Belgian Holly

[cosmolinguist]

Fahrenheit 9/11 opened this weekend, so we had to go see it.

Almost immediately I was pointing at the screen and whispering 'Cancer!' That, of course, is due to the fact that Andrew and I have been watching old South Park, and lots of it, recently. But, as Andrew pointed out, those people on the screen really do deserve 'head cancer,' as Scott From Canada put it.

Soon some bit of the movie made me want to groan and hide my face so, knowing what he'd do, I looked over at Andrew and started to say, 'You can't make fun of me for being American during the movie. It isn't fair.' Of course he was already in the middle of saying, 'That's your country, that is. You did that.' He likes to tell me that everything that ever happened in what is now the United States of America is my fault because it's a democracy, government by the people and I'm one of the people. Usually I don't mind being teased... but the movie reminded me of atrocious thing that are not funny.

And he doesn't really want to be mean, so he told me I could be something else for the rest of the day. Like Belgian. I said that was nice of him and he laughed and said obviously I didn't know anything about Belgium. I told him I know about Belgian waffles, and also I know Dr. Evil's from Belgium, and he's cool.

Anyway, back to the movie. I wouldn't complain if Andrew was right and I could do something about all this crap, but I know I can't. And that was even worse than watching the subhuman president, the dead Iraqis, the arrogant young soldiers (and worse, the scared young soldiers). The film brought me to the edge of tears because this is all real, it's happening. Right now. And I know it's going to continue, indefinitely. I'm associated with this, held responsible for this, but powerless to do anything about it. And that is not cool.

Andrew not only gave up teasing me, but by about two-thirds of the way through the movie (when it'd stopped being about money and oil and started being about people screaming and bleeding and dying in Baghdad) Andrew started looking over at me and asking me if I was okay. I nodded, but I wasn't really.

People applauded at the end, which impessed Andrew; he'd never seen that at a film before (unless one of the actors was at the cinema, or something). I dimly remember clapping at the end of some movie that wasn't that good but people got excited about...maybe one of the Lord of the Rings movies or something. This was definitely more worth the applause. I know Michael Moore's tactics are far from perfect, but that doesn't make them worthless. I liked being around people who clapped instead of people who whine. Andrew likes to say that the most liberal American politician would be considered right-wing in Britain, so at least I was watching the movie around relatively sane people.

Comments

[davmoo.livejournal.com]

While I'll be the first to call George W. Bush a jackass, and be the first in line in November to vote for one of his opponents, I want to point out that Michael Moore is not up for sainthood either. While I have not seen "9/11", I have seen most of his other works. And one common thread between all the others is Michael Moore never lets a little thing like facts get in the way of hyping up a good story. So don't just automatically assume that everything he presents in "9/11" is indeed true.

[cosmolinguist]

I know he's far from perfect--but it's an undeniable fact that Americans are killing and dying in Baghdad for no reason, that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, that the current administration is using the endless 'war on terror' to keep us in vague fear all the time because it makes us easier to control. That's the kind of stuff that really got to me. And flawed though it is, it's still the only stab anyone's making at bringing some perspetive to the mass consciousnesss.

[davmoo.livejournal.com]

Besides "that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11" you left out "while the person who did lead 9/11 continues to run around Afghanistan free as a bird while he continues to threaten Americans" :-)

[textivore.livejournal.com]

FWIW, the complaints I've heard about the film, even from intelligent and knowledgeable people on the right, have generally not been about factual inaccuracies, which seem to be relatively few in this film. Instead, the complaints are that he presents true things in juxtaposition to each other in ways that infer things that are at least unproven and possibly untrue. Kinda the same way someone might infer "Iraq has something to do with 9/11" from juxtaposition of "9/11 was the work of terrorists!" and "Saddam supports terrorists!" if some hypothetical president should hypothetically put those together in a hypothetical State of the Union Address . . .

[tragicallyjulia.livejournal.com]

I have yet to see Fahrenheit 9/11, but I can imagine reacting to it in the same way you did. That sick feeling of impotence seems to go hand-in-hand with being a sane, compassionate American these days.

And Andrew may be somewhat right in teasing you (or any American)because we have a 'democracy,' but they voted in their PM, right? We all play a part in the fucked-up state of the world.

Uh, could I get any cheerier? Blame my stomach acid.

[cosmolinguist]

They voted in their PM, right?

Oh, dear. Prepare for a tongue-lashing. :-)

[stealthmunchkin.livejournal.com]

Actually, that's one of the things I point out to her when making fun of her... the British system is very different from the USian one in a couple of different ways:

The Prime Minister is not a directly-elected figure. Rather s/he is chosen by the MPs of the largest party in the House Of Commons. People only vote for their individual MP, and so many people voted for Labour while loathing Blair, because they support the party as a whole, or because their local MP is a good person - the *only* people who have ever voted *for Tony Blair* are the 26,110 who voted Labour in the Sedgefield constituency. Those 26,110 are not the same as the population of Britain.

Normally this wouldn't matter, as all laws have to be voted on by Parliament, but there are some important caveats to that.

Britain, unlike the US, is not even nominally a democracy. Rather we are a 'constitutional monarchy', which means in essence that supposedly the Queen has absolute veto, but she only has that power as long as she chooses never to use it. However, while *laws* have to be voted on by Parliament, *war* remains under the Royal Prerogative.

This means that military actions can be taken on the orders of the monarch ('advised' by the PM) without Parliament having any say in the matter. In the case of the war on Iraq, this was the case. The decision was made solely by a man whose mandate comes not from the electors, but rather from the elected MPs. This wasn't a decision made by the people's elected representative, but rather by *one* of the 600 or so representatives elected by the people - a rather crucial difference.

[tragicallyjulia.livejournal.com]

I see - and thank you for the clarification. Like most Americans, I'm pretty ignorant of all other countries' politics - obviously. :-)

But do you believe this frees the citizens of Britian of any and all responsiblity in this matter, or any other military action? (I'm preparing to get my ass kicked verbally now... :-))

(Going to try to go to sleep now, but I look forward to reading your response later...)

[cosmolinguist]

Fair enough, but in this case especially you must remember that the president wasn't elected by me, and he wasn't even elected by the people who voted for him, becuase he wasn't elected at all.

It's true, always, that USians aren't directly voting for the president anyway, but just making suggestions to who the electoral college should vote for. They're not compelled to vote for whoever wins the majority in their state; the constitution was set up that way by people who think 'the masses are asses' and didn't trust them to make such a decision.

And even so, that 'majority in their state' thing is a pretty stupid idea. I'm one of many people who thinks that the electoral votes for a state should not all go to whoever gets the highest percentage of votes but should instead be parcelled out proportionally to the amount of support that states' voters gave to each candidate.

Even when the system works we're not really in charge, and it obviously failed us in 2000. Florida was a joke, the Supreme Court case was a joke. It's not fair!

If you want to get technical about it.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

The Prime Minister is not chosen by the party with the largest standing in Parliament. The PM is the person who the Monarch believes is most able to control the confidence of parliament. In some cases (ie a minority gov't, or after a no-confidence vote) this may be from a party that doesn't have the largest number of MPs.

It'll be like Yeltsin, baby!

[5-rings.livejournal.com]

I'm still waiting for Her Majesty (or His Majesty in the future) to order the British military to declare war on Parliament. I mean, what's the point of constitutional monarchy if the monarch can't use all his/her powers? ;-)

(Sorry, had a Richard III moment there.)

[kwakhed.livejournal.com]

actually, even when the system in the u.s. works properly (which it didn't this past "election"), only 538 people are responsible for electing the president... the electoral college was put into place by the founding fathers as a failsafe of sorts -- there is nothing in law saying they have to vote for the candidate who won the state that they "represent"...

so, in reality, out of a population of about 290 million, only 538 people elect the president, and the will of those 538 is only tied to any kind of democratic process by convention, not by law...

in my opinion, the electoral college has to go...

[gfjames.livejournal.com]

See this kinda stuff drives me insane. It's as though the big, bad US of A is the only country in the world to have done anything "eviL."

People conveniently forget that those fine folks from the British Isles jumped right onto the program to invade Iraq--of course, they let the US pay for a large part of it, but they still hope to reap a nice little profit.

Least we forget, the role Great Britain has been running roughshod over countries like Africa (for their diamonds, etc), Asia (for their fine silk and spices), the Mid-East (for...hmmmmmmm...lemme see...oh, yeah, oil--ever hear of BP?)...for hundreds of years. And let's not forget that great divide in Ireland where those fine folk of England whacked people just because they had a different religious philosophy.

Let's not paint the evil US of A as the only ones who like to "colonize" the rest of the planet. There's plenty of blame to go around.

I wonder when a Michael Moore type will speak up about the "evils" that Great Britain has perpetuated throughout world history? My guess is it won't happen, because unlike the "evil" US of A those genteel folks of the British Isles protect their own from criticism.

It's nice to point the finger of blame at one particular political party, especially if you're from the outside looking in. But it's harder to acknowledge that your own country ain't exitly pure as the driven snow either.

[stealthmunchkin.livejournal.com]

See, this kind of stuff drives me insane. It's as if rather than read what was written you leapt without thinking to the assumption that someone disliking the US' foreign policy must automatically like their own.

People conveniently forget that those fine folks from the British Isles were against the war, and taken into it against their will by an unpopular leader who will quite probably be voted out at the next chance, and that *TWO MILLION* people turned up in London alone to protest the war (That's 3% of the country's population) before it started.

People also seem to have an inability to grasp the distinction between someone saying things to tease their friends and a thought-out, coherent view on politics.

Lest we forget, it's a bit pointless to protest the actions of the British Empire - which, you may note, no longer exists. The exploitation coming out of the UK now is in large part down to *corporations*, rather than governments, and many people *DO* protest these injustices.

'A Michael Moore type', or several of them, *did* speak up about the evils that the UK has perpetrated (which I assume is the word you are looking for) *AT THE TIME*. Ever hear of George Orwell? Bernard Shaw?

FACT 1: Britain used to be the biggest, baddest, nastiest bully in the world. No-one disputes this.

FACT 2: Britain is now an utter irrelevance in world affairs, reduced to a vassal of the US, and powerless to do any real harm, or it almost certainly would do more harm than it does. No-one except about 5 menbers of the Conservative party disputes this.

FACT 3: *AMERICA* is now in the role Britain was in. *THIS IS HAPPENING NOW*. Protesting about the occupation of India, the slave trade, Cromwell's genocide in Ireland, the setting up of concentration camps during the Boer war, would not actually acheive anything *BECAUSE THOSE THINGS ARE OVER*. RIGHT NOW, THIS MINUTE, there is a war going on in the Middle East. People are actually dying NOW, not 100 years ago.

You appear unable to grasp that it is possible for someone to criticise another country's actions without thinking their own perfect, and you also appear unable to grasp that it is possible to tease a close friend without actually meaning every single word that is said. If those inabilties are driving you insane, that is entirely your own fault and not mine.

[cosmolinguist]

I don't know if you know this or not, but though I've been in England a month, I'm still American. The Belgian bit is a joke, actually; it's made up for purposes of humor. Don't be fooled; I'm still from the USA.

I'm also confused as to why you're attacking me thus; not only am I not of the nationality in question, but I'm also unsure of the relevance of listing the faults of that nation's deceased empire. The most evil the United Kingdom does these days is kiss the ass of whoever the US president happens to be at the time. Even Britain did not 'jump in' right away; it took a bit of coaxing to get even that one of our usual major allies to help the US defy the UN's mandates concerning Iraq.

No one has ever said--in my journal, anyway--that the US is the only perpetrator of evil or that evil is the fault of one political party. Such sentiments would be scoffed at with the derision they deserve.

Your bitter spitefulness is one of the attitudes I'd love to remove from my countrymen. Missing all of my points is another such trait. They're exactly the kind of thing that I wish weren't associated with America.

You thought I was throwing a hissy fit when, after multiple off-topic, humourless, irritating comments I banned you from commenting on my journal. I felt bad later and tried to make amends. You make me wonder why I did.

But then, it's nice to have a good, cleansing rant every now and then.

[gfjames.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'm acutely aware that you're still a US citizen--for now at least.

And as for the banning thing, actually I wasn't all that perturbed, nor will I be if you do so again.

As for the rest of you chuckleheads who leaped to defend the jolly old UK, I tend to think that the UK is still a bully, just one slick enough to let the US do its bidding.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

See this kinda stuff drives me insane. It's as though the big, bad US of A is the only country in the world to have done anything "eviL."

Don't be ridiculous! EVERYBODY knows that the evilest country in the world is Israel. ;)

I wonder when a Michael Moore type will speak up about the "evils" that Great Britain has perpetuated throughout world history?

Erm, does a few hundred years ago count? As MrMunchkin ably pointed out, it's generally more effective to protest things that are happening (or soon to happen) rather than things that have already occured.

[cosmolinguist]

Bad luck Holly. ;)

Andrew picked my temporary-country-of-origin. I know he picked a bad one on purpose. :-) Still, at least I'm not supposed to be French! (But then, that might just be because he wouldn't want to think he has a French girlfriend...)

As for the rest of your comments, I can only nod vehemently and say 'yeah!' Thanks for adding your perspective.

Without getting into the REST of it...

[toastedtuna.livejournal.com]

All this talk of politics and systems is way too deep for me, especially before coffee, so I'll just reply to your original post. LOL!

You're going to have to explain the South Park 'cancer' reference. I'm sitting her thinking, thinking, thinking... As a gigantic fan of the show, I can't remember when they had a cancer joke & it's so FRUSTRATING. *sigh*

Our whole mess is frustrating, actually. People hate Michael Moore for whatever reason, but I'm glad he used our Freedom of Speech before it gets taken away entirely. Whether or not his film is accurate or can be viewed as fiction, it doesn't really matter. The point is, he made it, and I'm glad he did. It's nice that someone took the time to put this together, and offer people something else to consider.

It would be nice to think that if we got a new prez our troops would come straight home, but that won't happen. It can't, and it makes me SICK!

John Kerry was on Larry King last night. Larry asked him, "If you take office in January, will this be over? Will the troops come home?"

Kerry glossed over the question and didn't answer it. What could he say? Saying 'yes' would be a commitment he may not be able to make, and would look like political pandering. If he said 'no' it would cost him votes, and we'd be stuck with Dubya for another 4 years.

What really makes me ill about our political party is that it ALWAYS comes down to either Democrat or Republican. We never have anyone from the Independent ticket win the presidency, or anyone from the Green Party. We'll NEVER have anyone from the Peace and Freedom party in there. Ever!

Our political system is a machine that runs beyond anyone's control, which is so frightening, if you think about it. It seems like everything is pre-determined.

Anyway, that's enough pre-coffee rambling.

Re: Without getting into the REST of it...

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

What really makes me ill about our political party is that it ALWAYS comes down to either Democrat or Republican. We never have anyone from the Independent ticket win the presidency, or anyone from the Green Party.

You nearly had somebody from the Progessive Party win the presidency. Or at least finish in second. ;)

[cosmolinguist]

Okay, first of all, the South Park reference is from an old episode we just watched--it's the one where they put off telling you who Cartman's father is to give you a Lifetime-style movie starring Terence & Philip (it's called "Not Without My Anus"). The guy who hates them (he's in cahoots with Saddam Hussein!), called Scott, who at one point sticks his arm out (sort of as if he's meant to be pointing but, being Canadian and thus having squares for hands it's hard to tell) and when they ask what he's doing he says, 'I'm trying to give you cancer with my mind!' 'Head cancer?' they ask as they try to hide behind each other. Andrew and I'd just watched that episode recently, hence the reference. (It's an old one, from season 2, so that might explain why you don't remember it.)

And I agree that the film is good as long as it gets people to actually think about these things. The facts are there, for anyone who wants to look. Even if they don't agree with Moore's conclusions, that's fine. Even better, really--people should think for themselves!

It's such a shame that this will go on, even if Kerry's elected, for the forseeable future. It just hurts to think about it. I'm less concerned about what party people belong to--I was a great supporter of John McCain during the last presidential election, and this time Howard Dean was easily my favorite--so much as I care about finding a good person for the job. Not that there ever seem to be any, really... The same puppets are pulling all the strings, and distracting us with cable TV. It doesn't have to be pre-determined if we sit around oblivious and wait to be told everything.

[ted-souleater.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen Fahrenheit yet (I'll get to it sometime in the next month). I'm not a Bush lover either (I'm an undecided voter who's leaning toward Bush), but you have to remember that Michael Moore has a major axe to grind, and that he's always been very sloppy with his presentation of the facts. The movie is (at best) an op-ed piece, and (at worst) grossly-distorted propaganda. Moore wasn't interested in showing you both sides of the argument....and when you ignore the counter-evidence and counter-arguments, you only make them stronger. Does Moore mention the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who died at Saddam's hands? Does he mention how Saddam violated UN sanctions for years? Does he mention how the vast majority of US soldiers tend to vote Republican (and support Bush)? No, because it doesn't fit into Moore's agenda (which is to get John Kerry elected).

Yes, war sucks. But sometimes it's necessary. The lesson of Munich is that the west *must never* sell out its vital interests in order to maintain a false peace. That said, it's also vital that we question our leaders, and make them accountable for their actions. Bush has a lot to answer for (the lack of WMDs, the diversion of military resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, etc.)......

And don't apologize for being an American. Be proud......I am.

[cosmolinguist]

As I've said, I know Moore obviously has an agenda, and I really do think some of his tactic are stupid-bordering-on-tasteless (though I thought that more often during Bowling for Columbine than I did with this one). But the point still remains that a lot of things are being suppressed. Anything that gets people thinking instaed of just taking everything at face value is A Good Thing. I do not think Michael Moore speaks unmitigated truth, but if his films get people to talk and think and not just blindly accept what they're spoon-fed on the TV news, I am in favor of that.

Of course his view is biased, but so is Fox News--and all the news channels, for that matter. Any thinking person knows that there's no such thing as total objectivity; we learn to fliter things through our own brains and come to our own conclusions.

And really, all he's saying in the movie is that we didn't go after the right people after 9/11, we didn't do it the right way, Iraq was not involved and had no WMD... Regardless of what you think of his spin on things, there are facts there, and they paint a bad enough picture that, while I do not apologise for being American, I am not very pleased with some of the things being carried out in the naem of my country these days.

[iblis-kukl.livejournal.com]