Spin Dry

This isn't a comment on Fahrenheit 9/11 directly. I haven't seen the film yet -- which is a good thing, because it was sold out. But, unlike some people, I won't comment on content until I've actually seen the movie.

This is my comment on those commentators who have not seen the film, and they're making themselves pretty obvious over at imdb.com. The raves about the movie refer to specific moments and obviously come from people who've seen it. But there are also a bunch of posts from people who clearly haven't seen the film and who are also blatantly writing their posts at the direction of some organization, following a series of talking points. It's not hard to see that some most-likely rightwing group put out the word. "Go to public forums and trash this movie. Bring up these things."

Lets look at the format of the directed posts. They all start out by mentioning that Michael Moore distorts facts and lies in the film, and that nothing is true. No need to offer specific examples of this, of course. Just repeat "liar, liar, liar" enough and it must be true, right? I made it a point to read every negative post, and of all of them that followed this form, none of them simply said, "Michael Moore claims X, but Y." (A few conservative pundits have tried, but their attempts have been shot down; for example, they claim that Moore never mentions specifically a Representative who has a son in Iraq. Technically correct -- he never mentions the man by name. But he does mention that only one Congressperson has a child in combat. Same difference, different words.)

The second bit of business the monkeys were told to throw in their posts is rather laughable and ironic. Looks like they were told to mention propaganda, and make comparisons to Stalin and Hitler, specifically mentioning Leni Riefenstahl. Seeing as Moore has publicly stated his intentions, and makes no secret that this film is anti-Bush, he's taken the bite out of any claims of propaganda. Besides which, everything we see on the corporate media every night is Administration propaganda. If you want to compare Moore to some famous politico, then he's more like the angry socialist student in Berkeley who writes gushingly about Che Guevara. Stalin and Hitler -- and Bush -- had major money and firepower behind their propaganda machines.

Beyond that, the talking points are typical rightwing ad hominem attacks. Yeah, Michael Moore is fat and he dresses funny. What does that have to do with the content of the film? Yeah, Michael Moore is rich. (And so is John Kerry and every other Democrat, because you can't run for office without major money. Your point?) The difference is that Moore (like Bruce Springsteen, Bill and Hilary Clinton, Sting, Barbra Streisand, etc., etc., etc.) started out dirt poor and worked his ass off to become a millionaire. Oh, he frolics at Cannes in a tux? Yeah, he does now. Twenty years ago, he probably couldn't have even afforded the airfare to France, much less been allowed in. Consequently, I'm sure he much more appreciates the value of work and of money than any of a number of born to the manor assholes who had trust funds before their first tooth -- W., Cheney, and their big money backers, for example. Funny difference in attitude there, too. Those born poor seem to spend a lot of their time as rich grown-ups giving it back and giving it away, while those who were handed everything in the cradle spend the rest of their lives trying to hoard more of it, and trying to keep the evil government from taking 38% of it so that evil government can continue operating. (Note to Dick Cheney: lop 38% off of 35 million, you still have 21.7 million left. Or, in other words, the annual salary of at least 1,151 families who are living at or below the Federal poverty line. Help half of them for one year, and you still have ten million left -- and the interest on that kind of money, even at current crappy bank rates, will give an individual an annual salary of around two hundred grand a year, principal untouched.)

All of which is totally immaterial, as is bringing up this argument against Moore. Yeah, he's rich. Movies like this are how he got rich. And he's never killed anyone to get his money. I'd call that a badge of honor, not a strike against him. And anyway, nothing in the job description for documentary filmmaker says you have to be supermodel skinny and drop-dead handsome.

On the other hand, the job description for President of the US should say (but doesn't) that you should be reasonably intelligent, well-informed on history and world affairs, able to negotiate and adapt to new situations almost constantly. Apparently, from what I've heard, Mr. Moore's film proves that W is and can do none of those things. And that's what has the Rightwing so scared.

Unfortunately, Fahrenheit 9/11 will probably be eclipsed by the popcorn fest that is Spiderman 2. On the other hand, by the time that leviathan opens, maybe a lot of its fans will have already seen Moore's work, and will be inspired to get involved in the process, vote in the election in November, and send W and his entire pack of lying cronies back to the depths of Hell from whence they came.

It can happen. It will happen. I've already seen testimonials online from conservative Republicans who saw the movie and can only shake their heads in anger and say, "We cannot elect this man president." With any luck, W may set historic precedent by becoming the only incumbent president to not receive his party's nomination.

Hey, I can hope, can't I? And wouldn't that be the most beautiful revenge of all? That's how the left can fight back, you know. Let's start a "Draft McCain" movement now. After all, W and company can't steal an election in which they're not even allowed to run...