I went to see Michael Moore’s new movie SiCKO for the second time. It’s a two hours flick, maybe longer, so there was plenty of stuff I missed the first time through. If you haven’t seen it yet, do so … right now. I can wait ... …
… and you’re back. What did you think? I felt it made a lot of great points and even schooled Americans on what a democracy is (or is supposed to be). I’ve read through some critiques and had numerous conversations on the issues expressed. But at this point, the movie isn’t what I’m interested in discussing. Instead, I’d like to touch on the reputation of Michael Moore.
He’s one of those cultural figures that seem to induce strong feelings or ideals automatically. When I see Moore on commercials or in the news, I associate him with passionate, radical thinking akin to gonzo journalism (without all the drugs). Many others instantly demonize him as the golden child of liberal media bias. We either love him or hate him. I have yet to hear an apathetic comment on anything he’s done.
What truly solidifies Moore’s credentials in my mind is his willingness to debate what he produces. For example, former senator Fred Thompson attacked him for creating SiCKO even before it had a chance to screen. Moore’s response was a challenge, inviting Thompson to an open debate on our nation’s health care and, further, his countless campaign contributions by the health care industry. The response was typical: “I’ve been looking at my schedule, Michael, and I don’t think I have time for you.” Keep in mind this was said while Thompson lounged casually in an easy chair sucking at a Montecristo.
Another example is with an author of the Michael Moore hate site MOOREWATCH. JimK was about to shut the site down because of personal and financial issues, and posted as much for people to read. Moore’s response was not vindictive or triumphant; he actually supplied the man with the necessary funds to keep his life on track and thus to keep the site going. To this day, JimK continues to bash Moore, even though he acknowledges the assistance given.
I’m sorry, but anyone who places real money down to secure the existence of an opposing perspective deserves much respect and consideration. Moore may not be right on everything (who among us can be?), but he shows tremendous security in his own views. So much so that he PUBLICLY welcomes the chance to be wrong about what he thinks. That’s my point.
I am wary of anyone who simply puts the opinions of others down without every making their own opposing views available for scrutiny. These folks are guided by one (or all) of three possible motives: (a) they don’t really believe what they believe; (b) they believe without much evidence; (c) they have a vested interest in something that is currently being challenged.
Their tactics are usually to demonize their detractors, discrediting them with the hopes of silencing further argumentation. They feel this somehow safeguards their beliefs, when really it shows a tender spot in their thinking. They are not interested in discovering truth; they are interested in appearing right. The two are not the same. (Wow, I think I pierced the heart of political discourse … bonus!)
I recognize there are people out there who DO take in different perspectives in order to find their own. I applaud you. But there are many more who knee jerk for whatever reason, which doesn’t serve any purpose other than to stroke their own egos. It’s quite possible they’ve adopted a view which was fed to them by the media, which makes them just as guilty as Moore’s audience.
If we don’t agree with what Michael Moore says, can we at least agree that he opens doorways to more moderate thinking? Can we recognize that voices such as his, while extreme, help people solidify their own positions on matters of tremendous significance? And most importantly, if we feel we are being lied to or deceived, can we start defending why we think that instead of attacking others? Here’s hoping …
… and you’re back. What did you think? I felt it made a lot of great points and even schooled Americans on what a democracy is (or is supposed to be). I’ve read through some critiques and had numerous conversations on the issues expressed. But at this point, the movie isn’t what I’m interested in discussing. Instead, I’d like to touch on the reputation of Michael Moore.
He’s one of those cultural figures that seem to induce strong feelings or ideals automatically. When I see Moore on commercials or in the news, I associate him with passionate, radical thinking akin to gonzo journalism (without all the drugs). Many others instantly demonize him as the golden child of liberal media bias. We either love him or hate him. I have yet to hear an apathetic comment on anything he’s done.
What truly solidifies Moore’s credentials in my mind is his willingness to debate what he produces. For example, former senator Fred Thompson attacked him for creating SiCKO even before it had a chance to screen. Moore’s response was a challenge, inviting Thompson to an open debate on our nation’s health care and, further, his countless campaign contributions by the health care industry. The response was typical: “I’ve been looking at my schedule, Michael, and I don’t think I have time for you.” Keep in mind this was said while Thompson lounged casually in an easy chair sucking at a Montecristo.
Another example is with an author of the Michael Moore hate site MOOREWATCH. JimK was about to shut the site down because of personal and financial issues, and posted as much for people to read. Moore’s response was not vindictive or triumphant; he actually supplied the man with the necessary funds to keep his life on track and thus to keep the site going. To this day, JimK continues to bash Moore, even though he acknowledges the assistance given.
I’m sorry, but anyone who places real money down to secure the existence of an opposing perspective deserves much respect and consideration. Moore may not be right on everything (who among us can be?), but he shows tremendous security in his own views. So much so that he PUBLICLY welcomes the chance to be wrong about what he thinks. That’s my point.
I am wary of anyone who simply puts the opinions of others down without every making their own opposing views available for scrutiny. These folks are guided by one (or all) of three possible motives: (a) they don’t really believe what they believe; (b) they believe without much evidence; (c) they have a vested interest in something that is currently being challenged.
Their tactics are usually to demonize their detractors, discrediting them with the hopes of silencing further argumentation. They feel this somehow safeguards their beliefs, when really it shows a tender spot in their thinking. They are not interested in discovering truth; they are interested in appearing right. The two are not the same. (Wow, I think I pierced the heart of political discourse … bonus!)
I recognize there are people out there who DO take in different perspectives in order to find their own. I applaud you. But there are many more who knee jerk for whatever reason, which doesn’t serve any purpose other than to stroke their own egos. It’s quite possible they’ve adopted a view which was fed to them by the media, which makes them just as guilty as Moore’s audience.
If we don’t agree with what Michael Moore says, can we at least agree that he opens doorways to more moderate thinking? Can we recognize that voices such as his, while extreme, help people solidify their own positions on matters of tremendous significance? And most importantly, if we feel we are being lied to or deceived, can we start defending why we think that instead of attacking others? Here’s hoping …
2 comments:
Well said my gringo - he has gotten people talking which seems more than we did before he appeared.
I can't wait to watch that Larry King show to see what it adds to your blog.
Oh man, thanx so much for saving that LKL show for me HoneySutra! I enjoyed it yea verily.
Moore made an excellent observation about health care that you've been saying for some time in regards to education. Society as a whole benefits when all of it's members are guaranteed access to treatment and care (or education). What a novel concept.
I'm sure by now we've all witnessed the sparring of Michael Moore and the cast of CNN. I feel good about this conflict. Both sides came together and hashed it out. Hackles were raised, words were said, but in the end everyone involved put their views out there, allowing their IDEAS to evolve. It is this sort of conflict we desperately need in the world today.
Post a Comment