aaronidiot

Ok, so, it was a long weekend in the sense that a friend from the homeland (Nebraska, a.k.a. chrisitian-rightwing-central), was visiting me this weekend. Basically, this girl is as far right on the spectrum as you get. And we discussed all manners of politics, and I sorta forced her to go see Michael Moore's film, on the basis of, it is being discredited without knowledge of what is to be discredited. After seeing it, I even discredited a good portion of it due to his manipulation through emotions, gore and misrepresentation. If you care to hear my analysis of the movie and the impact it had on my person, read below.

First off, Moore shouldnt have included anything about the election, in my personal opinion. That was debated, decided, and that was an entire situation that was unfortunate, but sadly couldnt have been determined in any way that would have left the country in an agreeable state. He did put information in it that the country did not see or know of, for instance, the riots on his initial ride to the White House, the egging of his limo, the fact that he was the first president not to actually walk home. Interesting food for thought there. But nonetheless, the election information could have been done without.

From this point on, all parties watching this movie should understand that it is extremely slanted, this is in no way a documentary. Moore uses manipulation, misinformation and emotions to sway your opinion rather than using fact and reasoning. With that in mind, this movie is excellent to watch, bearing those thoughts in mind. On a side note though, I found it to be excellent that he portrayed his film in that light though, for one and one reason only: The Bush Administration did the same thing to us for the past several years now. And what would you consider worse, being manipulated by one mans opinion, or being manipulated by your commander in chief and his staff? Consider that question very carefully, it should weigh very heavily on the minds of the people who discredit this movie without even seeing it, and on the minds of those who see it and still discredit it. If you must discredit one, wouldnt you discredit the other, and when the other is the leader of your country, wouldnt that worry you? I am by no means a supporter of Kerry, I dont believe he would make a great president, nor would our 10% of the vote Nader, but in this situation, which is the worse of evils? Sorry for the ramble, but I feel that is a point that is lost on so many people. Manipulation is wrong, the republicans say Moores movie is wrong for that reason, but do they realize the hypocrisy?

Now, after the election material has finished and the crap has been passed, now comes fact and correlation. The entire Bush family has ties with the Saudis and Bin Laden family. There is no question, no repudiation, that is absolute fact. Also an absolute fact, of the two major reasons we invaded Iraq, one we were told that Saddam and Al Quaeda were linked, but only by a trail of money. Al Quaeda was also greatly funded by the same people who are so closely tied to the Bush family, the Saudis. Now using Saddams ties to the Al Quaeda as an excuse to invade, when the Bush family themselves could be considered tied to Al Quaeda, shouldnt that stand out as hypocrisy also? The other major reason for invading were the ever worrisome letters WMD. I can understand our reasoning, to a certain extent, why would could believe there were WMDs. Saddam lied to us for years about his weapons, so understandably, we could infer that he was still lying. Even with this information, the fact that he was allowing inspectors access in his country, that should have been reason enough for us to not attack. There was good faith in what he was doing, even if we had no faith, our legal system in the US would provide that we would have to exhaust our belief in them before any action could be taken otherwise. Instead, on information that later was revealed to the public as less than accurate, our president would have had us believe that the weapons did exist, and in some Americans minds, still do exist. So now, as we can see that we were lied to about his weapons capabilities, Bush has had just as significant links to Al Quaeda as Saddam did, and the fact that Saddam never actually attacked us, what reasoning was there for our attack on Iraq? Any justification you can bring up on that matter sickens me. All I need to use to destroy your justification is the number of human lives taken for reasons we can no longer begin to fathom. And if another person tries to tell me that we are giving them freedom, then fuck you, yeah, death is freedom, but they didnt ask for it. Just because our great patriot, Patrick Henry, said, Give me Liberty or Give me Death, doesnt mean we are justified to lay that concept on a different culture. A bit of a stretch, but that would be like saying all men in every country should be circumcised to avoid infection, were liberating you from certain infection. Does that mean we have the right to force that down someone elses throat? No.

Now, I pay close attention to our political system and what is going on, but the movie did in fact enlighten me in some respects. For instance, the terror alerts we keep receiving, going from high (red) to sorta high (orange), I have no idea what the system actually is because I took it as a load of crap, but the movie discussed the psychological effects it has on humans. When you are constantly being told you are in mortal danger, that does in fact cause you to be on edge, and more willing to support an action that says will alleviate you of that fear. If you are in the US, and had an attention span for any news source, you know just how often the terror alert was changed, and how often you would hear that there is an imminent danger of terrorist attack. In reality, how many times was there actually cause for that type of hysteria? Very very few.

A large part of the movie dealt with the money trail, and as often as the republican party ignores those money trails, and attempts to bury them, every American should have that information when they are weighing the decision of who they want to run their country. To not have that information, whether it be valid or not, is misleading.

As much as I may sound like I am preaching, I want you to understand, I am not in opposition of the Republican party, I am in opposition of Bush. If the republicans made a choice for a different candidate to run for president, I wouldnt be as adverse to their candidate taking the election (cant say I wouldnt because I am against almost all politicians). But as it stands, to vote for Bush in the coming election would be folly. If he is in the White House, can you imagine him doing any good for the next 4 years with the opposition our country has for him? If he is elected, what can he accomplish anymore. The senate and house are going to be wary of siding with him, the American people are going to be so divided, he will only accomplish his own agenda that, as president, he has the power to force. And if that is the case, is that really what our president should be, a man whos only power comes through that of force? Isnt that what we liberated the Iraqis from?

I encourage anyone who was able to wade through this to provide feedback about any/everthing. Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to criticize me, praise me, or just banter with me. The only way our country can really be enlightened about what is happening is through communication. As much of a spouting-asshole-shitbag Michael Moore is, he has at least provided a great counterpoint to the Bush administration.

Also, know that this isn't a complete review of the movie on my part, I could have gone on for 20 more pages about what impact the movie had, but I touched only on points that I found to be the most valid and the points that needed most to be discussed. If there are other portions of the movie, or the Bush administration you would like to chat about, feel free the bring it up.