Let me get a few things off my chest.
1. We are at war, this is not a weekend game of capture the flag. This conflict will not be over in a mater of days and death will be inflicted, on both sides. Wallstreet needs to get a grip and stop using military performance as basis for investment.
2. Russian President Vladimir Putin can go screw himself until he's French. Who does he think he is to criticize President Bush? As Russia's supreme military leader, he leveled Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, without any regard for civilian deaths. Hey, doesn't that make him a war criminal?
3. Pardon my language but Sadam's use of civilians as shields for military targets makes him Numero Uno Asshole of the Universe. What does it take for people to realize what a monster this guy is and how much better the world will be when he is either dead or at least Manuel Noriega's new boyfriend?
4. I'm happy to defend the rights of the war protester but dammit people, beating drums and jamming traffic doesn't do anything but stroke your own conscious and ego. If you want to help bring back the boys then go comfort the mother of a solider. It would also be a good idea to start a food drive to help feed Iraqis, they need our help too.
5. Whether you support Bush or not, make sure you are registered to vote in 2004. Make plans to get involved in American democracy before November of next year. Nothing worse than a loud mouth who didn't even bother to take the time to vote in 2002.
6. Like him or not, Michael Moore exercised his First Amendment Right as protected by the United States Constitution. Get over it and move on.
7. This war, like the one in 1991, is not about oil. If we liberated Kuwait over oil then why am I paying $2.50 a gallon? Rubbish. If you are going to protest against war, please seek an educational level higher than the fifth grade, or move to France.
8. That so much attention, money, resources, and human effort is directed towards the Oscars is just as shameful as war, they are just on opposite ends of the Stupid spectrum.
9. If Martin Sheen opposes war so much, why does he play an American President that ordered the assassination of an Arab leader? I guess when the paychecks are on the line, a guys standards just seem to always exit stage left. Imagine that.
10. And to those who live in countries that receive financial or food aid from the United States and then turn around and shout for the destruction of my country: screw you, I want my money or food back.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
Here Here! Well said! I couldn't agree more!
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you sleeping with Ari Fleischer now?
Ryan I tried, oh how I tried, I just love balding men! Unfortunately he doesn't share my point of views, specifically #5, 6 and 9 — that Ari, he loves his movie stars!
FWIW... Martin Sheen has stated on numerous occasions that Jed Bartlet's character often goes against his deeply-held beliefs of pacifism. He's even stated that the "coarse" language that is occasionally scripted rubs him the wrong way. Still, he continues to play the character, so your point is probably well-made.
Yes to all of your points (especially #10!) but I would say that re: #6, Michael Moore does have the right to freedom of speech as outlined in our Constitution but is the Oscars the proper forum? That'd be my complaint about him. Feel free to produce your movies with their not-so-subtle leftist views and answer questions on a talk show honestly with your conscience. But using the Oscars as a platform for your political views isn't appropriate and is only tolerated because the Hollywood elite share those views.
PS: Ryan is just practicing the debate technique calld "negative association." (to reduce the power of your opponent's comments by associating then with someone perceived to have a negative reputation or trait) Either that or he was trying to be funny. ;^)
boysen, you make an excellent point. I generally agree with Moore, being a fairly staunch lefty, but take issue with the platforms he chooses to voice his views. Using the Oscars in that fashion does more harm than good to the Liberal/Dem platform. And he should know that better than most.
You said it so well! I am so with you on point 7. I hope one day I can say it as well as you have.
I was trying to be funny. You see, my domain expired because my hosting service forgot to process my payment to renew it. I'm homeless right now, thus the comments here.
I don't really like Greg's weblog, his right-wing sound-bytes or his love affair with the Whitehouse Press Office. Me, I'm just looking for a place to write. Like a tick, I'm just along for the ride.
Guys listen to what you are saying here. An American used his 45 seconds of global airtime to tell the world how he felt during the most narcissistic awards ceremony in the world. If anything, that makes him the most intelligent of the award recipients who used their time to thank lawyers and producers. Who really gives a crap about the Oscars, who's wearing what dress, and who's arriving in a hybrid Toyota car. Holy crap this just pisses me off even more as I write!
Moore's comments were some of the few, truly meaningful and truthful comments made on ABC that night. Nevermind what side of the fence he is on.
Rock on, brother man.
The very fact we are all debating Michael Moore's proper'ness at the venue speaks volumes of free speech. It's what keeps the world on edge, and us thinking. Well, some of us. A few of us? Maybe?
Greg,
Re: Moore, if you check my site, you'll see that I came down on the other side of this argument. Not because of his message, but because he's a self-serving blowhard. While I disagree with his contention that the reasoning behind this war is "a fictition" (A word which Merriam Webster tells me doesn't exist), and consider my own political leanings to be Republican, I happen to not have a problem with his contention that we have a Fictitious President, and that the duct tape and orange alerts were, to paraphrase, wagging the dog.
I am a bill of rights absolutist. I fully support Moore's first amendment right to stand up and say whatever it is he wants, whether at the oscars, or on a street corner. I simply wish that he wouldn't. The problem is, people like Moore HURT their cause as much as conservatives like Ann Coulter hurt theirs. Rambling, unbalanced screed will never sway the masses, and will probably push those on the fence in the opposite way.
The war is a complex issue. No side is right. Those that grab a hold of one dogmatic position and keep at it with pit bull tenacity bring nothing to any conversation.
Apparently Airbag doesnt do MT's "line break" formatting, so I apologize for the stream of consciousness nature of the last post. It was several paragraphs when I typed it. :)
Chris T: The problem is, people like Moore HURT their cause as much as conservatives like Ann Coulter hurt theirs. Rambling, unbalanced screed will never sway the masses, and will probably push those on the fence in the opposite way.
Chris, you stated exactly what I was trying to say, only much more eloquently. Thank you.
Ha, I've never seen your website before, and have absolutely no clue who you are, but I have not found one blogger on the internet whom I agree with more than you. Extremely well said, and absolutely every point you made was solid as a rock. I completely agree.
#10.....HELL YEAH! I have a Canadian (no offense to any other Canadians out there) twit who has been assaulting my site....can we, possibly, declare war on her?
In order:
#1: Wall Street movers are certainly as stupid and self-serving as the administration and the media. I agree. #2: Putin is a war criminal. Kissinger is a war criminal. Saddam is a war criminal. Bush is a war criminal. Pots calling kettles black gets old fast. #3: Saddam has earned an express ticket to hell, no doubt. Unfortunately, the use of civilians as a tool of war happens &mdahs; just about every time. See history books for Sherman's march to Atlanta, the Allied bombing of Dresden, the Japanese in China circa 1931, the Russians vs. afore-mentioned little French guy. When the rules favor the stronger combatant, the other guy ignores the rules. This comes as a surprise? #4: Making the comfortable uncomfortable is key to any successful protest. Without personal discomfort there is no incentive to action. #5: Agreed. In spades. Think, if just a few hundred apathetic idiots had voted in Florida we might not be in this mess right now. #6: Moore is Moore. Dissent is a cornerstone of a free society, enjoy it (see note above about making the comfortable uncomfortable). #7: Simple answer: You're paying $2.50 a gallon because the oil companies can charge you that much without you rebelling. The war is not "about oil" but it is equally blind to say that oil is not a major strategic component of all Mideast issues. It is the reality. #8: Give the people what they want. If they want the Oscars, give'em the Oscars. Without demand there is no supply. Blame those with appetite as much as those serving the meal. #9: I'd say he's an actor, and as such, often has to assume roles that don't align with personal opinions. I'm sure he could retire tomorrow and doesn't need the paycheck. I'd venture to say that he'd argue that on balance, his program does more good to his causes than harm &Mdash; but I don't watch it, so I'll stop venturing. #10: It's all about strategy. What is the best means to an end. Is it in America's best interest to help the angry poor of the world become more prosperous, or to isolate ourselves from the countries who may need our help the worst? As Bush & Co. are so aptly demonstrating, the military solution is almost always more costly, more uncertain, more difficult, and more second-guessed.
11. praise the people and technolgy that allows you to publish these opinions and allows me to read them.
rock on.
Thank you for saying so eloquently what I've been thinking for a long while.
Hello:
1. Yes.:
2. Yes, but the problem with acting extra-legally is that you have to endure accurate criticism from hypocrites. The solution? Stay within the law.:
3. Yes. Outside of Iraq's Republican Guard, I don't know anyone who denies this. What is at issue is how to get rid of this asshole. Some of us, including myself, believe that our approach is wrong.:
4. Sorry, Greg, there are three different issues here. I would call war protest part of Lippman's "Indispesable Opposition"; the other things you mention can be accomplished while protesting. One does not preclude the other.
5. Yes.
6. Yes. Moore is a jerk sometimes, but I happen to share many of his opinions.
7. I repectfully disagree. This war is about many things, including oil. Oil is not the only thing or maybe not even the main thing, but it is a part. And by the way, if the punishment for ignorance were deportation to France, their borders would be overflowing by now.
8. Yes.
9. Compartmentalization. For more on this type of hypocricy, see Bill Clinton.
10. No comment.
11. Peace.
8.
You are the man Greg, you have a 360 deg understanding of the whose situation.
To F.O.: What's the point of that? I don't get it.
Beerzie.. sorry that wasn't directed at you. I think Greg is blowhard and he can go fuck himself. His commentary is weak. "Who does Vladimir Putin think he is to critisize Bush?" Who does Greg think he is to criticize Vladimir Putin? How can Greg defend Michael Moore's right to speak, and his OWN right to post this crap, and then dismiss war protesters who point to an oil connection as uneducated. $2.50/gallon is cheap, by the way, compared to gas costs in the rest of the world. Perhaps we didn't liberate Kuwait over oil, but then, we had the backing of the UN. Now, we have only the backing of people and organizations who have something to gain. Payoffs from the US. Iraq reconstruction contracts. And yeah, oil. Does it escape anyone's attention that most of Bush's cabinate has ties to one of these groups who stand to gain? So Greg, fuck off.
All I have to say, whether right or wrong, is that you are humorous. If you draw as well as you write, make political cartoons. PS. #10 rocks my world.
F.O. has the temperament I've seen a lot of lately in the Bush-haters. Hate being the preeminent descriptor.
F.O. You are lowering the discourse, and bring shame to those who might otherwise agree with you
Why does disagreement have to lead to anger? Here's a tip: Disagreement with someone isn't hating them; and you don't have to hate someone to disagree with them.
Calm down. Peace is waged on all fronts -- within and without.
Dear Fuck Off,
Your limited vocabulary and misappropriated use of verbs as adjectives leads one to believe that you are not all that intelligent. Next time you try to make a poignant argument- try doing it with substance instead of "shockers". My dear boy, (and I am being generous when I say that)- read up on your facts, learn some more explicit directives and do not attack the messenger. Maturity will teach you all of these things. Until then, I respectfully request that you contribute to a page more suited to your linguistic abilities.... perhaps an MTV chat room would be more to your speed, lamb chop.
Oh that's great. I'm in a meeting all day and I come home to this: a punk high school student who has a serious lack of self confidence.
To the uneducated coward aka F.O.: what are you hiding? Chances are we have never met yet you don't have the integrity to post your own name and email address or website?
So now I shall call you French, slap brie across your weak mind, and present you to the word as you are, a faceless coward incapable of making an educated or witty, well written comment.
Dear FO, of course you checked back to see what the response was to your previous stupid statements. You remind me of the Iraqi forces, cloaking themselves in civilian clothes....... how do you feel when you look in the mirror? You need to research an appropriate venue to vent your venom. As for Michael Moores right to speak, or yours, for that matter......the only thing that matter is if anyone is listening........click, your off!
Olivia, you rock!! I could not have expressed myself any better. You are such a wordsmith. Greg, I love you.
accidentally logged on to this site. found it interesting. good, fair commentary here. people aren't jerks. I just wanted to comment on the idea that people on the left "hate" George Bush. I think that hatred comes from the fact that on his command people are dying as we speak. If you disagree wholeheartedly with his "way" of doing things then it is natural to feel this ugly emotion. We must feel what we feel. We must find ways to alleviate this pain other than through violence or we are no better than the "hated" one. It is a time for love and protest.
9. That's what is known as "acting". Would you have to be a nazi to play Adolf Hitler?