My experience with Fahrenheit 9/11

[John Galt]

I know we already have a billion of these threads and I'm sorry to clutter the board, but I wanted to post my ideas in a different thread, because they are about very different issues.

Last night, I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 at the Battery Park movie theater. It was kind of bizarre watching it there, because the movie theater is only a couple blocks from Ground Zero. Walking past the former WTC after the movie was especially harrowing. It just made me so sad that I can barely explain it.

Before I go into a long post about my confusion and sadness surrounding this movie, let me get my anger out of the way.

First, why the hell didn't this movie open at the Battery Park theater the first week? It is the only theater close to Ground Zero and you won't find any residents in the US more interested in seeing the movie. If anything, the premiere should have been there. It makes no sense to me.

Second, any republican who watches this movie and is unmoved by it is a freakin' moron.

Third, any democrat who watches this movie and says, "I told you so" to a republican is a freakin' moron.

Now, to my sadness and confusion.

Last night I was just so sad after watching the film. It just brought back a lot of pain and memory that I didn't want to deal with. It was pure agony at parts.

Everyone on this board knows I was against the war in Iraq and pretty much think this whole war on terror is a disaster. That isn't what this film was about to me.

This film was a reminder of the very sad world we live in. I think back to the era of Woodward and Bernstein and the investigative journalism that brought down the Nixon administration. I've seen a lot of articles about how investigative journalism is dead and that Moore should be applauded for doing the dirty work and making his movie. I say, "bullshit."

The problem isn't the death of investigative journalism, it is information and opinion overload. Look at the threads on this movie. Already, several websites have been constructed to attack the factual basis of the movie. Hundreds of pundits villify and demonize Moore. On the other side, the attacks on Bush remain as potent and viril as ever. And I'm not talking about politics as usual. I'm talking about the web, the media, and all the information that is available. "Truth" with a capital "T" is just whatever website you provide a link to. If Woodward and Bernstein published the details of the Watergate break-in today, there would be 10 other newspapers, 20 websites, and a bunch of talking heads on the TV denying the facts, attacking the investigators, and parroting the Nixon response.

Maybe I've just been reading too much Baudrillard lately, but I really just feel like the media and our culture has stop caring about "truth" and "justice." Instead, we care about whether Moore is "right" or "wrong" - and those aren't the same thing.

The analogy that came into my mind last night on how this film made me feel was from the Matrix. Remember when Neo is having a conversation about a splinter in his mind that something in this world just isn't right. Watching F 9/11 last night, I just felt that splinter eating away in my head.

When people report/post/relay/describe, they are really just appropriating/spinning the "facts" as they want. I wouldn't be surprised to see my post here similarly treated. We, as Americans, have created a media monster to do our thinking for us and we don't even listen when people talk. By listen, I mean, think critically, reflect, and absorb - not react, attack, or retreat.

And so, I sat and was so sad last night.

And today, I came to work, went to physical therapy, and nothing changed. Everything is the same . . .

[Franklinnoble]

The Ladies Man recommends... eh, nevermind.....

I haven't seen the movie, and I'm not going to line Moore's pockets by seeing it. Ever. Frankly, I find him to be self-promoting, egotistical tool who has clearly turned this into a partisan issue, when it really shouldn't be.

[WSUCougar]

An eloquent and heartfelt post, JG.

[albionmoonlight]

Nice post. I am sorry to say that I don't think that your clerkship will be able to help your mood. Getting a glimpse at how things are done from the inside has just made me more cynical about the process.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by John Galt

When people report/post/relay/describe, they are really just appropriating/spinning the "facts" as they want. I wouldn't be surprised to see my post here similarly treated. We, as Americans, have created a media monster to do our thinking for us and we don't even listen when people talk. By listen, I mean, think critically, reflect, and absorb - not react, attack, or retreat.

Too true, unfortunately. I have a bit of contrarian streak in me and I enjoy debating, so I have a habit of arguing opposing viewpoints with the people I talk to, as a means of challenging both my opinion and theirs. I have a number of very liberal friends, and while I agree with much of the sentiment behind their arguments and opinions, I often disagree with details and intents described. I often find myself challenging their beliefs and am consistently met with a very closed response and an unwillingness to consider the possibility that they might be wrong.

In many respects though, this is to be expected. Human psychology doesn't deal well with uncertainty; forming an opinion and clinging to it regardless of counter information is a way of maintaining desired stability. Too much uncertaintly in beliefs had the potential to make a person feel rootless and drifting, a position most feel uncomfortable with.

Among the things I wished our education system emphasized to a greater degree is debate, and forcing students to research a topic and argue an arbitrary position regardless of whether the student previously agreed with that position. Any exercise that promotes active research, critical thinking and logic is something that should be promoted IMO.

[sabotai]

I agree with you 100% John. No one cares about that sort of stuff anymore. All they want is for their side to win. It's almost as if politics has become a spectator sport, with people making excuses for "their team" when they make a mistake, and attacking "their rival" for the same mistake. The media certainly doesn't help in that area. And most people just fall right into line.

And you're right, if Watergate happened to today, many would refuse to beleive it and the back-and-forth lies, insults and excuses would go on the same as they do today.

[SplitPersonality1]

Excellent post JG. I too, have a problem with the way many things are "debated" these days. So much of it is: "I'm right, you're wrong and you suck". It gets irritating after awhile.

Even when I agree with people on various political issues, I find myself cringing at their lack of logic and/or facts. That's probably why I don't get involved in much of the debates here, even thought for a message board...it still remains quite civil overall.

Oh well.

I suppose the denizens of hell can break out the winter coats now; I have just agreed 100% with John Galt on a topic.

[sabotai]

Among the things I wished our education system emphasized to a greater degree is debate, and forcing students to research a topic and argue an arbitrary position regardless of whether the student previously agreed with that position. Any exercise that promotes active research, critical thinking and logic is something that should be promoted IMO.

When I took Advanced Biology in high school, one of things the teacher did would be to take a current topic (genetic engineering, animal testing, etc.) and we would split off into two teams. One for and one against. He really encouraged us to try to take the opposite position that we were on. I did a few times, as did several others. But for the most part, everyone took their side and proceeded in with their logical fallacy arguments. After a few times, the teach basically gave it up. He loved it when me and my friends would go after each other, because we made good arguments on both sides (One time it got really intense...funny considering that one side didn't beleive in what they were arguing for. ). But then the morons would start up and just completely kill the debate.

What I'm saying is I agree with you. We should be teaching kids to debate and research both sides from the start. But in order to do that, we'd need to get teachers who cared and students who cared...not likely to happen.

[Daimyo]

One of my favorite classes in high school was an American history class where we debated several topics. I just about always chose to debate for the side that I didn't agree with because IMO its a lot more fun and challenging. Of course most of the people didn't seem to understand why/how you would could ever debate for a side you didn't agree with... *shurg*

Along those same lines it seems we don't really teach kids how to think anymore. Another example is math class where students are taught the basic tools, but never really things like reasoning or estimation (How many bricks are the Great Wall, How many tons of garbage are produced each year by the city of Chicago, etc). I think I was probably lucky enough to have 2 or 3 teachers at most in my time in school who actually encouraged "thinking" or problem solving.

Is it standardize testing? Lack of quality teachers? Has it always been this way?

[Mr. Wednesday]

I did mock trial in middle school and high school. Everyone argued one case, which was supposed to be set up so that either side would have a chance of winning it. In competition, we would do one side twice and the other once. While our witnesses would not have to cover both sides, the attorneys typically did. That was very interesting because we would have to prepare a convincing argument for both sides of the case.

[Ravens Fan]

I think this issue (critical thinking) is what upset me so much about Farenheit 9/11. After seeing it last night, I was appalled at Moore's apparent unwillingness to allow his viewers to think for themselves. Rather than laying out evidence for the public to absorb, he simply told them what to think or made certain implications that the facts didn't really support.

One example is the segment on the Saudis and the bin Laden family. The basic facts appear (and it's tough to sort through the smoke to find some semblence of reality here) to be that a couple days after 9/11, the FBI approved the departure of several Saudis, including the bin Laden family left the U.S. after Richard Clarke cleared them and approved the flights. Despite the fact that they were cleared by the FBI after being screened, Moore insinuates that they were given special treatment because of the Saudi control of the US government (I think that's what he was saying at least. Everything was so strung out through the movie it was difficult to even understand many of his arguments). My problem with this issue was that some people might have been given the general impression that Saudis are terrorists, especially the bin Laden family, when there is no evidence that we should specially fear any other bin Laden's or those of Saudi Arabian descent more than anyone else in the world. Still, Moore cuts the scenes just right and includes only the information that supports his aims (Osama attended a family wedding--therefore, all the bin Laden's support his actions and may engage in terrorist activities themselves seemed to be his message). Obviously, the Saudis aren't free from blame in the situation that has arisen over the past three years, but they also aren't the enemy that I felt Moore painted them to be.

It's so frustrating to me that Moore was unwilling to just present the facts and let the audience decide. For all the publicity the film received, I think Americans would have been much better off watching a more balanced documentary like Control Room, which I saw a couple weeks back. That movie succeeded, in my mind, because the director used subtitles to provide context where necessary and then just followed people around and let them talk. (For those of you who have no idea what it's about, the movie follows around a few key figures from the US Central Command, where the media is fed information regarding the ongoings in Iraq. It focuses on the US press officer and an Al-Jazeera journalist, but also shadows some other Al-Jazeera execs and a couple of guys from CNN and NBC. I found it very interesting to see what we do and do not see, and what those most involved in the process have to say about it.)

Anyways, to return from my tangent (and probably repeat the same point for a fourth time) it was so disappointing that Moore didn't adequately support most of his claims. There are a number of valid arguments I think you can make about President Bush's mistakes and misgivings, and though Moore touched on a few, he failed to back any of them up sufficiently. Rather than follow an argument out to it's logical conclusion, he seemed to prefer making a snide, sarcastic comment or to exploit people's emotions (the crying Flint woman who read the entire last letter her son sent her before he was killed in combat). As he attempts to tell people his version of how it really is, Moore ironically attacks Bush for surrounding the Americans with an environment of fear and misinformation that doesn't give them a chance to see what is really going on. I don't feel that such a method of arguing (even we can even call it that) is the best premise for worthwhile debate. Moore blew a great chance to make several strong points against Bush to a wide, wide audience.

Finally, there are so many images from the past four years that speak for themselves as strong indictments of Bush that I don't understand why Moore had to try to talk for them. I found the images of US soldiers under attack as well as those of Iraqi families pleading for the violence to stop as far more profound than anything that came out of Moore's mouth from the entire movie. Unfortunately, Moore doesn't seem to have realized that one picture is often better than several thousand words for many people.

[Ben E Lou]

John, John, John:

Welcome to the cynical political dark side! I have lived here for the last 6 months or so. At first, it is a very uncomfortable place. In time, you will find comfort here--comfort in the knowledge of the predictability of American politics. Soon, you will realize that it is fruitless to engage in political debate because, as you noted, very few people want to think critically--they just want "their" side to "win." After you've lived here a while, you'll be further secure in the knowledge that virtually every politician, in office or wanna-be-in-office, values getting into power and staying in power MUCH more highly than doing what is what right, just, or truthful. John, it is so much easier to appeal to the baser instincts of one's potential supporters in order to acquire and maintain power than to actually engage in meaningful discourse about ideals.

In all seriousness, at times I fear that the system of representative democracy has taken it as far as it can take us, and that it only is going to get uglier from here on out until there's a radical shift.

[Warhammer]

In my American History class years ago, we had a debate regarding whether the US should have entered WWI or not.

My team, the side that argued that the US should have remained neutral. We studied the reasons for the pro-war side, and then developed counters to their arguments. All they were able to say was, "Well, when we entered the war, we really kicked some ass!"

Needless to say, the class decided that we had won the debate.

[Arles]

John, I think you make a very good point. In this spirit, I have also tried to determine why the american political debate is as you explained above. I have come up with three possible reasons:

1. Mass media - As has been stated here as well, there are so many sources for information on the Net that someone can post a link to a site that supports the theory that space monkeys have inhabited the management of Microsoft and are controlling our minds with the latest Internet Explorer. IMO, this breeds all sorts of kooks on both sides that find some odd site that gives credence to continue their black helicopter ideas.

2. The closeness of the last election. Because everything is so tight, it's almost a "competitive" feeling in politics. As was said here as well, it's almost like rooting on your Alma Mater. Both sides want to win so badly that they get caught up in the competition and lose the tie-in to the arena of ideas.

3. (My pick) We are at a bit of a cultural divide. The left thinks the right will burn down black churches, force black-market abortions, starve the children, put religious references everywhere, conquer all contries that look cross-eyed at Bush, hand out guns like candy, and kick old people and poverty moms to the curb to help line Ken Lay's pockets. The right thinks the left will erradicate all religion from society, redefine marriage to include numerous untold horror couples, subject the economy to will of environmentalists and trial lawyers, always support some kind of racial quota, disband the military and turn the US into a socialistic country. When you combine this cultural divide with the level of hyperbole on both ends, you get people actually believing that the other side will drive the country into catastrophic ruin. Therefore, no holds are barred. The cause must be championed at all costs. Throw out logic, don't ever concede to the enemy and never admit your side could be wrong. Doing so may lead to the above armaggedon (choose the side that best fits).

It's a little sad that our country really is started to become the third option. And, I fear every four years we will slide more and more into the personal, hateful and overall lack of common decency that now exists in American politics. I think in 10 years we will all long for the days when people like Reagon and Tip O'Neill could argue like cats and dogs all day and then kick back with a beer later that night.

I find myself missing them already.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by John Galt

When people report/post/relay/describe, they are really just appropriating/spinning the "facts" as they want. I wouldn't be surprised to see my post here similarly treated. We, as Americans, have created a media monster to do our thinking for us and we don't even listen when people talk. By listen, I mean, think critically, reflect, and absorb - not react, attack, or retreat.

While I don't believe I'm your absolute & exact polar opposite on this forum,
I believe I'm close enough to provide some sort of ... window from the other side (or something like that).

What strikes me when I read the quote above is that, while I don't disagree about the creation of "a media monster", there's also a certain amount of ... "stuff" that is met with react/attack/retreat responses because there's a lot of repitition out there. What I mean is, at some point, when you're approached with the same ideas/opinions/concepts/et al that you've already considered critcally/reflected/absorbed and rejected because it was found wanting ... well, exactly how many times do you bang your head against a wall before you decide it hurts?

It reminds me of something mentioned in Zell Miller's recent book "Albert Einstein reportedly once said that someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over, thinking they will get a different result, is insane."

Perhaps the fact that the entire country/world isn't quite crazy yet accounts for some of the out of hand rejections that you're talking about -- while you're bothered by the level of response you see, I don't believe you're separating the "reflected/absorbed/rejected" component of the apparently out-of-hand rejections ... which is skewing the equation considerably.

I'm not sure how well I managed to articulate my point, and you may very well disagree that it makes a difference even if I did, but FWIW, I'm not looking to "spin the facts" on you, I'm hoping to simply offer another possibility for your consideration. Whether you accept or reject that possibility is your call obviously, but I believe this accounts for at least a significant portion of a phenomenon that is clearly troubling you.

Jon

[Pumpy Tudors]

No comment on the movie (which, as I mentioned in another thread, I haven't seen because I "hate political shit"), but are people just now figuring out what John Galt is talking about? The "media monster" that he speaks of is exactly what the media is meant to be now. We are not expected to think for ourselves. In general, American media consumers are treated like puppets because that's what many of us have become. I don't claim to be above anybody because I've been sorta preaching this for a while. Maybe I just got in touch with it because of my mass media educational background. Maybe it's because I "hate political shit" (to quote myself from a different thread). It just all seems so obvious, and I'm wondering if people have really taken this long to open up their eyes to it.

[SFL Cat]

I believe the Democrats initiated the modern "politics of personal destruction" cycle back when Reagan took office. He was labeled a warmonger, a lightweight (an actor as president?), a puppet controlled by his handlers, and someone who catered to religious fanatics -- sound familiar?

Naturally when Clinton took office, and especially after the Republicans gained control of Congress for the first time in 40 years (thanks to Slick's woeful handling of his socialized healthcare initiative), they repaid the grief to Clinton in spades. It kind of reminds me of a mobster war. One side, strikes, the other side strikes back harder, and so on and so forth.

It's strange, I know a lot of right-leaning people who hated Clinton with the same passion the current Michael Moore/Howard Dean incited legions display toward Bush. That hatred wasn't enough to pry Clinton out of office in 1996 and I seriously doubt that it will remove Bush from office unless of course the economy goes south suddenly (which I don't see happening) or some kind of pre-election terrorist attack occurs (and I'm not entirely certain a terrorist attack would help Kerry at the polls -- it might actually help Bush since Kerry has been successfully painted as someone light on defense IMO).

You can gripe about Fox being right wing propoganda disguised as news. But give them credit, they recognized a niche, and they are now the king of cable news because they realized that a large number of people wanted a counterbalance to left-leaning CNN, and the major networks (since no one watches MSN-NBC, I won't include them in the mix).

At one time, there wasn't much difference between the Democrats and Republicans. But as each party has attracted its various left and right fringe groups (adopting elements of their agendas to add to their party platforms) the parties have become much more polarized.

Personally, I think once a majority of these guys get into office, 90% of what they do is simply rhetoric to pacify their conservative or liberal constituents. I think most career politicians are more interested in lining their pockets than doing anything constructive for America. But that's probably just the cynic in me talking.

[Fritz]

people have never been expected, or have wanted, to think for themselves. Media, Church, Governement, Cult - most people willingly follow something. It is part of human nature, as is painting the world with a black and white brush.