Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: xrtoronto on July 21, 2004, 05:01:27 PM
-
July 20th, 2004 4:53 pm
Defining Love of Country; We ought to ask our presidential candidates whether or not they love us
By Patti Davis / Newsweek
September 11 either made me love this country or it made me realize how much I already did. I think it’s the latter. Seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11" made me think deeply about love of country—how it molds us, drives and emboldens us and how it can sometimes make us so angry we want to shout out to the world: "No, this is wrong." Many things have been said about the movie, and of course about its director, Michael Moore. But I don’t think I’ve heard anyone comment on Moore’s love for America. It seemed evident to me that the film was born from that love.
To anyone who would respond that, no, the film was motivated by rage at the Bush administration, might I point out that when you feel betrayed, when you believe that something or someone you love has been wounded and cheated and lied to, the fury that floods the heart is unstoppable.
In the '60s, most of my generation (including me) was angry at America for the distant jungle war that had also become a war at home. Fury was a rite of passage. The country was divided between hawks and doves. And we were angry doves. The Vietnam War was taking our classmates, our peers, our friends; it was taking brothers and boyfriends and young husbands. It was a war we couldn’t understand. Vietnam had done nothing to us. I remember having to find the country on a globe in the classroom just to figure out where it was. We spelled America with a k: Amerika. Remember? Anything to insult and denigrate our homeland, which in our eyes was responsible for a shameful invasion across the oceans. If anyone had suggested to me then that my rage was really born from love—that I felt betrayed by my government and therefore angry—I would have soundly rejected the notion.
Perhaps Michael Moore traveled along the same emotional route that I did. Perhaps he too looks back at those years and thinks, “I wanted more from my country. I wanted us to behave honorably, truthfully. I was ashamed of the country I loved. And it made me furious.”
A friend of mine said she didn’t want to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" because she doesn’t like Michael Moore. “Because he’s bombastic and strident?” I asked, already knowing the answer.
“Exactly,” she replied.
I conceded that point—he can be both those things. But I tried to point out that he’s just the messenger in the film. And the message is an important one even if you don’t like the guy who is bringing it to you. Besides, he probably learned stridency decades ago and never un-learned it. What’s important is, when he stood in the kitchen with a mother from Flint, Mich., whose son had just been sent to Iraq and he agreed with her that America is a great country, I believed him. I think a lot of people did. I think my friend would too, if she ever sees the movie. That’s what I mean about his love for America—it comes through even if you don’t like his style.
President Bush, on the other hand, says that he loves this country and, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I assume he does love his conceptualized idea of America. But I don’t think he loves us—the people who make up this land. The huddled masses. The millions of citizens who just want a peaceful, safe life. Those who want to put their kids through school and see them grow up; who want to take vacations to other countries without fearing for their lives because so much of the world hates us.
I don’t think you lie to people you love. I don’t think you send them off into dangerous situations on the basis of murky, cobbled-together information that isn’t really information at all. I don’t think you keep them scared all the time. I don’t think you respond to horrors like public beheadings with cowboy slogans that sound like they came from old John Wayne movies. And I think if someone masterminds an attack on people you love and murders thousands of them, you go after that person until you find him. Osama bin Laden is six feet, eight inches tall, he wears white robes and he reportedly suffers from kidney failure, requiring him to be on dialysis. I haven’t researched this, but I assume there aren’t many dialysis machines in Afghanistan. So wouldn’t it make sense to stake out the ones that are there? He could have a portable one, which would require a generator. That should make him easy to spot, too.
But, alas, no one seems to be looking for Osama. According to Tim Russert, the Bush White House has done such a good job of diverting our attention to Iraq, there are actually people who now think Iraqis flew the planes into the World Trade Center towers. I believe Tim Russert. He has direct, honest eyes. He seems to love this country deeply. Perhaps he should run for office.
It seems to me that the most important question we can ask when choosing a president is, Does he love us? I think Democratic presidential contender Sen. John Kerry should address this question—not in a sappy, touchy-feely way, but just matter-of-factly. We are going to be married to one of these men for the next four years, so it seems a crucial point. The sad fact is that someone who doesn’t love us is not going to take very good care of us.
reprinted from NEWSWEEK (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=98)
-
Patti Davis.. strike 1
Newsweek...strike 2
F 9-11...........strike 3
-
So Bush doesnt love people who have children?
Wow the left really needs better material, Micheal Moore's cheapshots have really lowered the bar for their propaganda.
And no it doesnt matter that she is Reagan's daughter... (except to leftists who hate reagan)
-
I know a bit more about Moore than most. I've met him several times, mostly during his 'Roger & Me' period in the late 1980s and once in the 1990s. He was working on his tv show at that time.
Let's examine his work in the light of history. Let's put aside his most recent film. Let's look at how history has judged what he's proposed.
In Roger & Me, he blasts Roger Smith, then the chair of GM, for taking huge golden parachutes for himself and his cronies while sending GM plants to Mexico, causing an economic meltdown of Flint, MI. A city Moore has very little to do with. I actually grew up in Chicago, as in - within the city limits. When I hear people I know who grew up in Winnetka and Wheaton say they are from "Chicago" I cringe. When John Cusack says he's from Chicago, he means he's from Evanston. When Jim Belushi dons a Cubs cap and says he's a Chicagoan, he means he grew up in Wheaton, a nice suburb.
Moore blasts the destruction of his "hometown" but really doesn't examine the underlying factors. What part did the UAW play in causing this? Despite the outrageous and posh lifestyles of American car executives in tha face of a company that was getting killed, did the shareholders (not the execs) vote against moving production facilities to Mexico? No, they did not.
And, in the light of 15 years of history, how has it played out? Did Flint suffer? Yes. Did GM reap any benefits from lower wages? Hard to say what all the factors were, some included new engineering techniques pioneered from Saturn (in Tennessee) and others included tax benefits, but GM has largely righted their ship. And Japanese car manufacturers, who in the late 1980s were vilified, found that building cars in the U.S. made more economic sense than importing against the tariffs.
I'd say Moore's film fails the test of time. It appears on a present day viewing to be a kind of 120 minute whine - the reality that his parents grew up in, where the "company" - i.e. GM - built the town and it was a kind of socialist ideal where everyone in town was a company man, and the company owed the people - didn't even stand up as realistic back then. It ignored the realities of capitalists like Carnegie and others who in the early part of the century, ruthlessly improved the means of production. It was pure naiveity to think that Flint was "owed" anything by the executives. Why should Smith meet with Moore to talk about the poor people of Flint? What purpose was there?
Now, we live in a post-NAFTA world, where even white collar jobs like software engineers go to India - where NO job is safe. Corporations cross borders easily and without many tax restrictions they used to have. Is this good or bad? Moore would say it's bad. Would he be right? No, he wouldn't. The history of economics has shown time and again that free trade promotes growth, and you go back to examples as old as the Roman empire to illustrate it.
With the war on terror, Moore hates Bush and delivers a polemic against him. Rich Congressman and Senators won't send their kids to go die in Iraq - it's left to the poor kids who needed the Army. Well, first - that's a gross oversimplication. Are all Army and Marine recruits poor? What is the average media income of the recruit? And if it's some number that seems low - say $30k/yr for the family of a recruit - what does it say about anything? The Army is volunteer, this isn't like Dan Quayle's father getting him out of Vietman, nobody makes you join the Army.
On other points, that Bush has ties the Sauds. Well, he is in oil - isn't he? His grandfather Prescott Bush through his dad built an oil empire. Yet his dad was in the military during WW2. Does Moore mention this? No.
There is much to throw Bush II out of office because of. His own shoddy military history in the posh squadron where it seems clear he didn't show up when he went to Alabama should have been an issue in the Gore campaign. Did he work with his brother to throw thousands of votes out in Florida to steal the election? It seems clear, from the GAO's own report, that systematic election fraud did occur. I don't see Moore mentioning that Kennedy also did it to Nixon.
I don't think his documentary will stand the test of time any better than Roger & Me does. It appears as polemic, in the same way that Rush Limbaugh does on the right. Three weeks ago, Rush was defending Cheney using the F-bomb. It was an indefensible position, it would have been downright refreshing to hear him say "It was unbecoming and needless" - instead of filled with glee. But there is no room for moderation and free thinking it appears. It's as hard to get rational discourse of issues as anytime in American politics. The pundits are polarized, and nobody takes the middle ground.
So, while Patty and Ronny Junior praise the film - remember they are not without their own agenda. The Reagans hate the Bush family. Bush was picked by Reagan in 1980 to appease the centrists of the party, and Bush Jrs newfound ultra-conservativism really steams them. They think the Bushes taint the legacy of Reagan. So anything that comes from them should be viewed via that prism.
-
Well I think we know what a Kook Patty Reagan is so her words mean nothing to me.
-
Originally posted by wombatt
Well I think we know what a cook Patty Reagan is so her words mean nothing to me.
I think you meant kook.
-
Patty Davis or Patty Reagen, whatever she calls herself now, has a long history of stupid comments and doing anything to get attention. I no more care what she says as I care what thrawn or voss says, all buttholes in my opinion.
dago
-
Lets not forget that the Reagans are a somewhat resentfull that Bush admin aposes stem cell research.........That might be a source of friction with the recent death of Ronald Reagan
-
Since when is Patti Davis an authority on anything? Why, with all the factual information about more important subjects that needs reporting, would Newsweek publish that insipid piece of froth? Looks like just another round of pin the donkey tail on Bush.
-
When willyou guys stop pretending that entertainers have something to say?
Wake up America!
Hollywood produces actors; not politicians!
Unless they're called Reagan or Scwartznegger
-
Originally posted by Seeker
When willyou guys stop pretending that entertainers have something to say?
Wake up America!
Hollywood produces actors; not politicians!
Unless they're called Reagan or Scwartznegger
who's the gov of Ca?
-
Originally posted by Seeker
When willyou guys stop pretending that entertainers have something to say?
Wake up America!
Hollywood produces actors; not politicians!
Unless they're called Reagan or Scwartznegger
What did R Reagon do before he was US president?
-
Originally posted by Seeker
When willyou guys stop pretending that entertainers have something to say?
Wake up America!
Hollywood produces actors; not politicians!
Unless they're called Reagan or Scwartznegger
who was mayor of Palm Springs before his ski accident?
-
and then there's Jerry Springer..former mayor of Cin. OH now tv host
maybe politicians produce entertainers?
-
There is a difference between an actor (Richard Gere, for instance), that just spouts bullchit from his celeb pulpit, and an actor (Ronald Reagen, for instance) that walks the walk and makes an attempt to change what they perceive as a problem by entering the political process.
-
Maybe Moore can become a politician in Canada. Going by the canucks on this BBS it seems he would do great! Plus he could finally escape the stupid and violent USA to live in the paradise that is Canada - at least according to BFC..
You would vote for him toronto, right? I know he can count on your support!
:aok
-
Originally posted by Lizking
There is a difference between an actor (Richard Gere, for instance), that just spouts bullchit from his celeb pulpit, and an actor (Ronald Reagen, for instance) that walks the walk and makes an attempt to change what they perceive as a problem by entering the political process.
well...what do you think about Clint Eastwood? he was mayor of Carmel ?
-
I think anyone can say anthing they want, but those persons who back up their bullchit with action have a lot more credibility than those who simply bark like little dogs.
-
Miz.patty naive or stupid?
Miz. patty says, Osama easy to spot in afganistan
might be a good idea if she would ask her buddies from the u.s.s.r. just how easy he and anyone else was to spot. [stupid]
Miz.patty says,tim russert has honest eyes so I believe him.
Really,how many females have been raped and murdered by males with honest eyes? No I subment to you that character is much more important. [ naive]
Miz.patty says we need a president that loves us.
Ding...wrong again...we need a president who knows the difference between good and evil. [stupid]
Miz. patty says we just want a safe and peacefull life.
Well miz.patty you know that American military you hate so much..since the beginning of this country that military has had a very very large hand in providing us with what peacefull and safe life we have had. [stupid]
Miz.patty says what did vietnam do to us?
Veitnam did nothing to us..u see we where not there because they ever could.we were there to stop the reds from doing what they always do to others..Oh Miz.patty never heard you say a word about the three million cambodeans killed by pol pot after we left.Ever see the killing fields didnt think so, didnt bash amerika. [ foolish girl]
Miz. patty says I wanted more from my country.
A very good president[ who once called his brother a fool and a coward during the missile crisis] once said, Ask not what your country can do for you,rather,Ask what you can do for your country. [stupid,foolish girl]
-
Just a chick with an opinion. More eloquently stated and more sound them most of you boobs. But just an opion.
I heard she was entitled.
-
Did he work with his brother to throw thousands of votes out in Florida to steal the election? It seems clear, from the GAO's own report, that systematic election fraud did occur.
Perhaps you could hook us up with this alleged GAO report.
-
She's still Patti Davis, isn't she? Not changed her name again?
She changed it to Davis because she didn't want to be Reagan. Davis was her mother's maiden name. I've read her book, which I bought at "The American Bookshop" and read, one wet weekend in Amsterdam. Excellent book, especially the first three chapters which deal with a sensitive topic. I'm just pointing this out because many people would benefit from reading it.
... and to piss Dago off of course. :D Hiya Dago!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Lets not forget that the Reagans are a somewhat resentfull that Bush admin aposes stem cell research.........That might be a source of friction with the recent death of Ronald Reagan
I think they resent Bush because Bush is taking the Republican party off the deep end with his religious rants and pandering to the christian coalition, while alienating the moderate base that Reagan won over with charm and integrity.
And, of course, because the man's just plain nuts.
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
I think you meant kook.
:( He said "kook", didn't he? I'm cornfused...is this a private joke, maybe?
-
ok beetle...I'll bite, what were the first three chapters about?
lazs
-
they resent Bush because Bush is taking the Republican party off the deep end with his religious rants
====
wrong
and pandering to the christian coalition,
====
wrong again
while alienating the moderate base that Reagan won over with charm and integrity.
====
still wrong
And, of course, because the man's just plain nuts.
====
are you canadian? if so, dont worry about it and if not.....consider applying for amnesty :lol
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ok beetle...I'll bite, what were the first three chapters about?
lazs
Who cares, the book is fictional.
-
Originally posted by ra
Who cares, the book is fictional.
How would you know - have you read it? If you had, you could have told Lazs what the first three chapters were about. But you didn't, so I'm guessing you haven't. So I'll take your response as a blast of hot air.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
How would you know - have you read it? If you had, you could have toldl Lazs what the first three chapters were about. But you didn't, so I'm guessing you haven't. So I'll take your response as a blast of hot air.
So the book you are referring to isn't a work of fiction? Do I have to read a book to know it is fiction? I haven't read any Harry Potter books book I'm reasonably sure they're fictional.
-
Originally posted by ra
So the book you are referring to isn't a work of fiction?
You don't have to read a book to know whether it's fiction, but it helps if you refer to the classification which you clearly have not done. If it belongs to the genre of "Biography", then it's hardly going to be fiction. If it belongs to the genre of "novel", then it probably is. PD has written both. The book I refer to is a biography which refers to real people and real events. You figure it out. Read it just to be doubly sure. And then tell Lazs what the first three chapters were about. Your remark of "Who cares, the book is fictional" is little more than kneejerk rhetoric blurted out because you don't like her.
-
So tell us the title of the book. You already told us where you bought it, where you read it, and how long it took.
-
Sve us the book of the month dues and just fluff'n tell us what they are about if they are so profound.
-
Originally posted by ra
So tell us the title of the book. You already told us where you bought it, where you read it, and how long it took.
In a little over three hours, you've gone from saying "the book is fictional" to admitting that you don't even know which book I'm talking about.
I'm talking about her autobiography. I read it in 1994 and couldn't quote the title from memory 10 years on. However, a quick search on Amazon would indicate that the title is "The Way I See It" (an Autobiography).
Getting late - Toodle-Pip.
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_8_4v.gif)
-
Oh, you're the one who bought that book.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Maybe Moore can become a politician in Canada. Going by the canucks on this BBS it seems he would do great! Plus he could finally escape the stupid and violent USA to live in the paradise that is Canada - at least according to BFC..
You would vote for him toronto, right? I know he can count on your support!
:aok
Vote for him? Heck, he'd probably have his child!
-
Originally posted by ra
Oh, you're the one who bought that book.
...100,000 copies at the first printing. Or do you dismiss the publisher's figures as a work of fiction as well as the book itself?