Thoughts on Fahrenheit 9/11 *spoilers*

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I do not see what having power over your (in general) own children has to do with anything exclusive The main point of MM's question clearly was to imply the members of Congress have the power to send all people to war.

Uh? I'm not sure I agree with that. The point was that the Congress voted for the war. Since all but one Congressmen have no children in the military, they did not have to worry about their children being shot at in Iraq. But since they supported invading Iraq, Moore was arguing, why not send their own children there for the cause they supposedly believe in so much?

You're reading more into it than the point Moore was trying to make.

[quoteIn the exercise of that power, it would be a harder decision for them to make if they knew their own child was going to war and they may not make that decision based on that.[/quote]

That may be a given, but I am not sure that Moore was going for that point. He was goading these guys in the context of their already having voted for a war for which they didn't have to sacrifice their children.

But you are right about this:

So, the conclusion MM draws is it was easier for Congress to send other peoples' children to war - they did not have to send their own nor are they sending their own, save one member of Congress; the decision to go to war is personally detached for them.

But the following I have trouble with:

This member we are discussing was saying although he did not have a kid there, he had a niece or nephew. He had the power to send them there and he did.

He had the power to send them there but it was incidental power. They presumably were already part of the military for which they volunteered. Now if this discussion were about enacting the draft, you would have a valid point here. But under the current circumstances, and in the context of the Iraq war, you are stretching. And this rubber band is going to snap at any second.

this member essentially said, look MM, your implication with your question is that I/we did this with less care and no personal attachment because my/our own child(ren) is/are not there is wrong, my siblings' children are there and that factored into my decision almost as much or as much as it would if my own child was there. That is why I think it was unfair of MM not to include it.

Using the footage about the niece/nephew may show some personal attachment, but it still misses the point. I bet you every single one of those senators and congressmen can claim they know a so-an-so, relative or close friend, who is serving in the military. So they could all claim personal attachment and get off the hook that way. But if it were their own children, could they legitimately claim they would have made the same decision?

I just do not buy MM's and apprently your point of "it only matters if it is your kids and not your siblings' children" approach - I think that is too narrow and interpretation. I think when a member of Congress says or implies look it mattered to ME and here is why, they should be heard - they are directly addressing his point.

On your first point, I disagree and I already explained why. You have a hell of a lot more power over your own child than over your nephew or niece. On the second point, so Moore decided not to include the footage. So what? He made an editing decision in making a movie that he himself calls an op/ed piece. So what's the bellyaching about?

But, MM knew he could not show that becuase it negates his implication that members of Congress knew their own children (which are the only people that matter) would not be going so the hell with it, let's go anyway even if we do not have to go

This is where you are so wrong I can't believe you don't even see it. So one guy saying he has a niece or nephew in the military negates the point that the members of Congress, all of whom except one have no children in the military, have less of a personal attachment to the decision to go to war because their children aren't serving? That rubber band just snapped, dude.

I think MM should have asked the member of Congress, what does it matter if you sent your niece or nephew, they are not your children. Surely, they do not matter to you as much as your own children. Even though he is frank, I do not think MM would ever have asked that direct question because it would have made him seem silly and hard and given the member of Congress the chance to show a human side in the decision to go to war that MM did not want to show.

Now you're making assumptions, and rather dubious ones at that. Now you are presuming to tell us that you can read Michael Moore's mind. I would take your argument a lot more seriously if you didn't make silly comments like that.

I think this member of Congress deserved to be heard and MM should have addressed it by making that point. He did not. That is what I think is bad

Gee, Jason, this is the other reason why you're being so silly. The guy deserves to be heard? Says who? Let's assume for a second that indeed he does deserve to be heard. He's been heard now, hasn't he? Isn't that why we're having this discussion? See how silly that is?

But and again, I think on the whole, this movie is good

Why do I get the feeling you say that through clenched teeth? Fully embracing the movie for what it is and unabashedly liking it, as I do, does not make one a dummy who got duped, Jason. Perhaps you should come to terms with that. Stop apologizing for liking the movie. Or telling us you like it when maybe you really didn't.

[strandinthewind]

Hey now - I never fully embrace everything I have to analyze - you know that - and for that mattter so do you

I see your points, but I disagree. It is not great leap of logic to see MM wanted to make his point which was members of Congress find it easy to vote for and sustain a war when they do not have to send their own kids - MM implies the members of Congress are saying they have no personal attachment so the hell with it - it is someone else's kids - not mine.

It does not take a great leap or any mindreading (puuhhlleeze we are discussing his motives how can any of this be anything but mindreading unless you know something about MM other than what is in the press ) to get to my point that MM knew that putting in this member of Congress' direct rebuttal of that point above meant MM would have to rebut it or make no comment on it and let the audience take it for its face value (he perhaps could have made the member of Congress look like an idiot if he did the latter ). But, I think in rebutting it, MM would have to say his point rather than imply it and in saying it he would lose credibility. Do you really think MM is dumb enough to rebut on camera that fact that neices and nephews do not count as a significant potential personal loss in the decision to send other peoples' children to war, etc. He would have lloked like a hard, cold fool and I think he knew it.

But, if you cannot see that, then there is no way you are ever going to see my point, which I think is valid. Apparently, MM did as well because he chooses not to address it and instead omits it. I think he should have had more bal$$ than that. I mean he has no trouble taking on anything else.

But, you are right in that he could have thought with blinders on, "well it does not directly answer my question, so it is out of here." I think, however, you know better than that because MM is very smart and he rarely say things he has not thought about - he chooses his words carefully just as he chose this edit carefully - I mean if we unenlightened plebians can pick up on it, I dare to say MM can and did.

Anyway, food for thought

[CarneVaca]

Jason, as a parent, I don't believe it makes me cold-hearted to place my own child's interests above everyone else's. I don't apologize for that. Now, with a bit of good fortune, I'll never have to be in a position where protecting my child v. someone else's would be a decision I would have to make.

That's speaking strictly as a parent.

As a human being, I don't want to see anybody's children getting shot at in an unjustified and, yes, illegal, war. Were I in Congress, I would have voted against it, plain and simple. I abhor war. Put this whole discussion in the context of legitimacy and legality, and your whiney congressman's beef becomes subterranean in its validity. If anything, he should be ashamed of himself and running to his god to beg for forgiveness. Shame on him and the rest of them.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Why do I get the feeling you say that through clenched teeth? Fully embracing the movie for what it is and unabashedly liking it, as I do, does not make one a dummy who got duped, Jason. Perhaps you should come to terms with that.

Don't you bait me

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Stop apologizing for liking the movie. Or telling us you like it when maybe you really didn't.

Now who is being the mindreader I apologize for nothing. I like the movie. I have repeatedly said I think MM is effective in getting his message across. I think it is provocative. Those are things I like. I do not like that he edited the member of Congress' answer to that question. So what. I am susposed to like all of the movie or die or be forever shunned into a lesser existence Just as i put forth what I liked, I then put forth what I did not like. You and others said why you thought I was wrong. I responded. Am I not entitled to my opinion, which I have given and explained as you called for

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Am I not entitled to my opinion, which I have given and explained as you called for

Good question. I know I'm entitled to my opinion. And you are too. You are entitled to my opinion.

[dissention]

Boy, Jason, you're fighting all of us lately!

How far up did that bug crawl?

[Sugar]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Jason, as a parent, I don't believe it makes me cold-hearted to place my own child's interests above everyone else's. I don't apologize for that. Now, with a bit of good fortune, I'll never have to be in a position where protecting my child v. someone else's would be a decision I would have to make.

That's speaking strictly as a parent.

As a human being, I don't want to see anybody's children getting shot at in an unjustified and, yes, illegal, war. Were I in Congress, I would have voted against it, plain and simple. I abhor war. Put this whole discussion in the context of legitimacy and legality, and your whiney congressman's beef becomes subterranean in its validity. If anything, he should be ashamed of himself and running to his god to beg for forgiveness. Shame on him and the rest of them.

I have a child. I also have nieces and nephews. There is a HUGE difference in my mind as to how I feel about my own child going to war as to how I feel about nieces and nephews going to war.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by Sugar

I have a child. I also have nieces and nephews. There is a HUGE difference in my mind as to how I feel about my own child going to war as to how I feel about nieces and nephews going to war.

Thank goodness! I was beginning to wonder if I was indeed cold-hearted. Or, anyway, more cold-hearted than most!

[strandinthewind]

Hateful people - the lot of ya!!!

To you I say BALDERDASH

Seriously, I was initially hesitant to comment on this film because many people cannot take anything but praise for MM and this and his other films. This is a discussion thread not a post here only if you like the film lovefest for MM thread At least, that is how I took it. Yet, when people make a comment like I did about what they liked and disliked about the film and put that out there for discussion, it is as if I or they have horribly insulted MM. I did not do that. I was disussing what I liked and disliked providing reasons for those opinions. I think I had a valid point about MM's choice to edit out that member of Congress' response. I provided reasons why I thought it lessened the film and then discussed why I thought MM did it. I certainly do not know for sure why he did it - no one but MM knows for sure. But that does not mean I am not allowed to speculate and then support that specualtion. We all do that all of the time in a discussion board

So, my point is, I think it is okay to discuss the various aspects of this film. That is not the same thing as degrading MM. I have not done that.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Sugar

I have a child. I also have nieces and nephews. There is a HUGE difference in my mind as to how I feel about my own child going to war as to how I feel about nieces and nephews going to war.

I am not saying there is not - of course someone's own children will matter more - I never said they did not. ALL I am saying and have said is I think for a lot of people (maybe not you ), there would still be a personal attachment with nieces and nephews as opposed to a common stranger's children. I think that would have been an interesting point for MM to make. Or, like I said earlier, he could have put the member of Congress' five or so second response in the film and not commented on it and let people draw their own conclusions. But, he did not. I think that was, for want of a better word, bad of him. It lessens IMO his point. It takes away from the discussion of it. Yes, we are discussing it here, all 20 of us But, it was in the press also. So, it is being discussed - I admit that. But, I think it would have been better to put it in the film. That is my opinion and that is why I think it.

[Sugar]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Seriously, I was initially hesitant to comment on this film because many people cannot take anything but praise for MM and this and his other films. This is a discussion thread not a post here only if you like the film lovefest for MM thread At least, that is how I took it. Yet, when people make a comment like I did about what they liked and disliked about the film and put that out there for discussion, it is as if I or they have horribly insulted MM. I did not do that. I was disussing what I liked and disliked providing reasons for those opinions. I think I had a valid point about MM's choice to edit out that member of Congress' response. I provided reasons why I thought it lessened the film and then discussed why I thought MM did it. I certainly do not know for sure why he did it - no one but MM knows for sure. But that does not mean I am not allowed to speculate and then support that specualtion. We all do that all of the time in a discussion board

So, my point is, I think it is okay to discuss the various aspects of this film. That is not the same thing as degrading MM. I have not done that.

CHILL, DUDE!

I certainly never said that I thought you were insulting MM. Hell, this is the only film of his that I've ever seen. You provided lovely reasons why you thought Fox News had a point. They were wrong...but no less lovely.

Seriously it has nothing to do with MM, there's just a big difference between being a parent and being an uncle. What if that senator's sister lives in Montana and he hasn't seen that nephew in 15 years? I think that's a big difference.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Boy, Jason, you're fighting all of us lately!

How far up did that bug crawl?

Now Now, there is no competition to reach the level of your's

(for the faint hearted - that is me respnding in kind with complete and total sarcasm)

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Sugar

Seriously it has nothing to do with MM, there's just a big difference between being a parent and being an uncle.

I totally agree and never said differently.

Originally Posted by Sugar

What if that senator's sister lives in Montana and he hasn't seen that nephew in 15 years? I think that's a big difference.

But, that is the point isn't it. We will never know the answer to that question because MM never allows us to decide that for ourselves. He dismisses it by choosing not to address it or let us see it. I think that makes his point less severe, it waters it down.

Interestingly, if the Senator's sister did live in Montana and he had not seen that nephew in 15 years, I think it would have compelling for MM to have responded with that - he could have asked the Senator "How close are you - why would you equate a nephew to your own offspring?" MM does not do that. He avoids the issue IMO because it takes away from the point he is trying to make.

Again, this is just my opinion.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Yet, when people make a comment like I did about what they liked and disliked about the film and put that out there for discussion, it is as if I or they have horribly insulted MM.

Not at all.

If you want to make criticisms about Michael Moore or the movie, that's your right and no one said you can't do it. However, just as you have the right to make criticisms about portions of the film, we have the right to say we don't agree with those criticisms. And I feel we have in a respectful manner. No one has said you can't have those criticisms, we've simply said we feel those criticisms are unwarranted and posted why we felt that way.

The sword cuts both ways.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Interestingly, if the Senator's sister did live in Montana and he had not seen that nephew in 15 years, I think it would have compelling for MM to have responded with that - he could have asked the Senator "How close are you - why would you equate a nephew to your own offspring?" MM does not do that. He avoids the issue IMO because it takes away from the point he is trying to make.

And you don't think that's just a tad intrusive, especially if they had met for the first time on the street? I'm all for Moore asking the tough questions, but I think questions pertaining to a mans personal family relationships are just a bit off limits, especially in the context in which Moore was asking questions in the film.

Again, he was asking for members of Congress to try to get their kids to enlist. He wasn't asking for second cousins or nieces and nephews or sons of a brother-in-law. The man we're discussing did not have a child in Iraq or anything like that, he said his nephew was in iraq. Big difference.