, all of a sudden and all by himself, the guy starts to think about who this girl really is, behind her good looks... and he gets sucked into the depressing, destructive obsession that's she's made of atoms, that she’s just four pails of water and a bagful of salts, and he can't stop until he gets to meet his own nothingness and unreality. Yikes. This tale was something. Maybe that's why I forgot the title !

- An impressive exemplification of Bergson's dialectics of strength through the overcome obstacle : a pioneer is sent on a planet to colonize it with some help from a robot who's supposed to be the next best thing after God. But the robot proves a consistent source of disasters and the clumsiest and stupidest device you can think of. The reader first thinks he's in a typically Sheckleyan situation. Not at all ! Little by little, the man discovers that the robot is not faulty at all, but deliberately designed to behave in the worst possible fashion : the idea is to test the possibilities of survival on the planet in the most terrible conditions.

And here takes place a personal memory that still makes me smile : this particular short story caused me to create the one and only troll I ever made up in my online life. It was an ambitious troll, meant to behave in a robot-like fashion in order to mirror and increase the flaws of a friend for him to fight them. It was short lived and lasted for two or three days before it died a deservedly obscure death without my friend even realizing that it was supposed to be a pain in his ass. I don't have the soul of a troll.

Robert Sheckley's last years were unfortunately saddened by the gloomy situation that has plagued science fiction since the 80's. Under Reagan, the publishers decided that the genre wasn't supposed to be subversive, nor literature at all for that matter, and began to encourage Hollywood bound type of mindless crap, putting an end to the golden age that the previous decades had witnessed and letting but very few new authors of any worth have their way. From then onwards, some of the most glorious names had to write conventional drivel to keep up with the times, and sadly Sheckley was one of them. Respect prevents me from telling more, even though the shame is not on him. Suffice to say that the last ten years of Robert Sheckley's life have been butchered on the altar of global capitalism, and that this crime alone is enough to damn it.

As for "I See A Man Sitting In A Chair, and the Chair is Biting His Leg", written with Harlan Ellison, it's not particularly good. But its title fits the way the news of Robert Sheckley's death made me feel.

Meet Mister S :

http://www.sheckley.com/

http://sheckley.tripod.com/

HONOR - Don't leave it to the dogs and the right

2006-03-22T07:18:00.000-08:00

True, honor occupies a greater space on the right than on the left, but it's in no way patently obvious nor ontological. Honor is an ethical and spiritual matter and it's regarded as a prerogative of the right only because the left has unfortunately given up everything about those notions for historical and ideological reasons.

There’s a place for honor as a value in the left-wing culture. I'm far left, utterly touchy about honor and I tend to understand the righties who are and to despise the lefties who aren't. If the left still knew what honor was, we would win more elections more often.

The left has no loyalty and no sense of honor whatsoever because, in a nutshell, they are apologetic self-haters who bow to the right's orders (the Democratic Party) and to the right's standards (the people who regard themselves as moderates and even as libs). If Bush says : "Get this Patriot Act going, it's for our safety, honest" - they get it going. All of them. If the Reps say : "Thank you Michael Moore, you made Bush win", they disown Michael Moore and suddenly discover that F9/11 was shit. All of them. And I could go on forever.

But if Michael Moore and a few rare others of his kind are so intensely hated, it's precisely because THEY know what honor is all about and THEY know what loyalty to America is all about. And so, when all of these losers look at them, they feel uneasy about themselves and that's what they really hate.

Loyalty to America is loyalty to the ideals of the founding fathers. This is America and there is no other. Here are two admirable texts, one about the meaning of the flag by Michael Moore, one about honoring the dead in Iraq by Cindy Sheehan :

The Patriot's Act: What's More American Than Asking Questions?

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikeinthenews/index.php?id=61

Third Anniversary

http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=615

True, it's not just the "left" that's abandoned "honor", it's all of civil society, and it's nothing to be proud of. True again, honor is an all or nothing type of behavior.

But nope, honor isn’t about invading Iraq. Nope, honor isn’t limited to family feuds and pistol duels. And nope, you can't abandon honor in place of law, reason and negotiation.

Honor is not an obsolete, barbaric value now fortunately replaced by more civilized ways and manners in a perspective of progress. No. I don't buy that.

Honor is a specific virtue - precious and irreplaceable. Its essence lies in the sense of the unbearable. It is questioned each time something you regard as more important than yourself is violated, endangered, transgressed, humiliated. It is questioned each time you feel challenged to ever look at yourself again in a mirror. A pistol duel is a matter of honor. But hiding a Jew in your home under the Occupation is a matter of honor too. Honor is all or nothing because there are all or nothing situations, situations which have nothing to do with law and negotiation. And when you have a sense of honor and your honor is questioned, it's war.

The ultimate aim of a war is not to kill, it's to defeat. Spiritual war is necessary, merciless and doesn't require a single drop of blood. That's why some Muslim scholars insist that the true, noble Jihad is not physical. I can see very well what they mean.

Honor happens when life becomes less than a value. Maybe a single human life is more than all values put together. But in my opinion the life of someone who is unable to die or kill for more than a series of empty evenings in front of his TV set is worth peanuts.

Honor is linked to the aristocracy, that is, the military and the clergy, while law and negotiation are related to bourgeoisie, that is, the merchants. Law and negotiation are not “better” , they are simply the tools of the new ruling class. Peace through commerce is a bourgeois utopia, that was one of Voltaire's ideals, and that is what made democracy and capitalism two sides of the same coin. This is historical. But I'm not sure - not sure at all - that the bourgeois values are “better” than the aristocracy’s. They just came after.

"... during the time that the aristocracy was dominant, the concepts honor, loyalty, etc. were dominant, during the dominance of the bourgeoisie the concepts freedom, equality, etc." — Marx and Engels, The German Ideology.

Honor and loyalty are simply not of the same nature as law and negotiation. They're not meant to respond to the same types of situations. Besides, while honor doesn't necessarily kill, law and negotiation CAN kill : death penalty is commonly accepted, and the appeasing attitude of the European democracies in 1938 proved murderous. So, regarding them as a progress is simply complying to a belief in progress, which is itself a bourgeois creed and therefore just a prevailing postulate.

A culture of law requires that people become willing to back down and refuse to immediately retaliate. But in such a culture, little is punished and not everything is punished. You also got to trust the legal system enough to accept to delegate, and to identify with it enough to think that it's competent for your case. Honor is like civil disobedience. You listen to its voice when the solutions offered by your society look untrustworthy or inefficient. Then you follow your idea of morality instead of society’s.

Clearly, murdering people whenever you feel disrespected is destructive to civilization. But if an excess of something is bad, this does not mean that its absence is good. The existence of obesity doesn't prove that starvation is good. An excess of honor can be dangerous. But what about too little honor, or none at all ? Is there anything to negotiate when you've been humiliated or betrayed ? Can you believe what people say, if they no longer use or imply the phrase "My word of honor" ? Can a culture, a civilization survive, if citizens no longer feel that honor demands that they fight – and if need be die – to defend it?

From a Christian point of view, honor is not the highest value. Not at all. Pride, personal will are major sins. But negotiation sure isn’t the highest value either. You don’t discuss God’s will, you don’t worship the Golden Calf. Period. The highest value is non-violence. Forgiveness is incompatible with honor. But so is tepidity.

But you can’t say that Jesus had no honor. You can say that he got over it. The New Testament is all about the war against the powers that be for being a worthy man – and abandoning this ontological gain on the cross.

But not before you actually gained it.

CHEESY DANISH – Freedom of speech is not freedom to offend

2006-03-01T14:54:00.000-08:00

Summary : Making sense out of the Danish cartoons story starts with an aporia between two equally imperative ethical urges, the empathy with the humiliated and the defense of freedom of speech. But this is the wrong war. The real question is whether we feel that freedom of speech includes or precludes freedom to offend. All justifications for freedom to offend are fake and wrong, and this is enough ground for standing up for a limited conception of freedom of speech. But, because of the offensive nature of freedom of speech, this redefinition can only revolve around the Kantian notion of respect.

THE APORIA AND BEYOND

Two Danish artists did a few cartoons portraying prophet Muhammad in various situations in an obscure local newspaper, the Jyllands-Posten. For as yet undisclosed reasons, this came to make the international headlines. The Muslim world got mildly angry, angry, severely angry. Angry. Threats of violence were made. The Western world called on everyone to “support the Danish”. Reprints of the original cartoons were published everywhere in the Western World. Cartoons about the Holocaust were published in the Muslim world. People died.

An ordinary tale of an enactment of one of the always latent and always circular logics of violence between the East and the West. One connected with values, cultures, rights, freedoms, stances, camps, power plays, antagonistic forces, worldviews. The price of respect. The price of freedom. The price of life. One which makes you think of that old poster back in Vietnam days, where you could see a young soldier shot in the back about to fall, and the caption “Why ?”

But it’s always for something. It’s always about how much you’re ready to pay for what.

For the humiliated against freedom of speech ? For freedom of speech against the humiliated ? A class against a value ? A cherry pie against a picture of Meryl Streep ? In conscience, who can choose between those ? We oppress them. They muzzle us. Plague or cholera ?

This is typically the kind of issue where I understand both sides, can relate to both, sympathize with both, and where I have no ready made, easy, firm stance.

Up to a certain point.

Up to the point where the Western world calls on me for a sacred war for the sacred freedom of speech against the sacred war of the humiliated for the sacred right to be respected. Up to the point where the Western world calls on me for a crusade meant to show these camel jockeys who is right and who is the master. Up to the point where I’m asked to SUPPORT THE DANISH !!!!!!!!!

At this point, I know. At this point, my guts say NO. At this point, I desert this war and I start mine against the freedom to offend.

THEIR WAR, MY WAR

When I call it “mine”, it means that I’m not interested in teaching freedom of speech to those uncivilized loons like we’ve already taught them democracy, nor in asking myself way too easy “objective” rhetorical questions such as “does having one's religion insulted justify death threats ?”

I’m not interested in joining the Muslim camp either. I’m not particularly excited by a mentality which seems to be as arrogantly ethnocentric as the Western one and regards the respect due to its beliefs as way more important than human lives.

And finally I don’t wave the white flag. The conflicts exist and run deep, clashes are healthy and must follow their course. The West is right to defend its freedom of speech, and the East is right to attack freedom to offend – even if the West is wrong to defend freedom to offend and the East is wrong to attack freedom of speech.

At the end of the day and as often, the violent approach is unimaginatively wrong, for the true question is a “Whodunnit”. Who made these obscure cartoons famous ? Who brought them up to an international level ? Who wants to put fat in the fire ? And for what purpose ? The case calls for an investigation. Not for twin Jihads.

So let them work it out. But without me. Stop this train to nowhere and let me out. Let me choose my battlefield. I have my own Western war against all kinds of Western fundamentalisms and supremacisms. Just like I think that it’s up to Muslim thinkers to analyze, evaluate, judge and condemn (or not) the meaning and the degree of relevance of their own fundamentalisms and supremacisms.

And so I have a Western war against the Westerners who believe that freedom of speech equates to freedom to offend, and regard this belief as a lesson to teach the peoples who don’t think so and scream blue murder to let it be known.

THE TEENAGE HOLINESS OF FREEDOM TO OFFEND

Freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want – supposedly because it’s also what you think. Freedom to offend implies a purpose. It’s about claiming the legitimacy of a transgression in the name of a transcendency or an inner urge whose validity cannot itself proven and whose necessity cannot be checked since it’s precisely beyond the limits of material experience or common law, that is, what can be objectively shared and accepted. Like in the case of civil disobedience, the legitimacy of the freedom to offend is an aporia in the field of knowledge. But not in the field of ethics.

One of the cartoons, by Arne Sorensen, shows the cartoonist drawing a neutral portrait of the Prophet while sweating with fear. This cartoon defends the freedom to offend as cleverly as it will ever be. It suggests how mad are the Muslims (and how wise the Westerners) by showing that even a neutral drawing is dangerous with these bigots. Who cares if the Muslims DON’T WANT their Prophet to be drawn AT ALL. That’s just their ignorant, loony fanaticism. Who cares if one may wonder endlessly about the point of drawing a portrait without any intention nor message. That’s just our selfless, courageous enlightenment.

Well, this cartoon describes exactly, with admirable precision, that heroic, mystical, quasi-fanatical spirit of transgression : the cartoonist draws BECAUSE it will offend, and for no other purpose. He affirms the holiness of transgression. He feels like a real little crusader of the freedom of empty speech.

But can freedom of speech ever be empty ? Isn’t it sacred in itself, indeed ? Isn’t this drawing at the core of all the works of art that ever said no to any kind of abusive power, any kind of bigoted terrorism ? Is this cartoonist Salman Rushdie, Theo Van Gogh, Michael Moore ? Or just a retarded and arrogant teenager who watches too much of “Jackass” and needs to grow up before he causes some people’s deaths or his own ?

My guess is that the cartoonist would certainly like to see himself as the former. In my view, however, the latter is closer to the truth. No, there is no continuity from this guy who affirms his right to be deliberately disrespectful and hurtful at the peril of his life and others’ to the artists who affirm their hope in the supremacy of thought, intelligence, courage and art over all terrors at the risk of their lives… and their lives only. There is a continuity from this guy who affirms his right to be deliberately disrespectful and hurtful in the face of danger to any brain-dead teenager doing some drunk driving at full speed on the highway to get himself some identity, sensations and his idea of his pack’s admiration. What is admirable in a transgression is not the transgression. It’s how and why you transgress.

Offensiveness is the word which describes a disagreement in worldviews between the potential offender and the potential offended, where the former denies the specificities in character of the significances held as sacred by the latter. An offense in the modern sense of the word is the result of a violation of these sensitive significances in the name of a presumed supremacy of the offender’s worldview. If it’s deliberate, and if it’s directed at a long humiliated populace whose anger is latent, it’s verging on symbolic imperialism and the heroic cartoonist shouldn’t be too surprised by the quality and level of hatred that he causes.

I don’t grant the freedom to offend. It’s not freedom of speech. It’s the freedom to touch the touchy, to humiliate the humiliated, to hurt the vulnerable. It’s not talk, it’s act. It’s not expression, it’s aggression.

FOR THE CREATION OF AN “OFFENSIVE WARD”

But all the difficulty lies in first defining an offense and second responding to it. Is an offense anything that any applicant underdog can, could or might claim as such ? That was the original postulate of the “politically correct” spirit. It quickly deteriorated into a kind of insipid Newspeak, as sincere and truthful as socialist art, and generated a depressing, unhealthy and sadly predictable brand of terrorism from the oppressed minorities more eager to use their victimization as a terrorist weapon of unrequited empowerment against their own benefactors than to explore new areas of equality and mutual respect.

No, an offense can only be defined by the law… and has been from the beginning.

The word "offense" has a highly significant history indeed. It’s much older than the still recent concept of freedom of speech and had originally nothing to do with it, nor with speech itself from that matter. It describes an action. Meaning etymologically “a blow at” (from Latin ob "against", and fendere "to strike") an “offense” was in the Middle Ages a breach of the law, a pure transgression. But not a subjective transgression committed against a subjective offense, an unlawful one which resulted mechanically in a legal punishment. It quickly evolved into a derived sense of “unethical act” and more recently into its current subjective meaning of "something hurtful".

At any rate, an offense is etymologically a crime and not an unpleasant way to use freedom of speech. So what's regarded as unpleasant ways to use freedom of speech might very well be crimes too in certain cases. An offense is located right at the border between talk and action. I believe this line to be both dim and real - and undetermined as yet.

Speech is limited only when the legislator realizes that it causes harm. Speech is limited when he realizes how close it is to action. I won’t attempt here to determine what offenses should be forbidden and how they should be punished : it would be too much of a digression. I only postulate their existence in an area of compulsory respect.

THE OFFENSIVE NATURE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH

However, if “Support the Danish” is surely nothing more than a conceited, misused and arrogant substitution of freedom to offend for freedom of speech, is it possible to be for freedom of speech without also being – willy nilly – for the freedom to offend ?

All in all, I doubt it.

I’m not so much afraid of censorship (which already works just fine in our society under different forms, thank you) as I am of the double impossibility to tell for sure an irresponsible moron from a misunderstood or revolutionary thinker or artist and to foresee the actual fate of an offense, even defined and acknowledged as such.

An insult is offensive. An unusual or unpopular stance is often regarded as such too. Worse : in a disturbing fashion, they sometimes carry the same message with a difference only in the level of intelligence involved and the intention to harm or to help.

For example, in his “Chronicles of Dissent”, Noam Chomsky made several statements that could only be taken as severely offensive by a majority of Jews : that Israelis of Ashkenazic origin absorbed German racial attitudes while sharing the same country was one of them. Why was it so unbearable ? First, because it was true and backed by a stance often verified in sociology : assimilation makes you share the worldview of the dominant culture. But also because this very commonly observed truth is nearly impossible to unravel from the vilest and most vitriolic forms of anti-Semitic slander used to discredit Zionism and question the very existence of Israel.

Without freedom to offend, the offenders couldn’t speak. But neither could the unpopular truths tellers, the bad news bringers and the weirdos of all kinds I’m afraid. “Truth hurts”, the truth and the hurt, isn’t it part of the problem about the freedom to offend ? Yes, and “not only truth hurts” is the rest of it…

As a consequence of the severe intrications in stances and the considerable variations in worth of the original offenses, it is just as impossible to tell the good from the bad in their consequences. If truth hurts, isn’t the hurt necessary ? But if the hurt isn’t truthful, isn’t it slanderous, degrading and always likely to deteriorate into incitement and hate crime ?

Offense is the phallic dimension of freedom of speech. Without it, freedom of speech is castrated. But then a penis can be used for pleasure, procreation or violence, and society has more or less persuaded us to drop the violent bit without castrating us. Is it really so hard to imagine the possibility of a similar process in more symbolic dimensions ?

FOR THE INSCRIPTION OF RESPECT

When I position myself against the freedom to offend and for the creation of an “offensive ward” in law, what I seek is less the punishment of the offenders than the inscription of the crime of disrespect somewhere, somehow. For the older I get, the more I realize that all you need is – not love, but respect.

That thing Black woman Aretha Franklin begged for in such a soulful, proud and determined fashion in 1967. That thing that all of the oppressed crave for, knowingly or not. That thing that makes us “step back and look again” (that’s the etymology, “re-spectare”) in care and caution. That vital distance which forbids fusion (“my mainstream is not your difference”), allows empathy (“I look at you and see your pain”) and when all is said and done is the condition for any progress and humanity’s very survival.

That thing without which we are things. That thing without which there is no disrespect, only bad manners, resentment, and war.

High school level really. Like, be aware of what you do and say, and how it really does affect others. The kind of campaign which shows a drawing of a little boy crying with the caption “Put-downs hurt.” To be put beside the cartoon not of the Prophet with a bomb in place of a brain.

I once demanded respect for something, and someone objected that respect wasn’t something you could demand. It’s true. You can’t demand respect. But you should be able to. You can’t, only because it isn’t done. You can’t, only because we’ve gone way too far in the loss of our sense of the sacred. You can’t, only because we’re way too proud of our Western tolerance and our Western ability to take the abuse, all the abuse, any abuse in the name of tolerance, to understand the meaning and the importance of NOT condoning it. Well, the Eastern loons understand that. They may not understand free speech, they may not understand tolerance, they may not even understand humanism, but they do understand honor, respect, reverence, and other such things that we have forgotten, strayed from and don’t sell in our Western supermarkets.

Respect and self-respect have primarily been brought to humanity and elaborated as concepts by Eastern philosophy, but their ubiquity and significance in a multiplicity of contexts (among which justice and equality, injustice and oppression, moral and political rights and duties, cultural diversity and toleration, punishment and political violence) exist in our culture and are only waiting to be valued. Philosophers have been emphasizing these two concepts and strived to show how interrelated they are. Some theories, from Kant and onwards, treat them as the very essence of morality and the foundation of all other moral duties and obligations.

Kant was the first Western philosopher to put respect for persons, including oneself, at the very center of moral theory, and his insistence that persons are ends in themselves with an absolute dignity who must always be respected has become a core ideal of modern humanism and political liberalism. It’s time for the West, who teaches so many things, so well, to so many people, to learn that lesson.

I don’t want to restrict freedom of thought while restricting freedom to insult. But freedom of speech lies somewhere in between, and freedom of thought is threatened by much worse than the inscription in law of a legislation of respect. Such unwanted side effects may be part of the price to pay to bring back a sense of the meaning of a word the Western world has completely lost touch with.

Respect. Just a little bit.

REMEMBERING VALERIE

2006-02-05T19:17:00.000-08:00

Valerie Solanas are two words I threw like wild flowers in a short-lived thread about female celebs with the most interesting personalities in a section of "Upsize This". You might recall her better than that. But she’s hardly a celeb. Rather the quarter of an hour kind that the man she shot told us about. Does it matter ? She’s also my heroine. In her lies one of the left wing's crossroads, a question mark unanswered.

Valerie was a cutter up, a messer up, a piss taker, a fuse blower, a grand ton of a witch. She was the Danger Revealed, she was So This Is How It Ends, So This Is Where It Leads You. She was the Crouching Spider, the Unpraying Mantis, the Unforgiven Eve, the Chaos, the Cloacus, the Big Fear, the Big Hate, the Big One. She was one of these news who’d better be in brief, so that they don’t become tomorrow’s headlines. She was the Feminist who Frightens the Feminists.

They say Valerie was an incestuous mess and for all I know it’s probably true. If it is, then she made out of her mess what Beethoven made out of his deafness. Probably even more, since I don’t like Beethoven.

She had founded the Society For Cutting Up Men, whose manifesto she had also written in 1967, and whose membership never exceeded one person. About any document still left about her will explain you how flaming a lampoon it was, keen on nihilistic hatred, obsessed with wiping out malekind and generally as mad as a hatter. As for Valerie herself, she was an obscure New York underground figure, getting by as a panhandler and an occasional hustler, trying to sell her samizdat-published works to your average Joe as she walked the streets…

One day, it all happens : deep in debt, thrown out of her hotel, she finds herself accepting a contract from a publisher willing to stand and deliver for her providing she gives up ownership of all the copyrights. She’s left without a cent, and her work doesn’t belong to her in any way any longer. Everything’s legal. So she submits her sole copy of a play she had written to Andy Warhol, hoping he will help her get it on a stage. Instead of that, he loses it. She goes crazy, shoots him, sinks in a prison, then in a mental asylum. And meanwhile, the publisher releases the SCUM manifesto with two disclaimers (one as a preface, one as a postface), recycling her curse on all men into some juicy business. Outrage, cheap thrills, oooh, aaah, worldwide talk of the town. The author was never to be heard again. She died in obscurity and poverty in 1988, after long stays in various cells.

Valerie probably never enjoyed her brief shot of fame, but she had released a red hot burning potato in the feminists’ playground. Our unexciting times may be merely staring at the embers, but the fire still burns. Feel it when coming nearer.

Nobody could read the Manifesto and go watch TV. And if you were a feminist, it was worse : Valerie was smashing all the taboos, including theirs. For, as wild and extreme as the movement liked to see itself, all the trends, all the tendencies had unanimously claimed to be enemies of patriarchy, not of men. Nobody had ever dared to state how much both were entwined and could not be separated.

But it was a time of solidarity. Even the mild, centrist NOW supported Valerie. However, the support was even more ambiguous than massively enthusiastic : it was all about the victimization of the writer, or the necessity to speak out loud against patriarchy – but not on the ideas expressed in the little book. Valerie had dared to put in words her death wish and her hatred of the opposite sex as boldly and more justifiably than Sade, Hitchcock or Hemingway did with theirs. She had spared nothing and nobody, strangling the bum wiggling bimbos along with the power obsessed, money holding men they were smiling to. She had dared another humor, aggressive, farcical, ubuesque, devoid of any hang-ups – a humor so fearless it could only frighten those who liked to think they could laugh at everything. She had gone all the way to the barbed wire of transgression and desire. She had told the truth, the naked manner.

On the other side of the fence, Valerie’s bashers – the overwhelming majority, do I need to tell – had at heart to isolate the author as a woman in the freak corner or the paranoid ward. The poor gal just needed a shrink.

This stance was supported by the straight, strictly Freudian psycho-analytic intelligentsia, and derived from the dangerous and questionable premise that rebellion is nothing but the consequence of experiencing subjective problems and the expression of a failure in socialization. Of course, Valerie’s attack against Warhol seemed to prove them right. In our reactionary times, it looks like that’s just what’s left of her, assuming something’s left of her : the image of a wacko, not very different from John Lennon's murderer. But she still stands as a cult figure in tiny circles : who knows how, her play, “Up Your Ass” was found and staged.

Was Valerie’s dream an extraordinary revenge, a fantastic way to dynamite the oldest burden of guilt ever imposed by the half of mankind to the other, a gigantic puking, a healthy fantasy all happening on a fantasy level and in no way to be related to a furious emotional reaction against a cheat ? Was it a forbidden door which should never have been opened, not by our side, not by us ?

I didn’t go see “I shot Andy Warhol”. I was repelled by the title. I didn’t go see “Up your ass”. It didn’t play in my area. I’m just left with the SCUM manifesto. No more than a few pages really. But what pages.

ABOUT BETTY FRIEDAN - In Memoriam

2006-02-05T18:56:00.000-08:00

Betty Friedan died today. I wrote a few lines about this event, and I'll take this opportunity to complete this little retrospection by a piece I wrote earlier (about a year ago) about my real heroine, the woman who still symbolizes the wild essence of feminism to me to this date.

Betty Friedan was mainstream - not TOO mainstream - and bourgeois - there's no such thing as TOO bourgeois. I was not mad about her, nor about NOW, as far as ideas are concerned. She mainly popularized Simone de Beauvoir's analyses (someone had to do it) while getting rid of everything exciting about them. She was a kind of "Reader's Digest" for women.

In particular, Friedan disagreed with Beauvoir's critique of capitalism. She was a reformist, wanting women to have opportunities equal to those of men within the existing structures of power. When they met in 1975, Beauvoir said she saw Friedan's ideas for reform as "reactionary, linked to a notion that 'women are doomed to stay at home.'"

She was right. A sentence like this one, generally quoted today in a manner of compliment, is to be regarded with a good deal of distance and even coldness :

"For a great many women, choosing motherhood makes motherhood itself a liberating choice," she once said in an interview.

That kind of reformist ideas were to be later on part of the bases for backlash, by allowing the powers that be to sneakily impose motherhood, or suggest the excellence of motherhood, while still crediting "women's choice".

But Betty had no way of knowing it - other than Simone's criticisms, which she disregarded - and she must be thanked for the job she did. However, she did it without genius. Someone had to do it (the time was ripe) and she was there.

The two things I really admire about Betty Friedan were her tolerance and her solidarity. She could relate to other schools of thought, bolder and more left than NOW, she never dissed a sister and she endangered her respectability on several occasions, one of them being her support of my own heroine Valerie Solanas (who died miserably and silently in oblivion and poverty, without praise nor flowers, in 1988).

These qualities made her a real left-winger and a great human being, if not a great author, and I salute her for that.

BLACK JANUARY, part 2 : MUNICH

2006-01-27T23:07:00.000-08:00

I don’t have a lot of intellectual consideration for Spielberg, or rather, I don’t consider him as an intellectual. I find his stances sentimental, sometimes corny, and his messages unexciting, sometimes simplistic. A humanist, yes, a dreamweaver, yes, a storyteller, yes. But an “auteur” ? No, to me Spielberg is merely what I was told Walt Disney was when I was a child – which far from deserving scorn is actually quite an achievement and a unique performance in itself, but then, doesn’t make him the kind of Elder I’d ask for advice on the great debates and philosophical issues of our time : that’s simply neither the place he’s earned himself nor the function he professes when he produces his flicks under the label “Dreamworks”.

So what is “Munich” ? A nightmare treated like a dream, and the first case of its kind to my knowledge in Spielberg’s career if you admit with me that “Schindler’s list” was, in spite of its theme, a fairy tale like all the others. Which means that it’s not a nightmare treated nightmarishly : not an anti-Zionist blame on Israel’s policies, not an ignorant misinterpretation of history, not a demonstration of the evils of vicious cycles of violence. No. Just a dream. For children. A plot with no other consistency than its own dramatic logic and tricks. A lavish, sophisticated narration skillfully staged, compelling to watch and avoiding Hollywood hyperbolic vulgarity thanks to the refreshingly tasteful sobriety in acting from the cast. A reality expurgated from its most adventurous aspects, where the Mossad has committed no mistake, the traumas don’t really traumatize, the burdens weigh without necessity and all the characters but the victims have the time to have their say and to show (off ?) their humanity.

I don’t want my money back. I liked the movie. But I want my nightmare back. I want the question of the vengeance asked. Its legitimacy, its significance, its affinities with war, its affinities with justice, its discrepancies with justice. I want to know why, as casually mentioned in one cue (while I would have made the entire script revolve around this), Golda Meir chose to treat Black September, a Palestinian paramilitary organization, like a country and not like a criminal, like Hitler’s Germany and not like Elie Wiesel’s Eichmann. I want to be shown the religious paradox of a David eager to prove his personal might coupled to the cathartic, symbolic dimensions in this fantasy of “the wrath of God” (!). I want to be explained the differences between Israel behaving above the human law and the USA violating the decisions of the UN. I want to know whether the crosscut sex/slaughter means that Avner is aroused by violence and perverted by his experience, or on the opposite so disturbed and traumatized that he’ll never be able to make love normally again.

In a word, I’m afraid I want another “Munich” than Spielberg’s.

Unlike a lot of his detractors, I don’t blame the filmmaker for having chosen a slippery topic. On the opposite. Unrestricted kudos for that. PC must die, and PC rages about Israel. I mean that PC consists in praising instead of respecting, and that’s what you do when you unduly demonize or worship Israel or Palestine – disgracefully insisting that one of the two sides must be “good” and the other one “evil”, when all I see is two nations fighting for one land and having each perfectly legitimate reasons to call it its own. There is no “good” and “evil” in a tragedy. There is the tragedy.

I want a “Munich” produced by “Tragedyworks”.

BLACK JANUARY, part 1 : HAMAS

2006-01-27T23:05:00.000-08:00

Hamas got in the day “Munich”, which tells the tale of their fathers Black September, came out in Israel. I would like to dedicate this entry to my friend Waldo, who lives in a place where getting on a bus is a big adventure and sitting in the sun drinking your beer is not far from showing suicidal tendencies.

Hamas is in, and on its way to respectability. And Sharon’s end comes at a very bad moment. He had the intelligence and the right mixture of flexibility and inflexibility to handle the influence and the temptations that would seep from an elected form of Hamas.

No cause for rejoicing. The parliamentarization of a terrorist pack doesn’t equate to the legalization of pot IMO. It’s an institutionalization, not a permission. The consent to “Hamas way of life” pre-existed to any form of access to official structures, if only because Arafat had already walked that path from the PLO. Terrorism is at the heart of the Palestinian policies, it is not a taboo. Therefore I don’t think that the wolf in the sheepfold will suddenly become “tame”, as if all they needed was a mike to speak their minds and chill. Hamas don’t want peace, their voters don’t want peace either (one of them said on British TV that he wanted “purity”, I’m sure that’s what Rabin’s murderer wanted as well). They may want more land, more power, more respectability…. But peace to go forward ?

How many far right parties became “tame” in history once elected ? No sham. Sincere question.

There’s a brand of leftists who like to say that Hamas's violence is justified as a response to Western / Zionist colonialism. I'd rather ask about how can anyone in his right mind endorse Hamas.

Hamas is a far-right organization. It advocates genocide (its stated goal is the same as Ahmadinejab's - to remove Israel from the map), promotes fundie bigotry (its stated goal is to unite Palestine under an Islamic State) and practices totalitarianism (it does not distinguish between Israeli civilian and military targets, nor between combatants and non-combatants, to them a good Israeli is a dead Israeli, period). What on earth do they like about it ? Its objective being to support the oppressed and wronged ? Cry me a river. I can think of other ways to support the oppressed and wronged.

Sociologically, Hamas is the expression of Palestine's anger against despoliation, but much the same way that the Nazi party was the expression of Germany's anger against the diktats from the previous war. I have no respect for far right anger. I despise the stupidity that leads to death wish instead of hope and life as embodied by socialism. I have no respect for Hamas, no sympathy for their struggle, and I regard their left-wing Western supporters (if any) as morons. They are loons and fascists.

I don't regard Zionism as a form of colonialism either. I think that oppressed Jihadists are colonialists who failed more than democrats forced to defend their existence. If I were a Jew I would be a Zionist, completely, and how. When you're the scapegoat of the world, the least you need is your own country.

As for the use of violence, I have no problem with it as a last resort, even if the nature of what a "last resort" is remains debatable. One thing I'm sure of is that promoting The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and describing it as "the embodiment of the Zionist plan to usurp Palestine" isn't part of what I call a "last resort".

This victory I regard as the worst disaster to have affected the Middle East since Rabin's assassination. But the situation is still open in spite of all.

An op-ed piece about the event says in conclusion : "Political Islam, once the preserve of fanatics, could be on the verge of becoming mainstream, perhaps one day even respectable." Yeah… Sure enough, mainstream = respected, respected = respectable in a world where might is all and right is nothing. But WHAT will become respectable ? Hamas's worldview, or their name castrated of its political load ?

This is entirely up to the international community - and to Israel.

For if Hamas became such a monster, it's of course because of the Palestinians' immoderate taste for martyrdom... BUT NOT ONLY.

It's also because of Sharon and the way he humiliated Fatah and made it ridiculous and helpless by stating repeatedly that they were clowns unable to bring their terrorists under control, instead of valuing them as allies in the process of peace.

It's also because of Bush and his Crusade toting contempt of the Muslim world, his all-Amerikkkan way to bring democracy to savages who can't understand it, and the interpretation he will make of these results as more evidence that the Palestinians are ontologically wrong and hateful.

And that's why I think it's a shame that Sharon can't get on with the clever move toward the center he had begun. He had the credibility to do it in a consistent way and what he was doing was simply changing the image of Israel, for he seemed to be aware of how obsolete and dangerous a "ballsy", Bush-henpecked Israel had become.

Without him, his new party means nothing, and I dread chaos.

MUSIC AND POLITICS

2006-01-22T09:36:00.000-08:00

Do your politics affect what music you listen to ?

My answer is definitely yes. But only skin deep when I look at it.

I'll take the example of three cases of artists that I strongly despise and dislike for political reasons : the Stranglers, Eminem and the Rolling Stones.

- The Stranglers' "Rattus Norvegicus" had obnoxiously sexist lyrics plus they insisted on building their reputation on various and extreme forms of anti-feminist provocation and outrage. Their act at one point was but SM shit, and they went as far as abducting protesters who were demonstrating at one of their gigs to make fun of their indignation. Perfect swines. OTOH musically I loved "Rattus Norvegicus". Powerful, brilliant, and more importantly, something sincere beyond the cynical lyrics. Later on JJ Burnel's girlfriend got murdered and he wrote "La Folie". No comment.

- Eminem was such an imperialistically bombastic and egotistic proud-to-be-an asshole homophobe that I couldn't even listen to his output. Then he came round to dreading that his younger brother and friends might be tempted or forced to serve in Iraq and he wrote "Mosh", which is an overwhelming work of art and the closest thing to F9/11 I ever saw. I then listened to the rest and was but forced to admit the jerk's absolute brilliance. No comment.

- The Rolling Stones were caught from the start between theft and tribute, pillaging and promotion. They always respected the bluesmen who had made them what they were, but the balance was lost after Brian Jones's death when they began to cash in on their "evil" image to promote the most vulgar of consumerist values and recycle everything they could for their own purposes. From "Street fighting man" to "Sweet neo-con", the audacity remained but Bush's name got lost, cuz, you know, Keith Richards lives here so let's be bold but not too much. No comment.

All in all I don't take anyone's word at face value. Someone who claims reactionary positions isn't necessarily right-wing. It's even truer the other way round.

And deep down, my personal postulate is that there is NO such thing as a right-wing artist. True art is bound to be revolutionary - even the brand which defends itself from any political involvement.

If I find no rebellion in a work, then that's what I truly despise and I turn away from it quite naturally believe me !

LIKE ROSA

2005-12-01T19:08:00.000-08:00

Mike has written a lot of important letters. But today's letter is a very important one indeed.

It's a letter about praxis.

I mean, theory is all fine and dandy and discussions are great, but you also got to practise what you believe in. Otherwise, it's senseless. You got to act ON YOUR OWN against an unbearable situation WHATEVER THE CONSEQUENCES AND WHOEVER FOLLOWS, and NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU ARE FOLLOWED OR NOT.

The point is to act according to your conscience - no more, no less.

Without flattering myself, I do it all the time, and so I immediately sent Mike a letter narrating my latest action. Here it is :

Dear Mike,

Must we obey unjust laws because they are the law or must we break unjust laws because they are unjust ?

In your latest letter, you answer by the latter without hesitation, when you glorify one person’s stand in the face of overwhelming injustice and the imperative necessity to take such persons as inspirations and role models. Then you ask us to “put a stop to an injustice you see, not allowing it to continue for one more second,” and tell you what we did.

Well, I am part of an online community which was what it was – turbulent, not perfect – but still, relatively democratic. I mean that no one really decided of what was right, what was wrong, and who was better than the others. It remained this way, until it was hi-jacked by one of these playground bullies who can be so dangerous, especially when they have their own special thugs and their trail of ass-kissers.

And so it came to pass that said hooligan (who calls himself left-wing) had a rift with a Bush supporter. What he defended was democratic indeed (no special treatment for natives over non-natives), and what his opponent defended was less democratic indeed (citizens should be the government's first priority over non citizens).

But, to get his point across, the bully used all of his personal power and influence to crush this long respected peaceful, civil intellectual with methods of self-righteous terror clearly aiming at destroying the influence and credibility of this person, as he had done before with others, including me, who had dared oppose him, or just think and behave otherwise.

I defended the Republican, whose opinions I strongly dislike, without hesitation. I defended, not his views, but his right to hold them without losing his claim to belonging to the human race. I defended civility, democracy and debate. And I endeavored to do it so as to show everyone that it was no ordinary feud like there are so many in online boards, but something where core values were at stake.

And should you ask yourself if I did it because I had been personally crushed, belittled and discredited by the blowhard and his thugs – yes, I did it because I had been personally crushed, belittled and discredited by the blowhard and his thugs. Everyone is partly oppressor and partly underdog, but we always have the choice with identification. There’s nothing like connecting to the underdog in you to fight injustice.

Rosa Parks has always been the main symbol for that message, because she was black, she was a woman, she was the weakest and loneliest thing you could think of, but still she was oppressed, conscious, able to stand together and unable to take outrage. And so I told this bully : "No. I'm sorry. I've had enough. I'm not going to take it anymore."

Now you may think that this is not a real matter of law. I don’t. What is more legal than the affirmation of right against might, more democratic than limiting the undue power and influence of a single man ?

Now you may think that real life fights are more serious. I don’t. Yes, it all happened online, and after all, these are only message boards. Still, there are no places that are better than others to say : "No. I'm sorry. I've had enough. I'm not going to take it anymore." At least that’s what I think.

Yours respectfully.

IN DEFENSE OF DEFENDING MICHAEL MOORE

2005-11-29T14:23:00.000-08:00

I was thinking that a great politically mature and intelligent charismatic man such as Mike could enter into the latter half of the new century as "the man who just wouldn't stop harassing the government", "sticking up for the little guy", "sticking it to the man", "a tenacious man with a conscience and a call of duty (the answering to questions and justice for the just) that knew no boundaries".

Or "thoroughly un-American", "insubordinate", "anti-Establishment radical", "secretly Canadian", "college dropout" et cetera et cetera.

The problem of the image of a hero in the future. History is often written by the victor, and the odds are that once Mike is dead, he cannot defend himself and the next wave of generations will have grown up without knowing Michael Moore at all and will therefore probably not understand his motives for the actions he's taken and the life he chose. Think of what the balance of morals would be if Hitler had won the war... If Hitler had won, his values would be Good. If Bush's values are tomorrow's America…

The problem of one's place in history is not one's problem. We can only do what we can with the time we have. There is nothing we can do if someone decides to blacken our names once we are gone, so why should it concern us ? Ultimately, if the morals of the world so change that Bush is right and Mike is wrong, then that particular joust should be at the bottom of our list of priorities.

Regardless how much Michael Moore may or may not represent Thomas Paine (which I personally believe that he does), Michael Moore will likely be remembered one way or another. It is not often that we hear of such stories of political activists or even activists in general but the ones who make the news with their defiance, their actions, will be remembered for just that. Thomas Paine is among them, along with other notables like Nelly Mclung and Susan B Anthony. And there will always be someone, somewhere – a scholar, a historian, a citizen – who will raise to defend Thomas Paine, even in a “Bush is right” world.

Sure - but it gives me the creeps when I think of how much right and wrong can be fragile and relative, and even more when I imagine that Mike's name might be profaned even in the future, without me to defend him... (I had added a smiley, but no... It doesn't make me smile...)

I was telling all this to a friend, and he went : “He's a big boy, he can take it. It's funny. I truly want to say "Suck It Up Princess" to Moore at times. Wait, I just said it. What I mean overall is that I sincerely hope that an intelligent and noble man such as him does not get tarnished by future generations, but if he is, he could stand to turn the other cheek because it shouldn't matter to him if a million people hate him because he knows in his heart that he did what he believed to be the right thing and no one can take that away from him.”

Uh, what a way of construing the proposition “defend him”. Nice opportunity for me to take exception to the blowhard morals that rule the country and therefore the world.

To defend Mike = to be his mommy.

And as Mike is “a big boy now”, he doesn’t need to be defended. QED.

Wish it were that simple.

First let’s consider the representation of what is to be defended.

The metaphor is “obvious”, and therefore idiotic, but as with all the “obvious” things powerful enough to become cliches there is something true to it : the intuition that something weak and fragile is at stake. Hence the jumping to the mother and the baby. And neither Mike, nor me, nor you, nor anyone else is supposed to be “a baby”.

What Mike expresses is, to cut it short, democracy. Is democracy “a baby” ? I’m afraid it is. When I defend Mike, I defend his values. And yes, I defend his values as embodied by him, because I regard him as the one who carries them under their highest, freest form and at fever pitch and is therefore the aptest guide and role model I can think of for collective hope and change and individual self-confidence.

It's funny this person truly wanted to say "Suck It Up Princess" to Mike at times, because he never “whines”, so I wonder where he took this fantasy from. He’s being spat on, insulted and threatened, but he’s never “being a baby”. I don’t particularly admire him for this. I know and he knows that “whining” would be ineffective, that’s all. On the opposite, he has a lot of energy and joy seeping from him. I don’t know how much he suffers from the terrible amount of hatred and misunderstanding he has to face, nor how he handles it. I couldn’t. He’s very strong. He must be. The phrase “suck it up” originally means “deal with it and quit complaining” but in the end it’s most often used as “coping with something unpleasant without complaining-- because you have no choice.”

I think Mike uses his suffering as experience, as clay to grow and to teach. He transforms it. To me he’s basically a teacher, and the best one I know of. If you study the imagery carried by the covers and posters for his works, you will see that they definitely depict a big /small dialectical imagery, a superhero / little guy imagery. One of the ads for “The Big One” shows him as a tiny man about to be crushed by a gigantic shoe. Another, on the contrary, shows him as a triumphant man brandishing a gigantic phallic mike. Who’s “The Big One” ? The corporations that want to crush you ? The democracy that can save you ?

I defend THAT.

There’s no need to be a mother to defend someone or something. There’s no need to be a baby to be worth being defended.

You defend what matters to you and is in danger.

Because it is attacked. Because it is isolated. Because it is twisted. Because it is slandered. BECAUSE IF YOU DON’T IT DIES.

Soldiers defend. Disciples defend. Brothers, comrades defend. Not only mothers.

To defend is to protect, and more. It’s to show admiration, love, admiration, and solidarity. Especially solidarity.

My friend says that if his name is tarnished, “he could stand to turn the other cheek”.

But that’s precisely what he does. That’s what he does every day.

Michael Moore practices the Imitation of Christ, and he does it very well.

And the least I can do is defend such a man.

I did, I do, and I will.

HALLIBURTON : MIKE IS INNOCENT (A typical debunking of a lie from the lying liars)

2005-11-22T16:17:00.000-08:00

PART ONE : PRELIMINARIES

Summarizing the story so far :

Mike had at one point written (in 2000 or 2001) that he didn't own a single share of stock. Peter Schweizer in the same kind of trash as David Hardy’s (this time entitled "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy") claims that he has on the opposite somewhere around 2,000 shares of Halliburton stock. A superficial research shows that the stock is indeed owned in a foundation, whose chairman appears to be Mike.

Why it’s a typical lie from the lying liars :

This is but the umpteenth example of villainous behavior from Mike uncovered by the Republicans. It’s surprising, coming from them who love him so. Aren't you surprised, too, by how ALL of the left wingers really are liars, closet capitalists and traitors to the little guy they defend ? The discourse is so plain to see :

LEFT-WINGERS - IDEALISTS OR HYPOCRITES?

Thursday, November 03, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com

Michael Moore is heavily invested in Halliburton. Ralph Nader lives in luxury houses and condos owned by his relatives. Noam Chomsky makes most of his income from the U.S. military. Rep. Nancy Pelosi is co-owner of several strictly non-union businesses. … And more gun control advocates than can easily be counted either own guns or hire armed bodyguards.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=1745

Scum.

Nader is scum. Moore is scum. Chomsky is scum. Pelosi is scum. (ad "lib" - if I may say so...)

But !... Bush is great. He's the one who really stands for the little guy.

Why it still needs to be debunked :

Because the Inquisition is law and reason.

******************************************************

PART TWO : THE PROCESS OF DEBUNKING

Where to begin :

No use claiming the foundation bought the stock and not Mike, it’s true but it’s weak. The Golden Rule to remember is that there’s nothing to be ashamed of.

And as a matter of fact, the foundation, called the “Center for Alternative Media and Culture”, is a non-profit, tax-exempt, 503© corporation that gives money away to independent filmmakers who are in the post-production phases of making films about various political and social causes. It was started by Mike and his sister Veronica using half the money he made from “Roger and Me.”

So basically, what they (and “they” quite likely doesn’t even include Mike - all he did was start the whole thing, and he did it with his own money) did is using money made from their stocks to fund films that are against the way they made their money. Uh ! Let’s hide our heads in the sand.

Go straight to THE question that matters.

The question that matters is :

What is the date on the purchase of the stock? It’s only if it was bought and sold recently that Mike’s integrity can be questioned. If it was sold a few years ago, before Halliburton started receiving no bid contracts, then his ethics are not at stake.

As it happens, the fact that the reviews of the book are all extremely discreet about the date will confirm you that you’re on the right track.

They mention stock over a five year period, and all it seems to be on the net is the same trash over and over, Pelosi – anti-union, Moore - hypocrite and racist, Chomsky - hypocrite and warmonger, all with the same shortened quotes and the same condescending tone of being better than them.

But no other info outside of reviews of the book, kinda strange, knowing how it’s normally followed by 50 or so comments along the lines, "ha liberals - mud, communists, Satan, French, etc" without questioning anything.

You need to google until you find the magic site :

http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php

Enter “Center for Alternative Media and Culture” and you can read the 990 forms yourselves, for 2001-2004.

The foundation bought Halliburton stock in May 1999 and sold them in May 2000 making a profit of 377 dollars, same with Boeing and Honeywell (lost around the time of the 'energy crisis'). They also haven’t had any stock listed on the 990s for the past two years,

Right, and Halliburton was awarded the no bid contract on March 8, 2003.

Mike told the truth. Mike is innocent.

As if.

Fucking Neo-Cons.

Remember back when Cheney appeared on NBC's Meet the Press on Sept 14, 2003, and said, "And as vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government."

And remember when he was asked whether he had known about Halliburton's noncompetitive contract, and he said, "I don't know any of the details of the contract because I deliberately stayed away from any information on that."

Those statements were proven false by a June, 2004, article in Time Magazine entitled, "The Paper Trail: Did Cheney Okay a Deal?" As it turns out, Bush and Cheney both were informed that Halliburton would get the contract before it was awarded. Time quoted an email sent by the Army Corps of Engineers, that said the contract for construction of oil pipelines was approved by Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith "contingent on informing WH tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office."

This email totally contradicts Cheney's nationally televised assertion that he had no involvement in Halliburton's contracts whatsoever. It proved once and for all that Cheney and the White House had played a key role in making Cheney's ex-employer the number one war profiteer in Iraq.

The email was dated March 5, 2003, and Halliburton was awarded the contract three days later without any bids by other companies.

http://www.countercurrents.org/us-pringle160205.htm

Oh, and what is this evil foundation doing with its ill-gotten gains? Among others, contributing to St. John’s Parish Family Center, St. Martin de Porres Catholic Worker House, and the Fellowship Church Outreach Program.

The Halliburton story only shows how desperate the right is to constantly dig up dirt on those who speak against them. Yes, ma, this is only more swift-boat spin.

Tell the truth everywhere.

Fight the bastards.

APATHY FOR THE DEVIL

2005-10-28T04:30:00.000-07:00

I posted the following message on several progressive boards, among which "Being Michael Moore" (see the "Mikecrocosm" section) :

Nov 2nd is the anniversary of Bush's re-election. Massive nationwide protests are being organized for the anniversary date! People everywhere will walk out of school, they will take off work, they will come to the downtowns and town squares and set out from there, going through the streets and calling on many more to JOIN US. They will repudiate this criminal regime, making a powerful statement: "NO! THIS REGIME DOES NOT REPRESENT US! AND WE WILL DRIVE IT OUT!". Silence and paralysis are NOT acceptable. That which you will not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn — or be forced — to accept. There is no escaping it: the whole disastrous course of this Bush regime must be STOPPED. And we must take the responsibility to do it. I encourage you to join or stage your own protest on Nov 2nd. Anything and everything will make a difference!! Let us stand together as a nation and say we want Bush out of office for good!!!

This is no joke and could definitely be huge. Endorsers like the Progressive Democrats, Cindy Sheehan, Anti-Flag and Howard Zinn.

Get informed :

http://worldcantwait.org/

Find out about events in your area :

http://mobilize11-2.blogspot.com/

********************************************************

And typically, I got this reply from aptly named fallenphoenix in "Being Michael Moore" :

Do you really, really believe this is going to change things? Stand up and say your piece if it's going to make you feel better, but don't delude yourself as to its potency. Our country made (what is in my estimation at least) a huge mistake when we reelected Shrub (hell, it was a mistake the first time). But mistake or not, he's in there. And until our democratic representatives in the House and Senate grow some backbone and consistently start calling Bush on his BS, all the protests and walkouts in the world won't do a lick of good. Truthfully, all such actions accomplish is to hurt small business. A giant like WalMart won't even flinch if they lose 5 cashiers for a day--they've probably got a dozen more in reserve. But Mom & Pop are going to have serious problems on their hands if 2 of their people decide they need to take the day off for a political rally that's not going to accomplish a thing.

******************************************************

I replied, and let it be my creed on the crucial slacking problem :

I really, really believe that some Black woman needed to open her mouth and utter a few words roughly meaning NO before the Civil Rights could get started. I really, really believe that those who walked on the moon first had to put one of their feet ahead of the other on their way to the rocket.

I really, really believe that our democratic representatives in the House and Senate WON’T grow some backbone and consistently start calling Bush on his BS, that even Barbara Boxer wouldn’t and maybe couldn’t have spoken out against the fraud without Michael Moore’s and the people’s pressure, and that a giant like WalMart IS FLINCHING RIGHT NOW because of the loss of its image due to the people’s pressure.

I really, really believe that defeatist bull from the people who can’t conceive multitasking and believe in fantasy land hierarchies instead of plain democracy is what allows our democratic representatives in the House and Senate not to grow some backbone and consistently start calling Bush on his BS.

I really, really believe that bullshit like “Stand up and say your piece if it's going to make you feel better” is REPUBLICAN TALK and that I’ve seen it expressed in a much talented way by the Reps themselves, like, typically : Nothing you will do there will drive out anything nor will it break any silence or paralysis. The press is full of NON- silence. The only way to drive out anyone is through impeachment and I hope we all agree that that is in no way an possibility and no rally will change that. GW will be in office 3 more years, end of story.

I really, really believe that when your representatives are complacent, when the media are dead, when all the decision-making bodies and services are Bush’s and when all legal actions are dead-ends, the solution lies in THE STREET.

I really, really believe that despising protests is despising the protestors, and that despising the protestors means despising people like Cindy Sheehan, Howard Zinn, MLK, Gandhi AND MICHAEL MOORE who endangered his life and was nearly jailed just to open his fucking mouth in order to reach slackers like you.

I really, really believe that DESPISING PROTESTS IS DEFINITELY NOT BEING MICHAEL MOORE AND THAT BEING MICHAEL MOORE CONSISTS IN BELIEVING WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN, REFUSING TO LEAVE YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DOGS AND FUCKING DOING SOMETHING.

**********************************************************

The link to THE WORLD CAN'T WAIT is in the MIKEROCOSM section.

JOIN US.

OR DO YOUR OWN THING.

OR DIE.

MIKEROCOSM

2005-10-25T15:32:00.000-07:00

At last I figured out where the "Links" section was hiding in the controls and it magically appeared ! Moment of triumph. Hey kust, I hope you're satisfied - I sweat it out because you asked. :-)

This area will probably grow, maybe unreasonably even with all those vital Michael Moore links the world can't do without. But for starters, I'll keep it basic and sober. Mike is awareness and Mike is the people, so I'll begin with a sub-section devoted to local, personal and responsible politics and another for involved, artistic and great people whose sole flaw is to be unknown.

- THE UNOFFICIAL MICHAEL MOORE FORUMS is my own special place for local, personal and responsible hero worship and for diversely involved, artistic and great people (it's a forum). As I'm one of the Mods, I'll welcome you with arms open wide if you're pro-Moore. kusturica will if you're just yet another Moore bashing blockhead.

- NEWS FROM DAVISON, MICHIGAN is just what it says it is, the world as seen from Mike's birthplace, Davison, and by someone who's not particularly ashamed of him ;). Blogger Kevin McKague never runs out of interesting or colorful stuff, ranging from a poem made of Bushisms to questions like : "When does speech cross the line from constitutionally protected expression to criminal behavior?".

- BEING MICHAEL MOORE boasts the most beautifully ambitious name a site can have, and chief Admin robotboy_77 has no intention of pricing it cheaply. "This is a 'Left-Wing' community (in shorthand - it's for people with progressive values), and it's a community for people who like Michael Moore's work. If you don't fall into one of those categories, please remove yourself. Or sooner or later we're going to do it for you", he warns. Strangely, I never had the slightest problem with that guy...

- FAHRENHEIT 911 (AND A HALF) has been taking the country's pulse as revolving around the Moore revolution since the early days of the F9/11 phenomenon, and according to a refreshingly decidedly left-wing perspective. Although the articles are never published in full (which is a crying shame), this blog can be regarded as the F9/11 library. Now that's some compliment...

- kusturica was taken is where my friend kusturica strolls by when he feels poetic, or moody, or playful, or simply unanswerable. It's always surprising and full of curios, but the greatest attraction remains the author, whose understanding of things and people never fails to leave me abashed : deep in his heart, there's a house that can hold just about all of you. Meet him if you deserve it.

- INCENDIARY ADVICE, full of elegance, sincerity and passion, is where Anne, natural born queen and Pyrogirl extraordinaire, gives (all too rarely) her sharp and profound commentary of the current events. She's knowledgeable, thoughtful, lucid and honest, and her heart of gold shows through everything she writes. Hannah Arendt used to wonder how one could possibly "think the event". That's because Anne wasn't born yet.

- RASP MOVIE DATABASE may well be what you need if you think like me that IMDb sucks. Not only a great site for movie lovers, but it has details on music and... French comedians too ! rasp himself is some kind of a monk/missionary who teaches whatever he can, puts his duty before his pleasure and tirelessly keeps coming out with the same old important things, dealing with anti-French idiocy and rarely getting angry without blaming despicable behavior. Meet him even if you don't deserve it.

GLOBAL WARMING 101

2005-10-17T14:33:00.000-07:00

I recently had the opportunity to write about the basics of global warming, so I thought that I might as well share what I came up with. Global warming causes a lot of misconceptions and much confusion in many minds. So here's my claim to clarity.

Global warming is real, confirmed as caused by human activity and irreversible by the international scientific community, and universally denied by the politicians and the corporations who get rich off it and the international public opinion who’s unable to take responsibility for such a crime.

What remains in debate (or should, at least) is the extent of the impact (for the scientists) and how we all move on from here (for us, the people).

Environmentalists are not nutty. They will find that civil disobedience is made necessary because of the collusion between the powers that be and the corporations which causes most of legal actions and suing to fail. Most of them are cultured, informed and moderate people who (naively ?) believe that people do nothing because they don’t know what’s going on, and devote a lot of energy to popularization and explanations. However, the media are not interested in cultured, informed and moderate people, they are interested in sensationalism and extremists. The “nuts” are those who, like Greenpeace, understand that and, like Mike, agree to play the media’s game.

Same goes for best selling fiction books about burning topics. Publishers are not interested in cultured, informed and moderate characters who believe that people do nothing because they don’t know what’s going on, they are interested in sensationalism and extremists. So they ask their writers to be hard on the documentation so that they’re credible, but soft on the problematics so as the readers feel disturbed but only pleasantly, that is, not enough to refuse to buy the book or drop it and march in the streets. I have selected a link to a scrutiny of Crichton’s novel "State of Fear" (which I haven't read yet) by a panel of global warming specialists (below).

I voted for Nader in 2000, silently commended his candidacy in 2004, always thought that Mike’s next should be about global warming and still feel that a third party must emerge in order to pull these issues to the forefront where they belong. But Mike chose another strategy and he knows better, so I followed him. Besides, he will surely deal with global warming when he discusses the handling of Katrina in F9/11 1/2. There’s no escaping this issue and he knows it. But he also probably knows that there’s not a chance in the world he can use it as his main soap box and win.

His chapter entitled "Nice Planet, nobody home" in Stupid White Men is not specifically about global warming, more like an introduction to America’s specific environmental neurosis. He first states his refusal of the basic American environmental PC kit and goes on to explain why by investigating, beyond the righteous and useless recycling, about the car culture he knows well and, still beyond, about the consumption based culture and its consequences (air conditioning on ozone, poisoned food) and the effects of the deregulation policies. In Dude, there’s also a delicious little sci-fi parable entitled “Oil’s well that ends well” that focuses specifically on the madness of an all oil-based civilization. He imagines that he meets his great-granddaughter, Anne Coulter Moore, and that she asks him questions like : “When you were young, were people really so stupid to think that there was enough oil to last forever ? Or did they just not care about us ?”

******************************************************************

Now here are a few links that should allow you to form your own opinion on the topic :

General - Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/

from

http://www.ipcc.ch/

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been established by WMO and UNEP to assess scientific, technical and socio- economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. "

The Consensus : on which points ? and which validity ?

“The skeptic attitude to consensus usually starts with "there is no consensus". That's wrong, and they usually retreat from it to "but consensus science is meaningless", and/or "consensus has nothing to do with science". The latter is largely true but irrelevant. The existence of the consensus doesn't do a lot to determine what science is done; it doesn't prevent contrary lines being explored. But the consensus view does come into the tricky interface between science and policy, and science and the media. “

The main points that most would agree on as "the consensus" are:

”1. The earth is getting warmer (0.6 +/- 0.2 oC in the past century; 0.1 0.17 oC/decade over the last 30 years (see update)) [ch 2]
2. People are causing this [ch 12] (see update)
3. If GHG emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate [ch 9]
4. (This will be a problem and we ought to do something about it) “

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86

Certainties and uncertainties

“We find model versions as realistic as other state-of-the-art climate models but with climate sensitivities ranging from less than 2K to more than 11 K. Models with such extreme sensitivities are critical for the study of the full range of possible responses of the climate system to rising greenhouse gas levels, and for assessing the risks associated with specific targets for stabilizing these levels.”

http://www.climateprediction.net/sc...rst_results.pdf

How much does Katrina relate to global warming ?

According to two studies (Emanuel Kerry’s of the MIT and Peter Webster’s of the Georgia Institute of Technology), the number of hurricanes hasn’t changed, but their force and intensity have increased. Webster’s article is now available online due to the seriousness of what happened in New Orleans :

Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment –

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...l/309/5742/1844

Michael Crichton : the truth and the dictates of best-selling :

According to the scientists who scrutinized his novel, “The issues Crichton raises are familiar to those of us in the field, and come up often in discussions. Some are real and well appreciated while some are red herrings and are used to confuse rather than enlighten.”

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

Hope it’s been useful.

GIVE

2005-09-07T14:08:00.000-07:00

The people in the area of New Orleans need desperate help and even more so in the next few weeks where sickness ,virus, epedimic will break out.

Give.

http://www.vfproadtrips.org/#donation

You know, you give or you don’t. It’s like giving one’s organs. It’s impossible to know whether you save a Black baby’s life or a redneck’s, or if the guy who survives thanks to your liver is going to commit murder or write a symphony. I give because I would like to be given. Love thy neighbor like yourself. Period.

That’s what’s wrong with atheistic and therefore orthodox Marxists, their logic leads them to inhumanity. Yesterday someone posted on the IMDb F9/11 board about not wanting to give because it’s Bush’s fault and Bush’s duty. True. But how does one preclude the other ?

Another poster rightly responded : “There's a cruel logic at work. If you DO give it allows the US to use its own money to fund more wars. It tells the US they can be a cut (taxes) and spend (into debt) country. And someone like you will always come along to help. Meanwhile, Cheney reaps the profits from war & disaster. However if you don't give, the US will probably NOT take money from buying bullets and spend them on the victims of the hurricane. It's like having a neighbor who starves his dog to buy himself whiskey: Yes, it's not your job to feed his dog, but if you don't the dog lives (dies?), in misery. I choose to feed the dog. It's a revolutionary act, and almost like anarchy. You choose to ignore the system in favor of your own beliefs.”

Nah it’s not revolutionary. It’s being human. My stance is (and that’s what I replied) : “Feed the dog or starve the dog - but teach him to bite his master.” Revolutionary education is what matters, but if you wait until it’s done, prepare yourself to deal with a few more millions of Black or Iraqi babies’ deaths.

So I’m happy (and not really surprised) to see that in his new letter, Mike promises to resume his master-biting course. We MUST do everything in our power to get the bastard.

Don't ask yourself whether our chances are few or real. Ask yourself whether the situation is bearable. I feel our duty is to put full pressure on the Republican Congressmen for September 16… and keep up with Mike’s instructions.

THE P-WORD

2005-08-29T17:27:00.000-07:00

I've just been directed for the umpteenth time to Dr Kelton Rhoads's "Propaganda Tactics and F9/11" with an umpteenth "He's a professor you know" written in awe comment. So I thought I'd just give this poster a taste of my forthcoming site (chapter "The Propaganda Issue" in part "The Disparaging of the Message"), with matching thoughts about in which respect the authority argument was to be held in my opinion :

Who cares about what a professor has to say if he's an ass, or more often a scumbag taking advantage of his position like Kopel. F u ck professors. The thought matters, not the title.

___________________________________________________

My stance in a nutshell is the following :

Moore does propaganda... like everybody else. But some propagandas are bigger than others. And the P-word has been vilified by those with an interest in it. Should we claim for our side a word slanted by political biases and the traumas from history ? I would say NOT.

___________________________________________________

Now, if you're interested in further investigation :
F9/11 is not propaganda because propaganda is :

_________________________________________________

1) a false problem made up by the media to disparage and discredit one single specific movie, as explained in this article :

Michael Moore Versus Authority: The Media's Dual 'Propaganda' Thresholds

July 2 2004
Counterbias.com
Robert Furs

Even a Google News search on this particular date for the simple, wide-ranging search term “propaganda” brings up a grouping of Fahrenheit 9/11 articles as the first result!

The disturbing thing about this is not the mere fact that Moore’s work is being labeled as propaganda, because, by definition, it is. According to the American Heritage Dictionary:

prop·a·gan·da

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

So, labeling Moore’s work as such is not what is bothersome. The problem is the double standard the media applies to the different disseminators of propaganda. When the government is involved in definite propaganda propagation, as they are on most occasions to be sure, the P-word is rarely, if ever, used by the mainstream media.

If far-off, third-world nations are the subject of report, the North American media is safe with using the word “propaganda” in the context of dictatorships and totalitarianism—but propaganda in the western world, such as that so often seen and heard during the Iraq War and election cycle, for example, will never be labeled with the P-tag.

Did you catch the example in the second definition--“wartime propaganda”? How much wartime (9/11, Iraq, Al-Qaeda, Saddam, “they hate our freedom”, “war on terror”, “he gassed his own people”, etcetera) propaganda have we endured? A large portion of our lives consist of soaking up propaganda, whether it be from the television, the newspaper, the internet, our mothers, teachers, or buddies—if someone’s trying to influence your opinion and takes determined effort in doing it, they’re peddling propaganda, as far as the definition goes.

And nobody does it better than the US Government, which has elevated the practice to an art form. Unfortunately, their propaganda is not covered as such by the media. Only when someone steps up to challenge the power of a governing authority does the media step in to drop the ‘p-bomb’.

“Propaganda”, they say. Michael Moore is peddling Stalin’s evil, straight to a child near you! Yet when Dick Cheney is telling you that Saddam is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, or Colin Powell is showing you tubes full of Saddam’s non-existent anthrax, or Dick Morris is telling you that the terrorists want Kerry, they’re pushing propaganda. When you read the New York Post or watch Fox News, you’re viewing propaganda. When you read a press release, or a news report regurgitating something a government official said, you’re reading propaganda.

A lot of what the government does on a daily basis, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is propaganda. As is the case with politically motivated activists dedicated to a cause. The same goes for politicians, bloggers, lobbyists, doctors and even columnists such as your humble writer. Any outspoken group or individual with a cause is guilty of dabbling in the Big P.

By telling you about the use of the word “propaganda” and how it is unjustly and unevenly used against enemies of the government—like Michael Moore—I am engaging in the dissemination of propaganda.

But don’t expect it to be termed as such quite yet.

For what I write has no chance of helping undermine a government’s re-election chances, as Fahrenheit 9/11 does. When MSNBC and the New York Post refer to this article as “propaganda”, then I know that what I write is having an effect on the citizenry’s view of the Bush administration.

Now, I’m off to read about why the War In Iraq is going magnificently and why America must stay the course, because the terrorists hate our freedoms and want to kill my family and will do so if America doesn’t elect Bush and dramatically increase military spending so we can shoot every living terrorist in the head for the sake of liberty.

Who needs propaganda, after all?

http://www.counterbias.com/066.html

_____________________________________________________

2) a true and undecidable issue insofar as "Propaganda" is a word with a history, connotations and not one but TWO antithetic definitions, a right-wing one and a left-wing one.

If you go through an extensive search to explore the meaning of the word "propaganda", you’ll see that, even on the elementary level of the dictionary, and unlike the word "documentary", it doesn’t go without saying at all.

Roughly, the both ends of the spectrum are “Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause" - Bartleby and “Publicity to promote something: information or publicity put out by an organization or government to spread and promote a policy, idea, doctrine, or cause” - Encarta. The first definition makes no difference between Minitrue and a guy from a tiny little organization who insists on giving you his horribly printed flyers as you’re on your way to see your girl. The second one suggests that only a crushing machine in the hands of the powers that be can deserve such a name.

Then some dictionaries define the word in a very pejorative way (without stating “pej”), like Wordsmyth : “information, allegations, or opinions that are deliberately and methodically disseminated to promote or attack a particular doctrine, movement, nation, or the like. » or Cambridge “information or ideas, which are often false, that an organization prints or broadcasts to make people agree with what it is saying”, whereas the two above remain neutral in that respect.

____________________________________________________

Moore’s master in agit-prop, Saul Alinsky, advocated propaganda, claimed he was a propagandist and was proud of it. Some left-wingers defended “F9/11” on that stance. It’s not my position. First because it isn’t Moore’s (he said he didn’t want to be called a propagandist because it was a vile word), second because I happen to agree with him on that one : Karl Rove has given propaganda a bad name, so why use this word when “counter-propaganda” defines Moore’s work so much better.

______________________________________________________

Here are, IMO, the basic elements of any reflection on how Moore’s works pertain to propaganda. And the rest is hot air, freakin' professor or not and pundit or not.

(And I'm right cuz I'm a professor).

MIKE'S CHARITIES

2005-07-21T16:34:00.000-07:00

This one's for you Ricky, who gave me a boost for the site with your questions and encouragements. Ask me whatever you want, you will help. And spread the word around. God it's so hard to focus in the turmoil of life !

Mike’s general philosophy is that it’s his responsibility to do everything he can so as to be the voice of all those silenced. So all the money he has he re-invests in his hometown, his movies, his books and many organizations who try and change the way things are.

1) FLINT

Mike’s first concern has always been Flint, his hometown, yesterday as today, and in spite of the terrible ungratefulness he had to suffer from a significant number of natives, including contributors, former friends and people who benefited from his generosity.

In his contract for Roger and Me, he stipulated that those people thrown out of their homes in the film must have new homes bought and paid for by the distributing company. It's all in a great book on the Indie film boom in the late eighties early nineties, called Spike, Mike, Slackers, and Dykes by John Pierson. I have it in front of me right now, it has the exact reproduction of the "Roger and Me" original deal with John Pierson and Associates, it goes from p154 to 157 and the proof is p 157 : "THE SPIRIT OF THE AGREEMENT : Charity Contribution : The first $25,000.00 of distributor profit on the film shall be set aside to buy homes for the five evicted families in the film." And mind you, he asked this of big dogs in Hollywood who thought he was a joke. But he fought and got it done.

This book was released at a time when Mike was unknown, so there's no link. However this interview by Karen Duffy (who worked for him in TV Nation and still admires him) is available online :KD: …I love the fact that you got Warner's to agree to all of those stipulations, which must have been a first.MM: Well, sometimes artists don't ask for things, and they'd be surprised, if they just asked, what they might get. I made it part of my contract with Warner Brothers that they pay for housing for those people for two years.

http://www.gradewinner.com/p/articl...729145#continue

He did it again after “The Big One” and in particular forced Phil Knight (after losing face in the movie, what else could he do to try and not look like the ugly corporate criminal that he was) to use a little of his money to do good :

The Big One: Miramax and Moore to Share Profits with Flint

Miramax and Moore to Share Profits with People of Flint, MichiganMichael Moore is set to make good on his promise to share the profits from his films with the people of Michigan. The first $100,000 will be given away at a special screening of Moore's new film, "The Big One" on April 15, at the Showcase East Cinema in Flint, Michigan. Miramax is donating 50% of it's profit from theatrical, television and video release to various Flint-area charities. Following the acquisition of "The Big One," in September, $5,000 each was given to the North End Soup Kitchen, the Kids' Cafe of the Beecher Salvation Army and the Flint Urban League. Nike CEO, Phil Knight, who figures prominently in the film, contributed $20,000 in computers to Beecher Community Schools.

"We at Miramax have been deeply moved by Michael Moore's commitment to his hometown," said Harvey Weinstein, co-chairman of Miramax. . "He has set a unique example among filmmakers."

Moore and Miramax are also offering a one-time, $1,000 scholarship to one student from every high school in Genesee County. Students who are interested in community organizing, labor issues, and social justice can apply by sending a one-page letter outlining their goals and needs to: Michael Moore Scholarships, PO Box 978, Flint, MI 48501. The deadline is March 25.

http://www.indiewire.com/biz/biz_98...ooreProfit.html

2) CULTURE

Just as importantly, Mike uses his money to support culture and education and promote progress in all the fields pertaining to raising the general level of awareness and freeing the people’s minds from the forces of obscurantism and oppression.

Using profits from "Roger and Me", he established the Center for Alternative Media, a foundation dedicated to supporting independent filmmakers and social action groups. To date, the foundation has dispersed over $400,000 in grants.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/dogeatdogfilms/threat.html

Large chinks of the money he earned from the same movie have gone into helping finance other filmmakers' projects, such as acclaimed documentary, Panama Deception.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/dogeatdogfilms/marquee.html

Details :

World: You've set up a fund to help struggling artists and groups on the left, the Center for Alternative Media. Can you describe this fund?

Moore: We have given grants now totaling over $400,000 just from the profits of Roger & Me. I decided to give away 50 percent of whatever I earned from the film. But that's my own personal choice, and I know some people reading this will think 'what is this guy, crazy?' But it's because of where I come from, you know I like the life I had before Roger & Me. I never made more than $15,000 a year and I still only own three pairs of blue jeans and one Detroit Tigers cap.

As far as recipients, I helped fund a number of independent and documentary films, including Panama Deception, which won an Academy Award. I helped fund the first feature film that was distributed in this country by an African American woman called Just Another Girl On the IRT by Leslie Harris. I thought it was appalling that we're in the 100th year of cinema, and there has never been in the U.S. a film directed by an African American woman, and released by Hollywood, and that voice needs to be heard in American cinema.

World: Would you like to advertise where this fund is located?

Moore: (laughs) You know we do this very differently. We're not like the typical foundation. It's kind of like I see something and I just call up the person and say, "What's your address? I want to send you a check." It's really more from me, keeping with the spirit of Roger & Me. And what's incredible is the irony of this whole system. I basically get this money from Time-Warner and then recycle it into anti-corporate areas.

http://www.pww.org/archives95/95-09-23-3.html

He donates to the American Library Associations Spectrum Initiative to recruit more minority librarians.

Oscar winner Michael Moore donates $25,000 to ALA Spectrum Initiative

“Only the beginning,” filmmaker says

The American Library Association (ALA) is pleased to announce that Michael Moore, author, activist and winner of the 2002 Oscar for best documentary film, has donated $25,000 to support the ALA Spectrum Initiative.

Moore originally pledged this support for Spectrum during a speaking engagement at ALA’s June 2002 Annual Conference in Atlanta.

“This donation is only the beginning of what will be an ongoing effort on my part to rally my fellow Americans to support their local libraries. I intend to raise tens of thousands more, both in my appearances around the country and via my Web site,” Moore said. “I will not allow one of our most precious national resources – our free, public libraries – to suffer any further abuse. It is their budgets that get cut first. It is their staffs who are paid some of the lowest wages among professionals in the country. And now, it is their privacy – and the privacy rights of any person who holds a library card – that is now under attack.

“I am proud to do what I can to support our libraries and their librarians. Without them, and without this basic American right to read a book – any book – regardless of one's socio-economic status, we will surely be less free as a people. Freedom is only preserved when its citizens have total access to all information and the free flow of ideas,” Moore added.

http://www.ala.org/ala/pressrelease...nnermichael.htm

He is currently organizing the Traverse City festival in a similar spirit.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=3189

3) ACTIVISM

Mike has not only helped people in the classic, brotherly sense of the term, and not only in an admirable effort to elevate the general level of intelligence of the country. He believes that citizen action is a form of charity. I agree with him, and how.

He will often act on the spur of the moment, following his heart and inspiration. Here’s an example of how he proceeds and how he’s amazingly always in the thick of things and ready for action :

On request, Moore immediately endorsed Green Party candidate for State Assembly Doug Riley-Thron. "He first handed me a $20 bill, then he gave me another one, and another one," Riley-Thron said later. "Then he said ‘Here, take it all,' and he handed me a bunch of ones." The total take: $80.
"I thought, ‘Dang, that was worth doing,'" Riley-Thron said.….

Moore was comparably impassioned about Sierra Pacific Industries' recently approved Timber Harvest Plan for Sunny Brae. "They shouldn't be cutting the trees down in the first place," Moore said. "Who is this company? How come this one company gets to decide, gets to own all this land? These are one of the biggest landowners in this country - no one individual should be able to own that much property. This is not his [SPI owner A.A. "Red" Emerson's] property, this is planet Earth and its inhabited by the people who live here and other living things and one individual should not have so much say and power cutting down trees that are that many years old. You know, it's absolutely outrageous, and so I'm executive producing a documentary. I'm funding it. A buddy back in Michigan is making a documentary about the situation with the trees and he's going to come out here and do some filming about what's going out here so we'll be doing that sometime during the coming months."

http://www.arcataeye.com/top/020312top02.shtml

His choices of donations as an activist are often the result of his experience. Mike created the "Michael Moore Freedom of Speech Scholarship" at CSU San Marcos after his scheduled speech was cancelled unilaterally by the Administration for the usual authoritarian reasons.

The Daily Aztec - City

Michael Moore triples scholarships

By Barbi Smith, Staff Writer

The "Michael Moore Freedom of Speech Scholarship" at CSU San Marcos proves it's the orders people don't follow that makes them famous.

Created to reward students who embrace issues of student rights by standing up to the administration, the $2,500 scholarship, funded by the political activist, author and director Moore, was originally to be awarded to only two selected San Marcos students.

With much surprise, Moore granted scholarships to six students last Thursday, totaling $15,000 in awards. Tripling the initial amount, the scholarships were added because of the large number of impressive applications received from "outstanding" students, Moore stated in an announcement on his Web site, www.michaelmoore.com.

"I believe in holding people accountable, especially those in positions of power and privilege," Frost stated in her winning essay. "It wasn't easy to speak out. As students, we realized that our voices do matter and that we can live as citizens who actively participate in the governance of the communities and country we live in."

http://www.thedailyaztec.com/media/...ps-952123.shtml

When the Weinsteins bought F9/11 for $6 million from Disney, the deal that was struck by these producers in order to guarantee its quick release was that the Weinsteins would get 40% of the net profits and the other 60% would go to charity except Disney would get to choose who receives it.

Mike's share of the profits has not been disclosed but it has been disclosed as being less than the share that will go to charities. Fact is he knew how much was to be given away from the beginning.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0702-07.htm

He had no interest in “making money off 9/11” as he was so infuriatingly blamed for, in fact he had no interest in making any money at all. He just wanted to rid us of Bush, and he sacrificed his Oscar (by airing the movie on Nov 1) and his profits for that. He lost tons of easy money by allowing people to download F9/11 for free and even adding that he didn’t agree with the copyright laws. He said: “Is it wrong for someone who’s bought a film on DVD to let a friend watch it for free? Of course it’s not. It never has been and never will be. I think information, art and ideas should be shared.”

Sunday Herald - 04 July 2004

Moore: pirate my film, no problem

Fury as Fahrenheit 9/11 director backs illegal not-for-profit downloads
By Iain S Bruce, Online Editor

Controversial film-maker Michael Moore has welcomed the appearance on the internet of pirated copies of his anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 and claimed he is happy for anybody to download it free of charge.
The activist, author and director told the Sunday Herald that, as long as pirated copies of his film were not being sold, he had no problem with it being downloaded.
“I don’t agree with the copyright laws and I don’t have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they’re not trying to make a profit off my labour. I would oppose that,” he said.
“I do well enough already and I made this film because I want the world, to change. The more people who see it the better, so I’m happy this is happening.”

http://www.sundayherald.com/43167

His most remarkable achievement, both as a proof of his selflessness and as a token of his acute social awareness, may have been the way he has openly and strongly advocated for much higher taxes on the upper income bracket, knowing full well that it would take money out of his own pocket. He believes that it should largely be the people, via their elected representatives, who should help the less fortunate among us.

Spend Mike's Tax Cut

George W. Bush went out of his way to give guys like me a big whopping tax cut this year. Words cannot express my gratitude-but money can!
That's why I'm spending my entire tax cut on getting rid of George W. Bush!
I will be giving the maximum legal amount to the candidate who has the best chance of defeating him (except Joe Lieberman. I won't give a dime to any Bushie pretending to be a Democrat).
I also want to support the candidates in your congressional districts who have the best chance of tossing out the Republicans.
Send me your candidate suggestions and the names of any groups who are working toward the kind of change we all seek. I will choose the recipients of Mike's Tax Cut and send them a check. I will also post their names on my website in case you want to send them a check, too. Thanks for the tax cut, Mr. Bush! I hope it allows you to spend a long and well-deserved vacation at the ranch in Crawford.

http://michaelmoore.com/books-films...axcut/index.php

4) HIS LIFESTYLE

Nothing to do with charities, I know, but your adversaries will necessarily mention that he's "stinking rich" at one point, because it's been for ages on the front page of David Hardy's website and the dude also obsesses over that quite a bit in his... I don't know how to call it, they say it's a book. Anyway. Just a few words.

I like the fact that Mike moved back to Davison three years ago. So much for the criticisms of "Mr. NY Penthouse" elitist.

At the moment, Moore is behind the wheel of his red Chrysler minivan, giving me a tour of Davison, the little town just outside Flint where he spent his childhood. He and his wife/producer, Kathleen Glynn, a fellow Flint native, moved back to the area two years ago when their daughter started college. They still have a Manhattan apartment but now return to New York largely for work. In Davison, we drive past rolling farmland, a quaint Main Street and Moore's favorite doughnut shop.

http://media.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=155

Besides, if he was spectacularly rich, by now Limbaugh, O'Reilly, or one of those other fools would have long been spouting off about his mansions, cars, private jets, etc. but they can't because he just doesn't live that way.

5) FIGHT BACK

I’ll end on an important comment.

The right-wingers’ accusations of greed against Mike are based on the obnoxious idea that if he really cared about poor people, he'd be poor and powerless, just like them. So, it’s not enough to prove that Michael Moore is a good man. A question should be asked back on the inquisitors :

WHY SHOULD MOORE LIVE IN THE GUTTER ?

To be a saint in addition to being the courageous, talented and unreasonably selfless man he already is ? To pay even further for a thug administration's sins ? To please those unable to see who are the really rich men anyway ? To please those who worship zillion-rich parasites and traitors at the head of America ?To stand defenseless and unable to make any more movies and make his voice heard ?

But Mike will explain that much better than me, and this will be my conclusion...

"You don't know me. I have few material needs. So putting money in my hand is like handing me a Molotov cocktail.
"I'm going to do damage with it. I'll make sure that my work gets out. That no publisher will ever be able to tell me to take things out. Because I'll put it out myself. The more money I earn, the less they can stop me. Where I come from it's called f*** you money because I don't have to take an ounce of s**t from anybody."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnew...-name_page.html

THE ENDING

2005-07-08T15:27:00.000-07:00

After the Golden Age (Helen_Wheels's, then Waldo's reigns), the IMDb's F9/11 board had sunk under the influence of a kind of incontinent David Koresh, who promoted a kind of fusional Hug Mafia sharing his worldview and drowned the rest under the sheer number of his posts. David was a great guy and an awful closet tyrant. Like Mike, he had common sense and spoke the truth. Like Bush, he was unfit for command.

When it came to pass that David moved "his peeps" to a promised Wonderland with "no rules" and "relaxed discussions", one of the guys more equal than the others pre-emptively excluded me from where I would never have gone. I then insisted that David and his tree huggers either admitted to being a nepotistic tyranny, either changed it to something healthier.

But, as one of the "peeps" pointed out to me, after all, everybody had condoned this regime. And, when one of my oldest pals - a companion of Kopel debunking - came to insult me from nowhere with David's worldview, I saw that time had come to move on and leave the board to an indistinct Bored Crowd and people I still liked but could no longer respect.

Bitter ? In the heat of the moment, yeah, hell, I was. But, all in all, it quickly passed. After all, things will wear out and decay. I've been part of the epic. That's life. And then, the friends I really cared about stayed by me. And THAT's great news. :-)

CHEEKY

2005-06-10T05:03:00.000-07:00

Must a Christian turn the other cheek when his face has been slapped ?

Well of course he must. That’s his basic duty. He wouldn’t be a Christian otherwise. It’s the very definition of Christianism.

Or is it ?

First, let’s remain on a squalid pragmatic level. If you turn the other cheek, my friend, you must be prepared to be slapped again. And again. And then worse, cause the fury can grow and the attacker get really mad. Oh, of course he’s supposed to be disarmed by your own candid goodness, fall on his knees and cry out : “Forgive me, cause I didn’t know what I was doing !”

Oh, he might do so. Why not. He might.

But then he might not. He might hate you for being sent back to his guilt and get really riled up by what to him will be nothing more than your holier-than-thou attitude. He might kill you. He might kill six million Jews.

So… If you turn the other cheek, you must be prepared to call yourself Gandhi, Rabin, Lennon, Luther King, Malcolm X. Is it a Christian’s basic duty ? I don’t think so.

The difference between a hippie and a Christian is that a hippie thinks that love is easy, while a Christian knows that it’s NOT. To turn the other cheek is HUGE. It’s holiness. Saints can do it and stay in tune. Not me. It would be false, and so OUT OF TUNE it would make me cringe.

A Christian’s basic duty is to be a “good enough Christian”, in the same sense as Winnicott’s “good enough mother” : according to this psychologist, the woman who wants to be too good a mother does more harm than a mother who’s conscious she’s not perfect. A Christian’s basic duty is to know his limits and be humble.

What happens otherwise ? If you try to be better than what you are, you BECOME holier-than-thou. That’s Nietszche’s concept of resentment and Hannah Arendt’s comments on hidden cruelty behind compassion.

Nietszche : “They decree 'one approved unegoistic actions and called them good from the point of view of those to whom they were done, that is to say, those to whom they were useful; later one forgot how this approval originated and, simply because unegoistic actions were always habitually praised as good- as if they were something good in themselves.”

And Arendt notes that absolute goodness shares with absolute evil "the elementary violence inherent in all strength and detrimental to all forms of political organization." She believes, for example, that Robespierre was a monster born in compassion.

So what IS the basic Christian duty ? Oh, I think Jesus told it “well enough” : “"Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and first Commandment. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matt. 22:37-39). The dude never asked me to turn the other cheek.

So how do I treat my neighbor ? Well, I treat him according to his desire to improve himself or to persevere in error. How do I know ? By the size of his ego according to his self. When the ego becomes bigger, I know it’s time for kung-fu. When the ego becomes miserable, I know it’s time for compassion. In philosophy, it’s known as Pascal’s anthropological argument. Pascal recognizes “Man is neither angel nor beast” and puts forth a technique of dealing with those who think too highly of themselves, as well as those who think too lowly of themselves:

"If he exalts himself, I humble him.
If he humbles himself, I exalt him.
And I go on contradicting him
Until he understands
That he is a monster that passes all understanding."

It’s even "simpler" : "Love, and do anything you want" (Rabelais).

Even hate ? Yeah, think so. Even hate. Hate is energy. You won’t hurt and you won’t get hurt. As long as there’s no basic hatred.

On the other hand… Your “victim” might have a hard time with this realistic, critical kind of love. I’ll quote the example of a friend I had and who as I see him is now stuck in a rut of error and pride. We fell out, but he tried to “move on” and asked me how I was doing as if nothing had happened. I replied : “If you want to know, you can”. He sighed, as if I had rejected him.

But I hadn’t. My words were literal. If he wants to know, he can. I wrote it all to him. If he wants to know, the door is open. But he doesn’t. He wants to err. And so, a slave to his guilt, he bangs his head against his own walls. All I’m doing is help him meet said walls. Cause as John Lennon put it, “can’t do you no harm to feel your own pain”.

Michael Moore calls this “tough love”. And he knows a thing or two about being a Christian.

WHY BROTHER (Living As One)

2005-05-30T06:04:00.000-07:00

Mike, the eternal optimist, tends to think that a right-winger is a liberal with a wallet and not enough information. He has supported this view with so much passion and talent that I have believed him and incorporated the idea… at the very time I consciously thought I didn’t.

Here is how he elaborated on that in an inspired article he wrote for USA Today at the time when he was hired to report for them about the RNC :

I've often found that if I go down the list of "liberal" issues with people who say they're Republican, they are quite liberal and not in sync with the Republicans who run the country. Most don't want America to be the world's police officer and prefer peace to war. They applaud civil rights, believe all Americans should have health insurance and think assault weapons should be banned. Though they may personally oppose abortion, they usually don't think the government has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

There's a name for these Republicans: RINOs or Republican In Name Only. They possess a liberal, open mind and don't believe in creating a worse life for anyone else.

I believed him… I believed it…

I believed it because it was him, that’s quite possible. But through this childlike faith in humanity, Mike was also simply voicing the basic Christian worldview : the fundamental goodness of man and evil as mistake or ignorance. A creed going back as far as Socrates, who used to teach that ignorance was evil and, besides, died according to a logic similar to the one that led to the crucifixion…

Whatever…

I wasn’t born yesterday, and I’m no longer what you could call young. And still, I have believed in a right-winger… It was the first time in my life. It was like falling in love.

I think I saw him like a battlefield. He looked torn between slumber, fear and refusal – and lucidity, honesty and genuine morality.

Genuine morality…

My friend the Moore-disliker was smart enough to understand and creative enough to be an artist, but he slowly drifted toward power, shallowness and cynicism. When I saw his repetition-based humor turn to Rovian propaganda and his desire to appease the disputes turn to an order to follow his views, my friend the Moore-disliker began to dislike me. When I meant time, fidelity and loyalty, my friend the Moore-disliker began to keep silent. And when I told him not to sink in slumber, fear and refusal with the rest of the desolate Bored Crowd, my friend the Moore-disliker told me * I * had betrayed him and he gave me the Darwin boot for that.

He did it with the hubris of Roger Smith and the arrogance of George Bush. He did it because I had posted ONE thing he didn’t like. Like Bush, he didn’t need to say what. Like Bush, it was with him or against him. Like Bush, he was right without discussion. Like Bush, it was because nothing else mattered whatsoever. And like Bush, none of this fuss was real and he lied to divert the attention from his own guilt.

OK… So Bush murdered thousands, and my friend the Moore-disliker only temporarily shot my soul and my brain. But if the degrees in damage can’t compare, what about the natures ? He behaved coldly. He knew what he was doing, and he did it just for oil, I mean, just to get rid of something that was getting in his chit-chat. Who cares if it meant the deaths of so many young people, I mean, hurting a true heart. Fascism is basically considering the other as a thing. You can do anything to a thing. During the process, my friend the fascist had carefully pointed out, in his indirect, scornful way, that posters on a board should be regarded as 99% pixels.

And that’s how he’s acting now, for what you do to the others, you’re doing to yourself. He rarely posts, but when he does, his messages are of a worldly teenager or an obsessional robot. He keeps posting variations on ONE sentence from Mike he “doesn’t forgive him”, presumably aimed at underlining that my ONE post was a crime, or, more likely, simply at pissing me off. Well… OK, it pisses me off. So what, my friend the lame fascist ?

Bah. A lame fascist who’s only posting on a board is more lame than fascist. And I’ve seen this one make right choices before. It wasn’t a dream. It wasn’t a dream, but it’s a game. It’s always a game. The game used to be a personal Mission. Now it’s Bush’s Crusade. We’re choosing all the time between love and ego, ideal and power, heaven and abyss. It’s a game, but it’s the absolute game.

For the fact is that, in a 99% pixels world, spiritual slumber is far superior. Easier, handier. Better survival, especially after you’ve created the paranoid place where you will need to survive. Everybody plays the game, but most bet and win or lose counterfeit money. And the frustration drives them mad. Writers like Bret Easton Ellis have described the bridges that lead from boredom to immorality. Movies like “The Corporation” have followed the paths that lead from economic rationality to spiritual madness.

Is there such a difference between individual and collective choices ? On earth as it is in Heaven, says the Lord’s Prayer…

Mike is a son of the Age of Reason, the Age of Enlightenment. He is driven by a stubborn, visionary faith in man’s good will and common sense, a deep, overwhelming conviction that any man will automatically choose the right path if only given the knowledge.

Here is an excerpt of his Acceptance Speech in 2004 at Cannes :

"I have a sneaking suspicion that you've ensured that the American people will see this film.

You've put a huge light on this, you've taken truth out of the closet. A Republican President once said, 'If you just give people the truth the Republic will be saved.' That was Abraham Lincoln, a different kind of Republican than George Bush."

That’s why he advocates education. Why he lays greater stress on information in education. Why he has worked for 12 years as a journalist. Why the absurdity of Bush’s re-election made him stay in bed for three days. And also, why he got out of bed after three days…

Well, life goes on. My ex-brother can always switch from Bush to Lincoln, and I’m getting out of bed every day, like Mike.

Forgiveness ? Acceptance ? Why bother ?

Why, brother ?

Ah. An important precision. I deleted my ONE post while under the shock. But I never brothered to re-read it as it was demanded. One Volk, one Reich, one Post… Things. It is just not my country, 99 % dude.

HATE

2005-05-19T03:06:00.000-07:00

The Moore haters. The Moore dislikers. The Bush voters. Stay away from them. All of them. They are what they voted for.

LOVE

2005-05-10T18:30:00.000-07:00

I LOVE MICHAEL MOORE

The most significant reasons why I love Michael Moore are already all there, all mixed together. They lay in the symbols and even the archetypes people pick up to describe him. He’s been referred to as Steinbeck, Falstaff, a prophet, David against Goliath, the king’s jester, the Statue of Liberty, one of the presidents carved in Mount Rushmore.

Steinbeck stands for America’s deeply buried, long lost, but never forgotten socialist dream. He’s the one who wrote “The grapes of wrath”. I love Michael Moore for his anger and his “never say die”, “don’t take no for an answer” attitude.

Falstaff is Shakespeare’s symbol of free thinking, generous and merry individualism. I love Michael Moore for his “wake up”, “think for yourself” urge and message.

Prophets carry the words of God. I love Michael Moore because God has never been on the stinking rich and corrupt man’s side, but on the grieving, poor, dying for nothing little guy’s side.

David fought Goliath even though Goliath seemed so mighty and more powerful than him, because he knew righteousness would prevail over a mere show of strength. I love Michael Moore for speaking up the truth against tyranny, no matter how many libels, threats and apparent dangers he endures for that.

The king’s jester stands for the voice of reason in a buffoon’s clothes summoning the real but powerful fool. I love Michael Moore for supplying this Middle Ages well known antidote to tyranny, since we live under tyranny and in the Middle Ages.

The Statue of Liberty is the symbol of freedom. I love Michael Moore for being free of fear, free of hate, free of lies, free of greed, free of censorship, free of self-censorship. I love Michael Moore for being free.

Mount Rushmore is where the Presidents who served their country best go. I love Michael Moore for serving his country’s true ideals, and showing the real presidents their way back home.

I love Michael Moore for his dissent, his intelligence, his independence, his importance, the threat he represents to the Leviathan. I love Michael Moore because he’s great, big, FAT, and his enemies are mean, petty and starving… for enlightenment.

I love Michael Moore because he’s a good man.

There are still things left to say about Moore. For, unfortunately for his bashers, Moore’s greatest asset is that Moore is Moore. You can’t reduce him to archetypes, so great as they are, because Moore is to become an archetype unto himself. I’m talking about his downright originality. He’s popular without being a populist. He manages to be far left and very moderate at the same time. He manages to be both very moderate and uncompromising. He tells the truth by asking questions. He asks questions by telling the truth.

He’s a punk rocker who became mainstream and made the world listen to the reasons to destroy. He’s become as universal and influential as any fake puppet star, while carrying a powerful and important message, which hasn’t been seen since the Beatles. He’s a UFO in the world of arts, who, by mixing showmanship and intellect, humor and emotion, facts and opinions, gives a new meaning to the word “artist”, a renowned meaning to the artist’s mission, and a complex meaning to the word “truth”.

I love Michael Moore. Did I say because ?

DO I HAVE TO BE A STUPID WHITE MAN ?

2005-05-03T11:11:00.000-07:00

Once again kusturica provides the food for thought... Thanks brother ! It had been too long...

I'm a white bastard

I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth.

I've never had to try hard for anything. It was all handed to me.

I've never been fired from a job for my appearance. I've gotten every job I've applied for even though I wasn't necessarily qualified. I've never been accused of stealing by an employer. After all, I'm white. Let's not forget that I'm a white male. Heterosexual to boot.

I've never been harassed by ignorant people who didn't understand me. I've never been threatened with physical violence by those people, nor feared for my life because of their nonexistant threats.

My upbringing was practically utopian. My parents had no vices and never fought. I was never physically or emotionally abused by anyone with any authority over me.

I have been spoiled from a young age with affection from women, primarily because of my whiteness and my position in life. It makes me very happy and fullfilled.

I have always been able to afford my rent.

I love to rub these facts in the faces of those less fortunate. I hate most non white people, and I don't think much of women or homosexuals. They deserve their lot in life, and their struggles aren't that bad anyway, so what are they complaining about?

I vote Republican every time.

I've never stood up for, nor helped in any way, anyone less fortunate than me.

I'm a real white bastard, and I find this so inspiring that I always have plenty to say about it.

I already answered this on kust's blog, but I believe that this half-self-portrait has a structure profound and meaningful enough to deserve a wider acknowledgement.

Up to "I have always been able to afford my rent", it's a common core curriculum shared by all stupid white men, and it could harmoniously be inserted in "Stupid White Men" as a counter-point to "Kill Whitey" :

White people scare the crap out of me. This may be hard for you to understand-- considering that I am white-but then again, my color gives me a certain insight. For instance, I find myself pretty scary a lot of the time, so I know what I'm talking about. You can take my word for it: if you find yourself suddenly surrounded by white people, you better watch out. Anything can happen.

But what really happens... in kust's piece at least, is that at this point there is a fork, a switch-over : a refusal to bear the stupid white man's burden for him. The guilt is given back to whom it may concern.

Maybe it's only due to my presently serious state of mind, but to me it's more than a joke. In the "Kill Whitey" chapter, all those who fit the dominant pattern are automatically sinners and must atone for the color of their skin in various ways helpfully provided by the author.

That's what Mike does. This part is autobiographical. That’s what the people from sorryeverybody.com did after the election. Self-whipping is part of the American left’s culture, and rebelling against this attitude is healthy and no joke at all. Is it fair that the innocent should bear the cross for the guilty ? Well, it happens all the time at any rate. That’s the way of the world. That’s one of the most hidden and unfathomable laws of the world. And the wilful, lucid and permanent bearing of the cross by a few innocent men is what saves the world. But can holiness be demanded ?

No. Not because it’s asking too much. Because the average Joe couldn’t bear the guilt without feeling guilty. That’s what kust expresses when he says “real” and “bastard” instead of, in an undifferentiated way, “stupid” and “man”. That’s what Mike expresses when he writes : my color gives me a certain insight. For instance, I find myself pretty scary a lot of the time.

But, contrary to what one might think, both of them don’t fundamentally disagree. Actually, at the beginning, the “Stupid White Men” are clearly Bushco : How did all this happen? Three little words: Stupid White Men. And the book closes on what can be regarded as a genuine absolution : You own the store. The bad guys are just a bunch of silly, stupid white men. And there's a helluva lot more of us than there are of them. Use your power. You deserve better.

Like kust, Mike knows undeserved guilt bears no fruit and that’s why “Kill Whitey” is not the final word to “Stupid White Men”. But he also knows that no one is innocent and that responsibility is but a tensional axis between guilt and innocence, and so he blurs the image of the culprit just the time for you to understand you’ve got to take your share – you too are someone’s whitey – we’re all on the same boat – let’s kill our inner whitey, again and again. Which takes us far away from the miserable accusation of racism and self-hatred often cast by the anti-Moore fuckwits.

A DREAM

2005-05-01T09:39:00.000-07:00

Tonight I dreamed that I was shopping and Mike was walking up to me. I told him : "You're not the one they say you are". His mouth formed an O and he kissed me, at length, in a sensual way.

Then I was in front of the glass door of a store, loaded with my bags, trying to get in. The door half-opened, but the store was closed. So I dumped my bags and pushed, shouting : "Open up !", but the store remained closed. Shelves of shoes could be seen inside.

That's all I can remember.

I think Mike needs my site.

MEET ME ON THE WASTELAND

2005-04-01T07:10:00.000-08:00

The Waste Land is originally a poem written by U.S.-born British poet T. S. Eliot in 1922. One of the 20th century’s major poetic works, it portrays the disintegration of western values, the soullessness of modern society, and humankind’s desperate search for salvation. It consists of five seemingly disconnected sections made up of fragmented verses written in a variety of styles but linked by imagery, symbols, and diverse literary and historical references.

Wasteland is a song written by English singer-songwriter Paul Weller in 1980 for the very dark album Setting Sons by The Jam. I don't know if it's related to the poem, I would be very surprised if it wasn't. The Jam were then the moral leaders of the anti-Thatcherism movement, and Setting Sons describes the land in ruins and the spiritual dereliction directly caused by the permed bitch's policies.

A wasteland stands for all that is barren. It is a dry oh so pretty vacant lot from where nothing can and will ever grow. It's like the belly of an infertile woman, a one-night stand, a gay marriage, a discussion about Michael Moore's lies.

It also stands for all that will come out of nowhere without having grown, like the Tartars suddenly invading The Tartar Steppe in Dino Buzzati's novel, the passion of an affair suddenly disrupting the normal flow of the humdrum, reality silently happening to you while you're busy doing other things.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meet me on the wasteland - later this day,
We'll sit and talk and hold hands maybe,
For there's not much else to do in this drab and colourless place.

Paul Weller (Wasteland)

Come in under the shadow of this red rock,
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.

T.S.Eliot (The Waste Land – The Burial of the Dead)

We'll sit amongst the rubber tyres,
Amongst the discarded bric-a-brac - people have no use for,
Amongst the smouldering embers of yesterday.
And when or if the sun shines,
Lighting our once beautiful features,
We'll smile, but only for seconds,
For to be caught smiling's to acknowledge life,
A brave but useless show of compassion,
And that is forbidden in this drab and colourless world.

Paul Weller (Wasteland)

Here is no water but only rock
Rock and no water and the sandy road
The road winding above among the mountains
Which are mountains of rock without water
If there were water we should stop and drink
Amongst the rock one cannot stop or think
Sweat is dry and feet are in the sand
If there were only water amongst the rock

T.S.Eliot (The Waste Land – What the thunder said)

And there amongst the shit - the dirty linen,
The holy Coca-Cola tins - the punctured footballs,
the ragged dolls - the rusting bicycles,
We'll sit and probably hold hands.
And watch the rain fall - watch it, watch it -
Tumble and fall - tumble and falling -
Like our lives - like our lives -
Just like our lives.

Paul Weller (Wasteland)

Falling towers
Jerusalem Athens Alexandria
Vienna London
Unreal

T.S.Eliot (The Waste Land – What the thunder said)

We'll talk about the old days,
When the wasteland was release, when we could play,
And think - without feeling guilty -
Meet me later but we'll have to hold hands.
Tumble and fall - tumble and falling -
Like our lives - like our lives -
Exactly like our lives.

Paul Weller (Wasteland)

'My nerves are bad to-night. Yes, bad. Stay with me.
'Speak to me. Why do you never speak. Speak.
'What are you thinking of? What thinking? What?
'I never know what you are thinking. Think.'

T.S.Eliot (The Waste Land – A game of chess)

GOT GIRAFFES IN MY HAIR

2005-03-26T05:29:00.000-08:00

Midnight hour
I can't sleep and things went sour
It's spring and I want to scream
For an ID and text on a screen
Impossible, forbidden lover
Ridiculous, unwanted fever
For someone I'll never even meet
Mr Kopel, can you help me fathom ?
It happened on a forum.

Tell me why
After years being normally high
I've become a fearless crusader
A Biblical prophet, a pun, a character
A disciple, a fan, a ghost among ghosts
Drugged up and more insane than most
For someone who will never know my name
Mr Limbaugh, this help me overcome
It happened on a forum.

My love went mad
Slammed the door and was sad
I live in permanent haze
Don't watch TV for days
I've seen my real world crumble
My job and my concerns tumble
For things that aren't even material
Oh Mr Hitchens I'm losing momentum
It happened on a forum.

Gonna go
Where you may meet souls and say hello
Utopia rather than ruthlessness
Illusions for lack of tenderness
Showmanship over invisibility
Let's seek action and find beauty
For the ludic society I want for real
Mr Hardy, save me from lies and boredom
It happened on a forum.

TRUTH AND FACTS - "...And that's the way it is."

2005-03-24T05:35:00.000-08:00

Here is my own take on the debate...

"...AND THAT'S THE WAY IT IS."

Waldo : (sigh) These kids today...

Me : So can I have the ball, Daddy ?

Waldo : As long as you 2 can play nice.

The essential, to me, is that Waldo sets in philosophy (absolute) what belongs to journalism (relative).

Waldo has no clear idea of truth, nor take on truth, except that he wants to shake yours. I’ve seen him defend "there is no truth", “truth is dead” and "the truth is unattainable", which are philosophically very different postulates. He also defines truth as Facts and Links, thus confusing it with sheer debate. His reason to do that is that the country is rightly obsessed by lies : observing that people endlessly yell at each other for truth, he has decided there was none, like parents will confiscate the ball because they’re tired of seeing the children squabbling for it.

But the ball does belong to one of the children though. It’s just that the parents value peace (a lying peace) more than investigation.

The facts and links provided by the children to claim the possession of the ball cannot be dismissed as being all the same, just because they’re innumerable. There are good and objective reasons to order them hierarchically : some facts are bigger than others, others will oppose lies, others will be made significant by values.

If Facts and Links, these liberal inventions, mean nothing to Waldo, it's because he sees them as a picture by Magritte where the comb is bigger than the bed. It's on this ideology that Kopel made up God Tiny Detail, whom he worships. But the facts in F9/11 are macrocosmic. Add the facts you like, as many facts you like to the larger picture. Let's see how they can alter it. The large picture works whatever the facts you add to it. The regime is corrupt. Money talks louder than human life. Mainstream medias brainwash the populace. Go on, debunk these.

Journalistic truth exists.

Walter Cronkite’s nightly sign-off used to be "and that's the way it is". Not “and that’s the truth, Ruth”. He was acknowledged as the symbol of unbiased journalism, and still, he made no mystery of his opinions (for example, he had seen the space story as one of the most important events of the future). His legacy is of separating reporting from advocacy. Michael Moore is, among others, one of those who carry it. Who cares, then, if I feel before I think (Waldo is right, it has been proven) - as long as I am given the right tools to think and providing I’m willing to use my reason ? Whereas the Lie of the Bush Administration consists in blurring this separation. Significantly, Cronkite recently wrote a preface to 1984, warning against Newspeak.

Facts never claimed to be the truth. They just claim to be reality. Reality is multiple, and of course I order it according to myself, so what ? Why should all these realities be censored instead of put together just because they’re not absolute ?

Of course truth is dead, Bush killed it. But Jesus teaches us that death is not the end, and Lenin, that facts are stubborn, heh heh.

And that’s the way it is.