Grain of salt? Bah!

Alison is right... you have to take Moore's work "with a grain of salt". Just because someone can have something published/printed/produced doesnt mean the work will be defacto truth. You have to think about why they are saying it and how they say it. Bowling for Columbine is a perfect example. I would imagine that Fahrenheit is the same...

while we're on the subject of movies, who wants to see spiderman 2 on Wednesday? I know I do, though I have to work until 8pm that night, so I'm aiming for a 9pm show. I sent an email out as well, so maybe we can get an awesome crew out.

okay... so I'm not bothering at this exact moment to go through all the posts and glean everything about the Michael Moore discussioin I should, so forgive me if I repeat what someone else said... but you have to remember that he's taken editorial/artistic licence with the film, and that although maybe everything is true, he's not giving you the whole picture. It's like Bowling for Columbine using Sarnia ON as the typical Canadian city... not so representative if you ask me... but not not telling the truth either.

I'd vote if I could.

And back to the Michael Moore thing... you've got to know that everything in that movie is 100% factual. Michael Moore vs. George Bush is a case of the little fish attacking the big fish. If any minute detail was wrong Michael Moore would have been crushed. The only way this movie could have survived long enough to even make it to theaters is if everything had been double/triple checked for authenticity. I'm not saying the movie isn't biased toward a certain political ideology, or intended to get a point across, but at least what is shown is the truth and not some made up bullshit.
My only hope is that he's not preaching to the converted - that people other than left wing Michael Moore fans go to see it. If Fahrenheit 9/11 could get better distribution (it's only playing in 868 theaters all over the states) and the masses have a chance to see it I think it could actually help swing the election away (or further away) from Bush.

AN OPEN LETTER TO CANADIAN VOTERS FROM RALPH NADER
here's the cbc link
June 25th, 2004

It is out of affection for Canada that I tender the following:

Caveat, voters, next Monday.

Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have plans for crippling the
commonwealth and security of the Canadian standard of living, known
worldwide as just about the finest among sizable nations. Mr. Harper and
the Conservatives are sympathetic with the Fraser Institute's plan for a
corporatist Canada that tears away your common safety net. The Fraser
Institute would choose to insidiously undermine your national health
insurance system bit by bigger bit -- on the installment plan.

If you want to see the Fraser Institute and the Conservatives' plan for
Canadians, come to the U.S., where health care for many Americans is
based on a pay -or-die model. Forty-five million Americans -- women, men
and children -- have no insurance coverage, and the number of uninsureds
is increasing. The prestigious Institute of Medicine estimates 18,000
Americans die every year because they cannot afford to see a doctor or
go to a hospital. In the US, most working people have lost their freedom
to choose a doctor or hospital because their corporate HMO plans assign
such service. Hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted annually on
bureaucracy, administrative expenses, and massive computerized billing
fraud and abuse (see www.citizen.org, or Harvard professor Malcolm
Sparrow's book License to Steal). Furthermore, average health care
expenses per capita are much higher in the US than in Canada --
and not only drug prices.

Voters beware. You are, in part, understandably reacting to the recent
scandal touching the incumbent party. Do not overreact. You have a third
major choice -- the NDP -- or other parties. Don't indirectly vote for
the Fraser Institute and its positions of anti-law and order for
corporations -- policies threatening to become your future government's
policies. You'll pay: under the Conservatives, large corporations,
including those from other countries, will have more say than ever --
Reagan/Bush/BushII style. Please maintain and advance your civil
society.

There are many Americans who, over the decades, have looked to Canada
for social justice initiatives to emulate. About ten years ago, I
co-authored a book, Canada Firsts, which became a 42-week bestseller in
your country. Canada Firsts described many Canadian "firsts" that found
their way south to our country -- including credit unions. We need an
independent, humane Canada. It is in such a spirit that I submit these
views for your consideration.

Best wishes for justice,
Ralph Nader



GO VOTE TODAY!

But don't take my word for it

I always thought it was the kids who said that, upon reviewing the book.

M. Mash, I agree with you completely. And I do think what Michael Moore is doing is an incredibly important thing. However, it's just as dangerous to say "Hey, we can trust Michael Moore" and internalize his ideas without doing a little of our own research to verify it, and even more importantly; to do some "soul-searching" and stop and ask ourselves "given the facts, what do I think?". It's too easy for people to say "hey, Mr. Moore thinks this, so I do too". Agreeing with Michael Moore without questioning his own biases is somewhat ironically defeating his own agenda. Ultimately he's trying to get people (especially in Fahrenheit 9/11) to understand that we're being spoon-fed bullshit (aka "propaganda") at all times on all fronts. It's a sad fact that tens-of-thousands (if not millions) of Fahrenheit 9/11 viewers will say "yep, that film looks about right" and not stop for a second to question it. Although this is kind of a good thing since it's providing a counter-assault against Bush's twisted version of the truth, it's not a real solution to anything at all; that's just people behaving the same as they did before, except they're mindlessly following a new leader. Of course, if somebody persuasive enough (like Moore) can tap into that and sway some opinions toward a truer point-of-view, that's obviously a good thing... but unless people actively change the way they arrive at their decisions, we're ultimately fighting a losing battle.

All I'm really trying to say is that changing opinions only goes so far. Changing your way-of-life... specifically the way you view, and how you question your environment on a second-to-second basis is the only way we will ever accomplish any amount of REAL change. Changing minds is easy, changing people is another matter altogether.

In my last post I left you with the title of a Morcheeba album: "Who Can You Trust?"

If you think you truly understand what I'm trying to say, I implore you to stop reading for just a second and ask yourself what the answer to the question "WHO CAN YOU TRUST?" should be- do it RIGHT NOW BEFORE READING ANY FURTHER.


Did you do it?

Okay, if you did then continue reading.

So, what was your answer to the question? Was it something like this: "You can't trust ANYONE. You can only trust yourself."? Was it? And now once again I implore you to stop reading and take a second to ask yourself whether or not you agree with the answer "no one but yourself" before you continue reading.

So... do you agree with it? Is it YES, or is it NO? If you've decided, then please continue reading.

Well, if you agreed that the answer to "Who can you trust?" is "no one but yourself", then I'm completely and utterly disappointed. In my limited experience, the only answer to that question is "Trust no one; even and especially yourself."

And it is that one very answer which I believe is the very truest essence of punk. For me, that is the lowest-common-denominator of absolute truth in this universe.

Or as Reading Rainbow's LeVar Burton so aptly put it, "But don't take my word for it".