Possible New Digs

Keep your fangers crossed. I have an application in for a new apartment – and I’m asking the landlord to drop $50 off the rent if I say I’ll move in for August 1st. We’ll see… I looked at five places today and this one was the last one and I knew it was the right place. It’s a huge one bedroom on Roscoe with hardwood floors. Hardwood floors is something I was really hoping to have – I’d rather dust and mop then feel like I never get the dirt vaccuumed out of carpet. Anyway, it’s a jump in rent but I work at home now so I feel it’s worth it. I should know more by the time I get out of Fahrenheit 911 tomorrow afternoon. I swear – it’s like Star Wars for Liberals or Passion of the Bush!

I wish Moore would publish an annotated and footnoted script to show all the detail and research behind the suppositions he makes. That or someon should make an audio recording of the movie and then transcript that and put it online so everybody can hash out what is true versus what’s inferred.

All I know is that the meatcutters at Jewel were bitching about the White House blocking the FBI’s investigations of Saudis. You know if the butchers know what’s up the shit is really going down.

A big thing to remember when watching documentaries is that they are not always journalism. A movie like Capturing the Friedmans keeps things balanced for dramatic tension… the opposite is a thesis-based film such as Moore’s that presents and advocates one side.

7 thoughts on “Possible New Digs

  1. JC

    If you are not well versed in the characteristics of documentaries, how can you tell if something is “journalism” or a “thesis based” film?

  2. Andy

    I’d say it’s in the arguments a film sets up. I’m guessing Moore’s theory is that the other side of his argument has been the prevailing opinion and view for the past four years so he doesn’t need to spend as much time on it as the lesser known garbage about Bush.

  3. JC

    Is it safe to assume that any film which represents an arguement that goes against prevailing opinion is a thesis based film?

  4. Ric Locke

    I will instruct you in morality at no charge.

    If:
    A is doing something, and;
    B has the will and the means to stop or prevent A from acting, and;
    C does everything in his power to frustrate B, then:
    C is complicit with A.

    Do you know what “complicit” means?

    It means that any moral freight attached to A’s actions fall directly on C’s head as well.

    So if I’m guilty of the deaths of innocent Iraqis in the invasion — and I am; I’m a supporter of the war — then Moore (and you) have the blood of 300,000 mass-grave inhabitants on your hands, as well as moral responsibility for gassed Kurds, slaughtered Swamp Arabs, and all the other wonderful gifts your hero gave the Iraqi people. The fact that you are too delicately fastidious to get actual blood under your own well-tended fingernails doesn’t make it better; it makes it worse.

    Regards,
    Ric

  5. Andy

    Because I’m unwilling to go die for corporate interests in a fabricated war means I’m worse than soldiers who had no choice to be deployed – but that have killed civilians?

    So:

    • Saddam is doing something bad and
    • We have the power to stop it
    • And I, in voicing my opinions am
    • Complicit in frustrating the U.S. Armed Forces and Assisting The Enemy.

    Is there no room for dissenting opinion? Are you saying that ‘you are either for us or against us’?

    Then you are thereby implicating nearly everybody in the world that did not advocate the immediate removal of Saddam when he first started using chemical weapons. You know, back when Rumsfeld led Reagan’s envoy to Baghdad.

    Is the Dow company complicit because they sold $1.5 million in pesticides to Saddam – checmicals that could be used as war fare agents?

    Are the helicopter manufacturers that sold Saddam choppers complicit too?

    “Everyone in the administration saw the same reports you saw last night. They were horrible, outrageous, disgusting and should serve as a reminder to all countries of why chemical warfare should be banned.” But as Power observes, “The United States issued no threats or demands.” The government’s objection was that Saddam had used gas to kill his own citizens, not that he had killed them.

Comments are closed.