President Bush in Grand Rapids (Part 1)

(Here's the text of a speech I gave yesterday at a rally in Grand Rapids, on the occasion of Pres. Bush's campaign visit here. I'll have more to say about the rest of the day's events later.)

Thanks for coming out this afternoon. I’m Dave Blakeslee and I’m reporting to protest.

A year and a half ago many of us here today were gathered here in downtown Grand Rapids, up on the hill, on Michigan Street outside the Spectrum Butterworth hospital campus on a cold morning in January 2003. The occasion was President Bush’s first public appearance after delivering his State of the Union address, the same one in which he issued his infamous warnings about Iraq’s massive stockpiles of WMD’s, their supposed pursuit of uranium from Africa, and the imminent threat that Saddam Hussein presented to the United States of America.

It was a memorable day, one full of anticipation and tension. We protestors doubted that we would get much of a chance to actually see the President, since the bubble of security around him is so tight, and the insulation between himself and the people he claims to serve is so thick. But we wanted to stand out there, a crowd of several hundred concerned citizens, armed only with signs and voices and an unconquerable spirit of hope, in an effort to ensure that he would see us, or strain his neck looking the other way to avoid us. We hoped, idealistically, perhaps naively that he would seriously consider the consequences of traveling down the path of war and aggression upon which he was leading our nation.

Our numbers that morning were, in one sense, encouraging. It was exciting for many of us to see gathered in one place, right here in our town, hundreds of like minded souls who once again raised the cry to “Stop War” and “Give Peace a Chance.” But we knew that there would be more people crammed inside DeVos Hall that day to hear the President speak than those of us who chose to stand outside as dissenters. Still, we did not worry too much about being a minority voice. We knew that we had a duty, an obligation that day, to stand vigil in opposition to the war that the President and his advisors were planning, because on that day, we were the representatives of the true majority of peace-loving citizens of the world. Our voices and our protests spoke on behalf of countless millions around this globe who struggle and resist the forces of domination, brutality and conquest that all too often rob us of our freedoms, our homes, our well being and our lives.

We knew then, and we know even more surely now, that Bush’s case for war was unjust, that the war was driven not by necessity but by choice – by a desire to manage resources and affairs in the region, by the pursuit of power and geopolitical advantage, and in order to settle some old scores between our president and the “man who tried to kill his daddy.” For these tainted ambitions, the lives of tens of thousands would be put at risk, and enormous sacrifices would be asked of those on both sides of the conflict who had nothing to personally gain from its eventual outcome. And to our deep and lasting sorrow, we see that the tragedies we feared would stem from the war have indeed come to pass. Terrorists run rampant through Iraq. Over ten thousand Iraqi citizens have lost their lives, including women, children, the elderly, countless non-combatants and innocent bystanders. The credibility and character of America’s representative government has been seriously damaged despite the widespread lack of support for this war that has only been growing as our nation confronts the consequences of our leaders’ choices. Billions of dollars have been wasted, corrupt dealings and abuses of all sorts rise to the surface, with who knows what other horrors remaining yet to be revealed. International alliances are strained, and we face the prospect of living under a government in denial as their neo-con schemes unravel and we all collectively pay the price.

We protested then, and we continue to protest now, all efforts to turn our culture over to the militarists and the fear-mongers. We resent the manipulation of the public that took place in the run-up to war – the exploitation of our understandable anxieties in the aftermath of September 11, and the way that the trust of our citizens was diverted into making difficult and needless choices between “love of country” and “love of our global neighbors.”

Because you see, war is not a video game. War is not a multi-media spectacle. War is not just another entry into the history books. War is not inevitable. War is not an acceptable way to pursue and maintain the peace.

After President Bush made his State of the Union speech, one of the crucial steps he took in putting our nation on the path to waging this unjust, destructive war, he made Grand Rapids his first stop in the publicity campaign to sell it. That says something about our town. Now that his most prominent opponent in the upcoming election has just made his big acceptance speech, Bush’s first campaign stop, after coming off another vacation down on the ranch, is right back here in good ol’ Grand Rapids. That also says something about how Bush sees our town. Apparently he finds some kind of support here, among some of our citizens anyway, when he has some serious spinning to do. He came to G.R. in order to present his shaky case that we need to wage war in Iraq. We didn’t buy it then. Now he’s in G.R. to tell us that we need to give him another four-year lease on the White House. WE AIN’T BUYING IT NOW!

Now living here in Grand Rapids, I am sure that many of you, like myself, have had to deal with the frustration of encountering those we might call the true believers in Bush, in war, and in the kind of pseudo-patriotic arrogance that fuels such beliefs. About all that, I want to say that America’s greatness is not founded in violence, but in our shared values of justice, peace, equality, liberty and freedom. We as a society, as a nation, have much to celebrate and much to share with the world. Gratitude and self-respect for our heritage and our achievements are appropriate responses for all who call themselves Americans. But the privileges of the life we lead, and the wealth that our nation has accumulated, do not legitimize any claim that some may think we have to police the world, to subjugate the weak or to breed contempt for those who do not share our beliefs, customs or traditions. The United States of America was conceived as a haven for the nurturing of life, the expansion of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. From its conception, this country has had to overcome numerous prejudices, and our ancestors made a lot of mistakes along the way to creating a more perfect union. For our generation, the responsibility is to advance these values in mature, responsible ways that spring from our growing awareness of the interconnectedness of all human societies, and life on this planet. The members of the West Michigan Justice and Peace Coalition are each dedicated, in the various causes we represent, to this pursuit.

We are here today to raise our voices and demand the accountability of our elected leaders that we can rightfully claim. We have heard the explanations, we have endured the clichés and we expect not more of the same – we expect an apology from our president, who misled us into a war that did not need to be fought, and whose burdens have fallen upon those who had very little choice in the matter – the people of Iraq, and our enlisted men and women who placed their trust in a president who they thought would not put them in needless danger.

And we protest this war, as we will continue to protest all wars in the future, not as partisans seeking to replace one elected figurehead with another. We don’t oppose the war in Iraq just because it’s led by George W. Bush. We oppose war in Iraq because war is wrong, war represents a failure, war is an option that we humans neither need nor can any longer afford. The pain and loss and suffering are too great, and are to be avoided whenever it is within our power to do so.

Yes, we know that for most of us, life goes on after the war is over. But when will the war really be over? For some, its toll will never cease to be felt. And so we again implore our leaders to fully grasp the truth that casualties of war are not mere statistics – they are our neighbors, our friends, our loved ones – for if we have a heart for humanity, we will understand that war diminishes us all. It drags us down, it binds us to error, ignorance and self-deception. We who understand these things must affirm and encourage each other to rally together, to stand firm in our opposition to the wasteful killing and destruction, and to work with passion and determination for the achievement of peace, justice and truth in this world.

Van Halen

Last Friday, I had the opportunity to work another event on behalf of my sons' high school marching band, at the Van Andel Arena concession stands. Just two nights removed from the Incubus concert at the same venue, I got into the Van Halen show, one of the summer's most anticipated events in my book, and probably quite a few others as well.

As it turned out, the show was somewhat anti-climactic, for reasons I'll explain a little later. But before I get into describing the night's events, let me go back a ways to cover my own thoughts on Van Halen the band.

My first live Van Halen experience took place back in 1978 or '79, I can't quite remember what year it was. It was their first national tour, the one they did in support of their debut album, titled "Van Halen" of course. They opened for Black Sabbath, and as I recall it, the youngsters from L.A. absolutely blew away the old geezers from England, and this was back when Ozzy Osbourne was still with the band. (It was Sab's "Never Say Die" album tour, if that helps date things any.) Van Halen had already blown a lot of us kids away with their first LP, which was so revolutionary and immaculately produced that we wondered if they could really play that well or if it was just a bunch of studio tricks. It's hard to recapture today just how fresh and radical Eddie Van Halen's guitar playing was when he first emerged on the hard rock scene - he's gone on to have so many imitators that it's easy to think he was just jumping on a style that already become popular. But listen once again, if you're so inclined, to that opening trio of songs: "Running with the Devil," with it's overwhelming siren intro melting into a subsonic bass stomp, a piano glissando and then a mammoth riff crunching and echoing like crazy, topped off with David Lee Roth's insane howling and yelping vocals putting a human touch on the monstrosity. Then there's the jaw-dropping, ear-blistering, I-can't-believe-I'm-hearing-this attack of "Eruption," a frenzied froth of whammy bar slams, frantic fret-burning 32nd notes and absolute go-for-the-throat maniac guitar solo fury, cutting after the last decay of post-apocalyptic echo-chamberized feedback into the classic cover version of the Kinks' "You Really Got Me." Just those three tunes earned them deserving entry into the Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame, but of course there were many other great songs (but few great albums and IMO a lot of self-indulgent filler for their notoriously short releases, most running little more than a half-hour in total length.)

When Van Halen took the stage at that first concert, well, I can hardly think of ever being any more blown back by a musical group. They were just hyper, hungry and loud, fulfilling every bit of hype that had been generated by their album and the word of mouth testimonies about the "new Hendrix" guitar god that accompanied it. Roth leaped hysterically around the stage, Eddie had already polished his grinning, swaggering, hardly breaking a sweat persona when riffing, only stopping to get serious when it came time to replicate "Eruption" and other Big Moments on stage, doing all the classic lean-backs and other poses that signify that the soloist has reached the epitome of jammingness. The bass player and drummer were beastly in their own way, but it was basically Roth (before he turned completely into a preening, cartoonish vamp) and Eddie who set the band apart. After they had played their set, awhile later Sabbath came on and were so stale and old sounding that my friends and I actually left the concert out of boredom.

From there, VH went on to have a pretty solid string of hits, releasing numerous albums, going through the celebrated breakup with Roth, the Valerie Bertinelli era and all that "Behind the Music" melodrama, basically making a fortune and losing it and taking a toll on the health of the main players while the supporting cast waited for the excitement to die down so they could resume their duties. I stopped buying their albums after their second ("Van Halen II") came out, since I got into punk rock shortly after, and from what I've heard, their albums pretty much went downhill from that point anyway so I picked a good time to get off. But through the 80's and 90's, many of their tunes were hard to ignore (though honestly, the Sammy Hagar stuff never really caught on with me in any significant way.) So having said that, let me tell ya about what happened on Saturday.

Beer problems.

I mean, BIG beer problems. I am getting very pessimistic about the quality of management being exercised over the service infrastructure of the arena, because it seems to get worse with every show we work there. I've mentioned these problems before, but that night was the worst. The taps were in such bad shape that we had to resort to opening 24-oz. cans and pouring them by hand into plastic cups (of course we couldn't let the cans into the arena - we even have to pour water out of the plastic bottles!) So the lines stacked up and really the crush of people never really let up until we reached the magic hour of 9:30 when we could finally tell people that beer sales had been shut off for then night. But really now, can you imagine how irritable the crowd got to discover that they couldn't just stroll up and buy the frosty brew that they so badly thirsted after? One memorable moment was when Bill "Huge" Simonson, a local sports-talk radio host, came to the counter asking for a cold Miller Lite. (Huge is a well-known and presumably well-paid enthusiast for Miller Lite on his M-F drive time radio show.) When I told him that our Lite taps were tapped out, he couldn't stoop to mention Bud Light by name, but instead merely told his friend to get "some of that other stuff." I found his brand loyalty strangely admirable, for reasons I have a hard time understanding myself.

But while that made for a busy, pressurized, hectic night for us working the stands, you are more interested in finding out, what does Van Halen sound like after all these years?

Well, they are very loud. Not quite as hyper. Eddie's version of "Eruption" is like the extended, slow-down remix version of the track, with a lot longer gaps and meaningless forays into meaningless noodling than he would have ever indulged in back in the day. But he's still a cool, charismatic character on stage. Wearing camouflage pants and having lost his shirt somewhere along the way by the time I was able to get out from behind the counter to catch the closing portions of the show, he looked like nothing more or less than a rock-n-roll survivor, in good physical shape but a little worn out from many bumps and bruises along the way. The same could be said about many in the crowd, though I must say it was kind of disconcerting to see a lot of gray haired middle ager upper management types with their wives being ushered to their seats. I still think of Van Halen as drawing a "Bill and Ted" kind of crowd, but we've all grown up haven't we? Well, grown older anyway.

So after all was said and done, I got to see Eddie's long solo, "Panama", "You Really Got Me" and before the show even started, a very fun, meandering sound check version of "Jump" which was a treat for all of us, including the road crew who were all gathered out in front of the stage gazing up like the adoring fans that they probably are at heart. My bottom line is that Van Halen is little more than a glossy, muscular party band that doesn't really have much of anything to say but that's not what we came to hear anyway. The people seemed to have a good time, overall - there are a few memorable scenes that took place in the concourse involving arena security, inebriated fans, various pushings, staggerings and body-gropings that I could describe but won't bother to here. But when all was said and done, like any party, the end inevitably came and we all went back to our ordinary lives with a grin on our face, wondering what was that really all about anyway?

Incubus

I worked another show at the Van Andel Arena on Wednesday. This time, the feature act was Incubus, a SoCal band that generally fits into the Alt-Metal genre (or Nu-Metal, another way of putting it), alongside bands like Linkin Park, Hoobastank, 311, Foo Fighters, Puddle of Mudd, and many others that I know by name but have largely failed to make much of an impression on me. Apparently, Incubus is one of the more popular and successful hard rock bands working today. As it stands, they are the only group currently releasing new rock music that is playing the Van Andel this summer, a touring season that seems to be dominated by oldies groups cashing in for "can't miss" reunion tours. The shows I've worked bear this out - Eagles, Simon and Garfunkel, Alabama, I'd even put Metallica in that camp, but just barely - they did release "St. Anger" last year but the fans who crammed the arena back in May were there on the strength of Metallica's classic albums from the 80's and 90's. And if we look around at the other shows coming to this area, we see more of the same. ZZ Top, Kool & the Gang, and Crosby, Stills & Nash just played up in Muskegon over the past holiday weekend. Where is the new rock music coming from these days? Yes, there are smaller venues, clubs, etc. but it seems like the era of the arena rock bands may be drawing to a close, or at least going through a period of decline.

But I'll give Incubus props for keeping the tradition alive. I went ahead and got ahold of some of their music so that I would have some idea of what it was I was listening to while pouring beer and taking money behind the counter. I bought their most recent release, "A Crow Left of the Murder" (I don't know what that phrase is supposed to mean) and I checked out an older album "Make Yourself" from the library. I like them both. Actually, Incubus first got my attention when they released a video for the song "Megalomaniac" which conveyed some pretty strong political images that seemed aimed at critiquing the Bush administration, among other targets. You can see the video by going here

That song was also the opening number that Incubus performed, so my musical highlight of the evening came and went pretty quickly - despite my attempts to learn more of their music prior to the concert, there wasn't much else that I recognized, but I still enjoyed listening to the music. It reminded me, despite some obvious changes in musical style and instrumentation (this band has a "turntablist," basically a record-scratchin' DJ), of the kind of arena rock shows I used to go to back in the 70's, where the emphasis was on the music and the emotional bond between the band and the audience, without huge video screens or other multi-media pyrotechnics. The set even featured a long drum solo segment, which I know some people dislike but it got me feeling nostalgic.

And that emotional bond was among the most intriguing features of the whole night. Given that Incubus draws a pretty young crowd, the beer and concession sales weren't nearly as strong as we saw for more affluent crowds attracted by the Eagles and S & G, nor was there the all-out crushing demand for BEER that we saw from the Metallica fans. So I was able to wrap up my duties a bit early and it gave me a chance to watch the band's encore. I don't know what the name of the songs were (they strung three tunes together) but the fans sure did, and they were really into it. The arena was only about half-full, 5000 or so, but there was a really cool energy that united everyone involved. Obviously, the song lyrics and overall vibe meant something important to these kids - a lot of hands in the air, people dancing in the aisles, the general admission mob on the floor surging back and forth in waves, crowd surfers, the whole bit. I enjoyed being a witness to this scene and experiencing indirectly the exuberance that the fans were feeling at hearing some of their cherished favorite tunes. It seems to me that the band's frontman, Brandon Boyd, has a sensibility and a presence that could lead Incubus to bigger things, but who really knows? Rock music at this time really doesn't have a young, relevant torch bearing group leading the way, as far as I can tell. U2 were the last group to fit that bill, but they are older now, not irrelevant perhaps, but just at a different point in their musical life. I come out of the concert curious to know more about Boyd and Incubus and to watch what happens to them from here on out.

Tonight, I get to go hear Van Halen, another oldies act that I'm sure will sell a lot more tickets than Incubus, but probably have less to say. Though it's really always been about the guitar with them, hasn't it? At least that's how it's been for me...

Independence Day

This past Sunday has to be one of the blandest Fourth of July's I can recall. Mostly it was due to the weather around here and the fact that it was Sunday, so Julie didn't want to do anything like go to a movie (like, say, SpiderMan 2) or some other kind of entertainment venue. Also, the family that we usually hang out with on the Fourth wasn't on our list of options because Julie and her friend (the wife/mom of the family) have had some sort of falling out and neither of them have taken the step to resolve it so to put it briefly, none of us are hanging out at this time. On top of all that, our living room was full of our bedroom furniture since we had just spent the previous day stripping wallpaper, washing walls, etc. in preparation for a new paint job coming up later in the week. So everything was just discombobulated. But I won't go on about boring stuff, instead I'll just talk about the part of the day that really was pretty good after all.

By the end of the afternoon, after we'd all had enough of sitting around reading or doodling on the computer, whatever it was we found to do, we decided that we might as well go catch some fireworks. I was in such a stew of ennui that I wasn't even sure I wanted to bother, especially if it involved getting rained on. But I overcame the mental funk and realized that we just had to get out of the house and DO SOMETHING. So we decided to head to downtown Grand Rapids rather than go to the less-crowded, easier access, humbler display put on in the suburb-next-door of Grandville, which has been our tradition (since it's near where our friends live and we cook out on their back deck then walk over to the park and so on...)

Grand Rapids shoots their fireworks off from a bridge over the Grand River, right between the Gerald Ford Presidential Museum and the Amway Grand Plaza Hotel (pretty impressive landmarks, eh?) It's always a pretty big crowd scene and traffic getting out is pretty thick 'n slow. But our kids are older now and frankly, one of the reasons I was blase' about going to fireworks is that I've seen so many and sat through a lot of ho-hum presentations which barely justified the effort to get there. (Yes, that sounds lazy and gripy, I know.) But I figured that G.R. might put on a good show, especially since they came close to cancelling them this year, due to budget constraints, until a last-minute show of private financial support ensured that the show would go on once more anyway.

So we wiggled our way into a parking spot on the GVSU downtown campus, walked underneath the US-131 expressway to a ramp leading down to the river just south of Bridge Street (just down from the corporate HQ of the Grand Rapids Press and the Federal Building where many of my peace activist friends hold an antiwar vigil every Monday afternoon.) It was a great spot, with the fireworks launch pad directly in front of us (we being one bridge north of that location), the Amway Grand in profile just to the left of the spot in the sky that would soon be filled with firey blossoms, and the burbling river waters rushing by just a few feet away. So Julie and three of our children (Derek was with one of his friends at a different spot, but still downtown) sat and talked and grooved on the cool scene we were a part of. We got sprinkled on a bit, but nothing all that heavy, not enough to justify carrying an umbrella, especially since it was a warm rain. And when the fireworks finally did come, they were great! I don't have an informed fireworks vocabulary and I can't really see the point of trying to describe them anyway, but I will just say that it was gratifying to see that whoever sponsored the evening paid for a very solid, entertaining half-hour or so of crowd-pleasing fireworks festivities.

My confidence in America's future has been reinvigorated!

More about "Fahrenheit 9/11"

This is going to be a long entry, I figure. I'm going to post some of my recent email comments on the movie that's sweeping the nation that isn't "Spiderman 2."

I'm including some comments that others made to my posts, but not including their identities - I hope it comes through comprehensibly. The > marks represent what someone other than myself wrote, while > > indicates a quote of my wn comments. There are also a few > > > which indicates an even earlier quote from another person. (sigh)

From: Dave Blakeslee
Date: Sat Jun 26, 2004 7:23 am
Subject: Re: [radical-middle] Re: [pomoxian] Fahrenheit 9/11


> I had promised myself I wouldn't get dragged into this one, but...

Oh come on in, you'll have fun! Everybody's doing it!

> On Jun 25, 2004, at 6:53 PM, Dave Blakeslee wrote:
> > Michael Moore does an excellent job summing up so
> > many of the reasons that I and many others were
> > against the war in Iraq from the get-go and continue to feel
> > so upset and grief-stricken about what's happened to
> > our nation since 9/11/01.
>
> Interesting. Okay, I can buy the argument that he
> does a good job of articulating the emotions you
> felt, and that there is value in that.
> I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Right. I enjoyed it. I wouldn't expect everybody to "enjoy" it, because not everyone is on Moore's side of the issue. But some parts of the movie don't convey "enjoyment" even though they lend support to my own views on the war - some segments are grief-inducing and hard to watch. So there's more than just "cheerleading" going on here. And those are some of the parts that I think a wider cross-section of the public should engage with, because it's our lives, our
times, our tax dollars and our national reputation (among other concerns) that are on the line in this war in Iraq.

> > Some critics will probably be quick to point out
> > various flaws or inaccuracies in
> > some of the stats and details that Moore puts on
> > screen, but I don't see how anyone can argue
> > substantively with the power of the images
> > themselves or the human voices who put the pictures in context.
>
> Hmm. That sounds almost like you're excusing
> sloppy fact-checking in favor of the power of symbols.

No, I'm not really looking for this movie to provide the kind of factual analysis that I would expect, say, the 9/11 commission to engage in. Moore is a satirist,
not a policy analyst, and I think it's an important distinction to maintain. It seems to me that a lot of his critics don't really seem to grasp the humor,poignancy and emotive value of what Moore is trying to do. They read him too woodenly and self-righteously, probably because they just don't enjoy being on the other end of his skewer, so they try to turn it back on Moore and in the process come off sounding kind of pompous and dense, to me at least.

> Do you think good political drama is more important than a few minor facts?

I see this film more as a complex blend of satire, documentary, gonzo journalism and pop-culture pastiche than "drama." Moore doesn't claim to be operating in
a "no-spin zone" which in my book makes him more honest than some who try to project the image of objectivity and detachment from partisan concerns.

> Is that because this is "just a movie"?

To me, movies aren't "just" movies, they are at least in potential very important expressions of culture and values. F9/11 is highly significant among the movies
of 2004.

> Does it make any difference that Moore labeled it a documentary?

Where does he label it a documentary? And what difference does that label make, really? Who actually believes that *any* documentaries are straightforward results of pointing the camera and showing the truth? There is always a question of editing, personal intention, bias, subjectivity, etc. behind the production of any text. That's postmodernism 101 and I thought that most of us had absorbed at least that much by now.

But anyway, re: "documentary," to me that is just a functional term to put the film within a commonly understood genre. That's about all that "documentary"
signifies to me. Every movie I go into, I enter with the awareness that I'm placing my consciousness in the care of artists who are intending to move my thoughts and emotions in particular ways.

> While I admit these are pointed questions, they are far from
> rhetorical; I genuinely am curious what you think.

I have no problem answering them honestly - I hope they are satisfying your curiousity.

> > Yes, it's political and polemical and I don't
> > think anyone can defend the movie as anything close
> > to unbiased, objective reporting. It's confrontational
> > and even propagandistic, but I see Moore as genuinely
> > concerned for the common people of the world and as one of
> > them, I appreciate his willingness to take all the flak
> > and break through the barriers that often make our
> > voices hard to hear by the "haves and have mores" who
> > some call "the elite" but Bush calls "my base."
>
> So, I must admit I find this a little disturbing. It sounds almost
> like you're saying, "Yes, its propaganda, but that's
> okay, because we're the *good* guys, and they're the evil elite."

You say "propaganda" like it's a bad thing! :o) I don't see how it's possible for any of us to live propaganda-free lives, or to avoid using propaganda ourselves in order to effect political change or persuade people to consider new ideas. I know that the word itself has some bad connotations, but personally I think it's pretty hypocritical for any of us to regard whoever we regard as "the bad guys" as the only propagandists out there. Bush is a propagandist, so are al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the French, MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, the NRA, and any number of other
politically active groups that I could name. Our task as adults with critical thinking skills is how to find our way through the propaganda to a point where we
feel confident drawing up alliances and making other decisions that affect our and others' futures.

> The reason that bothers me is that I hear conservative right-wingers
> use the exact same excuse to bash the "liberal media elite." To me,
> that seems like it just corrodes the possibility for constructive
> debate.

Both sides, I'm pretty sure, see themselves as responding to the crap that "the other guys" started by fighting back, giving 'em hell, etc. I've long given up on the idea that any of us can realistically trace the conflict back to its origins - we basically have an on-going discussion that often breaks down into heated polarized contention. I want to have constructive debate as well, but we have to give each side space to vent its frustrations and passions, and we have to deal with the anger that our commitments stir up in those who are on the other side of these issues. That's why I'm recommending that non-liberals see this film and at least deal on some level with the points it raises. I didn't really appreciate (a different person's) reply because he's trying to justify not even listening, and if it's a matter of the seven or eight bucks, then I'll just say, OK, wait until the video comes out or I'll even buy him a ticket. :o)

> I hope I've misunderstood you. Perhaps you were just describing an
> emotional or aesthetic response, not a moral judgment. Either way, I
> would welcome a clarification.

Yeah, I'm a fan of the aesthetics of a good film. The references to Eisenstein and Riefenstahl that (the other person) cited are significant - they were both awesome
film-makers and I find a lot of value in just witnessing the power of their cinematic spectacles, even though I disagree with some of the political objectives that their films supported. And that's another point in Moore's favor that I'll raise here - as a movie, F9/11 collects and reassembles some incredible footage from various sources that IMO simply needs to be witnessed in order to be properly
appreciated. Reading some article on a website pointing out factual errors may be of some service or value, but it's kind of missing the forest for the trees, as the old cliche goes.

(end of post)

Here's another one... My reply to "that other person" (who has posted several messages questioning Moore's credibility and discouraging others from watching it.)

Hi David,

> If you admit yourself that it is "propagandistic"
> and not even close to objective and unbiased, why should I?

I've recommended that people see this movie because I think it deserves a wide airing and follow-up conversation. It's provocative and IMO one of the must-see movies of the year. (I have similar opinions re: "Passion of the Christ." I'm not sure that I've seen any other '04 releases that would fit this category - none immediately come to mind anyway...)

Plus, what political media in current release can you suggest to me that isn't propagandistic, objective and unbiased?

> I thought that documentaries were supposed to document facts, hence the name.
> Propaganda is not a documentary, and a documentary should not be propaganda.
> The whole point of a documentary is to DOCUMENT, or it ceases to be a
> DOCUMENTARY.

As I commented (in the previous post), this is not a documentary in the sense that it's trying to make a comprehensive statement on the war in Iraq that includes the
strongest arguments of all sides of the issues. Documentary in this case has more to do with genre rather than any specific form of journalistic technique.

On propaganda: Here's a link on the topic that I found helpful just to clarify a bit more about what is & isn't propaganda.

http://www.propagandacritic.com/

Check out the examples to see propaganda in action across the political spectrum.

Definitions of the word from Dictionary.com:

1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

These definitions seem to reinforce that to some degree or another, any of us who are trying to effect political change can rightly be said to be propagandists, or at least utilizers of propagandistic methods.

> I sure as shooting (pun intended) ain't spending MY
> money on it. I'm not sadistic enough to pay for
> the abuse.

And why would you consider it abuse? I observe media sources and listen to speakers who disagree with my positions all the time, and I would be willing to
watch a similar production extolling the virtues of the war in Iraq if a right-wing film maker put forth such a project. Actually, I would very much like to
see that - hear the voices of common Iraqis who are willing to speak on camera about the improvements to their lives and the freedoms that they now enjoy. Or
American/Coalition soldiers who want to share inspirational stories of how their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have made them better, stronger people. If peaceniks like myself had to take a little mockery or lampooning along the way, oh well, that's part of the package, I can deal with it though I might not like it. I've endured a fair amount of it in the media and in person already.

> When even flattering reviews state "One last thought: Fahrenheit 9/11 is
> many things, but for pity's sake let's not call it a documentary."- Ty Burr,
> Boston Globe, then what are we to call it? (Bullshit comes to mind.) If you
> like staged events such as occurred in Bowling, then fine,

I think Moore has a particularly strong gift for creating "staged events" that humorously and memorably capture the perverse ironies of the cultural zeitgeist.

> but I would
> appreciate it more (pun intended) if Moore would not
> manufacture stuff and
> rewrite historical occurrences and where they took
> place-thus destroying
> context and building a false one, and then try to
> pass it off as accurate.

OK, I can understand that, though it doesn't stop me from enjoying his films. I admit, a lot of this is just entertainment for liberals. But there's more to
it than that.

> The only thing that "documents" to me is a willingness, or in Moore's case,
> an obsession, with spinning the facts to fit his views.

There are many *real people* whose lives are being documented, and those are the moments that come through most powerfully. The parent of a slain child at Columbine, Lila Lipscomb in this film... That's not spin, that's real life.

> And while you're dealing in ad hominems on Hitchens and Hardy, here's one
> back at ya': Michael Moore is a big, fat, lying, propaganda mouthpiece. :o)

(DB: I called Christopher Hitchens "a professional curmudgeon" and David Hardy "a crybaby apologist for the NRA" in response to some links that this person posted on the list.)

Well, Hitchens in particular I found amusing. He is a contrarian through and through, and it seems perfectly in form for him to be "against" anything that seems headed toward mass-audience popularity. It's hard for me to not sense some resentment or jealousy on his part, that Moore is getting the kind of clamor and
acclaim that he only wishes he had. Hardy just seemed to get too hung up on the Heston/NRA clips, which IMO weren't that big a deal. The posturing and corniness
of Heston's "cold dead hands" proclamation strikes many of us as absurd and comical, whatever context one cares to put it in.

(end of post)

Now here's my response to what was posted in response to the above material...

> > Plus, what political media in current release can
> > you suggest to me that isn't propagandistic,
> > objective and unbiased?
>
> Actually, I don't know of ANY other political
> movies out there at this time, so this being the
> only one, yeah, they're all biased and
> propagandistic. DUH! When there's only one movie out
> there like this, that's a little too easy. ;o)

I said "media," not "movies." Media includes TV and radio talk shows, news coverage, magazine articles, websites, political advertising, etc. While it's a
fine thing to strive for objectivity and balance, it's not (in my book) a prerequisite for taking a point seriously. Otherwise, what's the point of protesting or working for change? We all know that it's possible to rationalize away any argument that one disagrees with from a variety of angles, from pragmatic to more abstract ideological concerns. Softening the impact of our message by trying to incorporate all the potential objections often merely serves to weaken the argument, allowing more extreme or persistent voices to carry the day.

> And go ahead and come up with one from the right
> that has received this much press and this wide a
> distribution. And then, explain why I haven't heard
> of it. :o)

In terms of movies, you're right, I can't think of any political flicks off the top of my head, but certainly that's not the extent of right-wing media in this
country. I'll contend that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, etc. are every bit as vulnerable to the label of propagandist as Michael Moore, and I'll put the Bush and Kerry campaigns and their PAC supporters in the same category as well.

> > > I thought that documentaries were
> > > supposed to document facts, hence the name.
> > > Propaganda is not a documentary,
> > > and a documentary should not be propaganda. The
> > > whole point of a documentary
> > > is to DOCUMENT, or it ceases to be a
> > > DOCUMENTARY.
> >
> > As I commented, this is not a documentary in
> > the sense that it's trying to make a comprehensive
> > statement on the war in Iraq that includes the
> > strongest arguments of all sides of the issues.
> > Documentary in this case has more to do with genre
> > rather than any specific form of journalistic
> > technique.
>
> Including this in the genre means that the
> genre needs to be renamed, IMO.

Documentary basically signifies a film that is not an adaptation of a fictional plot, but instead gathers its footage from archival or "real life" sources. "Winged Migration" is a documentary. "Super Size Me" is a documentary. "The Fog of War" is a documentary. "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" is a documentary. These films can all be said to have a political viewpoint, a bias that is trying to move the audience to consider and hopefully adopt a certain perspective. Just because a viewer may not agree with the conclusions drawn by the team behind the film doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered a documentary.
I'll restate my challenge: name me a documentary that is simply objective and fact based and doesn't attempt to lead viewers to some kind of a judgment.

> > On propaganda: Here's a link on the topic that I
> > found helpful just to clarify a bit more about
> > what is & isn't propaganda.
> >
> > http://www.propagandacritic.com/
> >
> > Check out the examples to see propaganda in action
> > across the political spectrum.
> >
> > Definitions of the word from Dictionary.com:
> >
> > 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause
> > or of information reflecting the views and interests
> > of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
> >
> > 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents
> > of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
> >
> > These definitions seem to reinforce that to some
> > degree or another, any of us who are trying to effect
> > political change can rightly be said to be
> > propagandists, or at least utilizers of propagandistic methods.
>
> Which then makes it a propaganda piece and not a documentary.

Clarify to me again what you see as the difference? You're not the only person to maintain such a distinction, I'll grant you that. Do you believe that it's possible to make a documentary that articulates a political message? Or do you think the director is somehow obliged to be neutral or non-political in an effort to merely let the subjects the film speak for themselves? I don't see how that kind of detachment can be achieved, personally.

> I don't know what you were trying to do there, but
> I think you just established my point. Thanks. :o)

No, I think it's more like we're talking past each other or something, leaving us both feeling like our point has been reinforced and is even more self-evident than it was before. :o)

> > > I sure as shooting (pun intended) ain't spending
> > > MY money on it. I'm not sadistic enough to pay for the abuse.
> >
> > And why would you consider it abuse? I observe media
> > sources and listen to speakers who disagree with my
> > positions all the time, and I would be willing to
> > watch a similar production extolling the virtues
> > of the war in Iraq if a right-wing film maker put
> > forth such a project.
>
> Well then that's one of the differences between you and me. I doubt
> that I could sit through either one.
>
> Of course, I would find it impossible to name even one "right-wing film
> maker" of this magnitude, and I think that's a problem. Hollywood is
> "left," and if one is "right" they're on the outside looking in.

I'm interested to see what Mel Gibson will do next with all the clout and dedicated following that "The Passion" created for him.



> > I think Moore has a particularly strong gift for
> > creating "staged events" that humorously and
> > memorably capture the perverse ironies of the
> > cultural zeitgeist.
>
> So if the facts don't fit the presentation, make up your own facts?

What I mean by "staged events" is his trademark ability to juxtapose people in striking, confrontational ways. Asking Congressmen who support the war to consider enlisting their children for duty in Iraq is very compelling to watch on camera. Other examples include having a bunch of ex-smokers who've suffered vocal chord damage singing Christmas carols through their voice boxes in the lobby of Philip
Morris headquarters, or the Columbine shooting victim returning the bullets still embedded in his body to K-Mart headquarters as "unwanted merchandise" because the teen killers bought their ammo at a local K-Mart (which resulted in K-Mart changing their policy on selling that kind of ammunition, btw.) These and many
other examples of "street theater" create very unique moments for everyone involved, including us the viewers. It's not about "making up facts."

> I could imagine your outrage if I said that.
> Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not
> their own facts. Sorry, I would call that
> fabrication and dishonesty, and I would wonder what
> else in the presentation was likewise, and I'm
> cynical enough to think that it might just be the whole thing.

As I see it, we are all in the same boat. We all have to do that kind of sorting and sifting when digesting media products. I'm cynical enough to regard all sources as biased, suspicious and working for both obvious and hidden self-interests. The critical factor is, who do you think is best representing your own
goals and priorities? I trust George W. Bush about as much as you trust Michael Moore. All you have to do is not watch his films. I have to live under Bush's
presidency, and wonder how his decisions and distortions are going to affect my future (and the rest of the world's.)

> In fact, I think that the usage of such fabrications and dishonesty
> in bolstering a viewpoint contribute directly to considering the entire
> viewpoint as a fabrication and dishonest.

This very point is quite relevant to my own views on the Iraq War, thank you for putting it so concisely!

> Maybe that only applies to those on the right. Probably does. Silly me
> for trying to apply that standard to the left.

I don't mind at all that you would apply those standards or wind up disagreeing with me. My main disagreement is with your apparent intention to discredit Moore's film without even seeing it for yourself. I'm still not even sure if you watched
anything that he's produced, but I'll leave it to you to fill in that blank only if you feel inclined to.

> I enjoy good fiction if it is clearly labeled as fiction. If it is not so
> labeled, I call bullshit and I am done with it.

I simply think it's unfair to draw that conclusion without even seeing it and just taking someone else's word for it. F9/11 isn't fiction in any commonly-held
understanding of the word, and there's way too much pathos involved in this film for me to call it "bullshit." I'd be wary of showing disrespect to the human suffering that is portrayed by callously dismissing the movie out of hand, myself.

> > > The only thing that "documents" to me is a
> > > willingness, or in Moore's case,
> > > an obsession, with spinning the facts to fit his
> > > views.
> >
> > There are many *real people* whose lives are being
> > documented, and those are the moments that come
> > through most powerfully. The parent of a slain
> > child at Columbine, Lila Lipscomb in this film...
> > That's not spin, that's real life.
>
> Actually, they are documented with spin, for that is Moore's style.

See it for yourself and then tell me it's all spin and stagecraft...

(end of post)

And finally, for this entry to my blog at least, this one:

> > I'll contend that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, etc. are
> > every bit as vulnerable to the label of propagandist as
> > Michael Moore, and I'll put the Bush and Kerry campaigns and their PAC
> > supporters in the same category as well.
>
> Rush Limbaugh, check. Sean Hannity, check. Michael Savage: Hmmm.
> Actually heard the guy say that he might sit this election out since he had
> major disagreements with both major candidates. Savage, while pro-war, is
> not that fond of Bush. If the Libertarians had nominated a pro-war
> candidate, Savage might be tooting their horn, but they didn't so he isn't.

That's all rather interesting, but that doesn't have much to do with my point that Savage is a propagandist. Even if he doesn't endorse a candidate, he's still advancing a cause and seeks to persuasively present information that will draw others to support his views and agenda.

Speaking of other conservative voices who are showing some distance with President Bush, I heard Bill O'Reilly critiquing Bush's handling of the war on terrorism today, in the context of the Supreme Court ruling upholding some of the complaints registered by prisoners at Guantanamo. I don't know if O'Reilly and Savage are running to the right of Bush or if they are just sensing an erosion of Bush's popularity and setting the stage for their ideological independence from the GOP if Kerry goes on to win the election.

> > > Including this in the genre means that the genre needs to be renamed, IMO.
> >
> > Documentary basically signifies a film that is not an adaptation of a
> > fictional plot, but instead gathers its footage from archival or "real
> > life" sources. "Winged Migration" is a documentary. "Super Size Me" is
> > a documentary. "The Fog of War" is a documentary. "Waco: The Rules of
> > Engagement" is a documentary. These films can all be said to have a political
> > viewpoint, a bias that is trying to move the audience to consider and
> > hopefully adopt a certain perspective. Just because a viewer may not agree
> > with the conclusions drawn by the team behind the film doesn't
> > mean that it shouldn't be considered a documentary.
> > I'll restate my challenge: name me a documentary
> > that is simply objective and fact based and doesn't
> > attempt to lead viewers to some kind of a judgment.
>
> I've seen so few, so I'll have the same luck you had in finding a
> counterpoint to Moore on the right: None.

I haven't seen it myself, but the film "Waco: Rules of Engagement" takes a critical look at the government's handling of the Branch Davidian stand-off. Reviews I've read seem like something of a counterpart to what I've seen in response to Michael Moore - basically that the film is pretty biased in its outlook but still makes for compelling viewing because of the unique information it presents.

Check out the "User Comments" for yourself at:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120472/

> > Clarify to me again what you see as the
> > difference (between documentary and propaganda)?
>
> While Moore does not necessarily have a "fictional" plot, he has a
> blatantly ideological one. It shapes things more than the facts do.

Moore is among that group of people who were against Bush to begin with, were against the war in Iraq to begin with, and do have an ideological bias against
war. I'm in that same group. A viewer checking out his material should know that, but those biases don't in and of themselves invalidate the force of argument
that he brings to the subject. A pro-Bush, pro-invasion, pro-war person is also going to bring out his or her blatantly ideological bias as well, but their argument still deserves a hearing and consideration. Maybe we learn something from each other in the exchange, even if it seems to us that our respective biases are entrenched and intractable?

Moore took Clinton to task for bombing Kosovo in "Bowling for Columbine," so it's not like he has a double standard when it comes to protesting U.S. militarism.

> For example, I don't know what Moore would have had
> Bush do instead of keep reading to the children during the attack.

Bush wasn't reading for much of that time. He was just sitting there staring around the room. The images of him sitting there for seven or ten minutes or whatever it was are odd and somewhat unsettling, and Moore presents them for the viewer to behold. I don't know that anyone has an answer for what else Bush should
have done, but it seems to me that if I was in his shoes, I'd find a way to politely excuse myself and tend to the crisis. Remember, this was after hearing
that the *second* tower had been hit, not just the first.

> If he abruptly stops and runs off, it could be said that he unnecessarily
> frightened the children;

Could be, but I think just sitting there leaves Bush more open to critical assessment. I think it's easy enough to tell the children that the President has
been called away due to an important responsibility.

> if he orders the shoot-down of the third plane (which had
> lost radar contact and could not be easily found anyway), then he ordered
> the possibly unnecessary sacrifice of American lives; or I guess
> that he should have just ripped off his clothes and displayed the Superman
> costume beneath and single-handedly brought the plane down safely,
> because, after all, Bush knew and he would know where to find the plane
> .

Just speaking for myself, I really don't find much fault with what I know of the president's actions on the morning of 9/11. But it does seem to me that the
al Qaeda threat was not taken seriously enough in the months prior, and I still have a hard time with the month-long vacation in Crawford as well.

> That he went to a bunker is supposed to show that he is scared, but
> isn't that the safest thing to do? Don't tell me that in any of the
> alternative actions available, Moore would praise Bush for the different action.

No, I don't think one could ever expect Moore to "praise Bush." Could you ever imagine Rush Limbaugh "praising Clinton?" That's simply not realistic to expect that kind of endorsement from people who make their living off of political polarization.

The problem with both Bush and Clinton is that they both tended to legitimate much of the "worst fears" raised by their respective critics - Clinton on the social values/morality issues, Bush on the militaristic/power'n'control issues.

> He'd have criticized that as well. Bush would be damned by Moore, no matter
> what the action was that he took. The facts of Bush's various action
> alternatives would all be subject to negative spin. Does Moore bother to
> suggest what Bush should have done, or is his only desire to criticize whatever
> choice Bush made, reasons for those other choices be damned? I think that you
> and I both already know the answer.

So are your objections to Fahrenheit 9/11 based on Moore's opposition to Bush on political/moral/ethical grounds? That's your choice, of course, but there really is more to the movie than that, IMO.

I'm going to wrap this up now. There's more I could respond to, maybe I will later, but I have to get going.

Maybe though we've both said enough about this. I want to say something about "guilt inducement" - I understand your objections to that tactic, I share
them myself and I apologize for saying something that could be read that way. I was just saying that, for myself, I am wary of calling other peoples' earnest
messages "bullshit" just because I think it sends a pretty strong message of not only rejection but superiority. I don't expect that you must share my view on that, maybe bullshit means something different in Texas than it does in Michigan :o) but that point definitely stuck with me and I want to clear up that
misunderstanding.

My bottom line is that I think F9/11 is an important film that admittedly only captures one side of the division that exists in our country, but it's one that
we all need to grapple with. I honestly think that if we who oppose the war had been taken more seriously and shown more respect by the power brokers and their
friends in the media, things would not be so bitter as they have been over the past two years or more. But that, like all opinions, is something that we may
never all agree on.

(end of post)

This is all pulled from my "radical-middle" email list, just fyi.

Dave