At 03:33 PM 7/2/2004, budge wrote:
>i've told the story before about my vaguely liberalish boss
>having read one of his books and found all the holes and was
>very, very disappointed and now will believe nothing moore
>says. that is a loss as this guy is/was receptive to at
>least some of moore's views.
>
>in the onlist poll, i voted mildly disapprove -- that's
>pretty far from 'hatred'.
the "hate" was a joke. When I was thinking about what to name the post, I was thinking about the question, "why do they hate us?" I should have realized it would be taken literally! :) to clarify on another point (which I thought was clear in this second post and from my rev. of the film), _I_ don't consider criticism a problem. As you damn well know I can never figure out why people flip out and think a debate means that somehow I dislike someone! Obviously, criticism is good: He incorporated some of it into his latest. What I'm objecting to is the ad hominem attacks on his person. And granted, MSNBC isn't liberal and I haven't watched enough of it to know, but they seemed to have no problem criticizing the administration recently. Along comes Moore and they're off on a wild-eyed rantfest about Moore, including making noises about Moore's alleged anti-Americanism. Deborah Norville probably had wet panties by the time she finshed her segment on the new Disney film that is purported to be a response to Moore. IOW, a film that celebrates how great the people of the u.s. are is a response to Moore who is apparently celebrating how evil the people of the u.s. are.
As you know, at the other list i pointed out that I've yet to even grasp what the hell Hitchens' substantive criticisms of the film were amongst that kitchen sink of trash talk that would make John Walker look like, heh, Mother Theresa. When I asked David to find the nuggets of substantive criticism in that review, he never responded. I don't think there are any. His list of 6 contradictions in the film are contradictions from a rightwinger's point of view, IIRC. But I'd like to be corrected and shown where Hitchens has a point in anything he said.
As for the Saudi connections stuff, I like what Steve said elsewhere was on target. Moore's saying what he said in a previous book: I'm just askin'. Why were Saudi elites treated with kid gloves? (and they're treated with kid gloves about a lot of other issues and have been for a while). As Steve said, if it's the case that there's nothing fishy going on, then the answer is simple: the truth. (har har)
Further, he put material from an interview with Unger in the film for a reason. Unger makes it clear that this isn't about a grand conspiracy to rule the world, these guys are in business together: accumulate, accumulate, accumulate!
What is horrible about that? Adam Smith said it. Marx said. Capitalists aren't nationalists; they want to make money. If their dealings are duplicitous... sooprize, sooprize, sooprize. And, am I wrong (I ask again), it is news to leftists that the Saudis play a double game? Further, isn't the point that the Busheviks had choices to make and that their choices were circumscribed by their capitalist self-interests. Go to war or chase Al Q around? Well, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume these pisswits are certainly going to be influenced by how much cash might flow into their pockets or the pockets of their buddies with whom they've been dealing for years. Maybe you won't make instant money, but the favor will be returned. Isn't that how these guys operate?
If a central question in this part of the film is, "Why did we go to war in Iraq when the Bad Guys are running around somewhere else?" then it doesn't seem that unreasonable to me to point out that a faction of capital makes money off war. Why, don't we have really Serious Thinkers who say that all the time? That capitalism and war go hand in hand.
Kelley
"We're in a fucking stagmire."
--Little Carmine, 'The Sopranos'