by Craven, Jim
Response Jim C: Look, whatever the problems or deficiencies in Moore's film from any ideological purist's point of view (or from the point of view of those familiar with even more salient facts/perspectives than mentioned by Moorer in his film), I do applaud his effort and that he did manage to get some salient facts across to some very diverse audiences that would have not otherwise been exposed to such facts. But if part of the story that is missing--in order to get across another part of the story in ways more "acceptable" on a mass level--undermines the part of the story being put across and/or creates further illusions, and mystifications--or outright bourgeois falsehoods and lies about America--then what is the point? But... This appeal to de jure formalism and what America is "really about" and what those who put on uniform are really fighting for is noxious. Our young people--and not-so-young people--who put on a uniform may believe they are fighting for the "American Way", "American Freedom", the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, etc. but they are really fighting for imperialism, plutocracy, oligarchy, despotism, illusions, puppet client-states, imperial hegemony and hubris, conspicuous consumption, unbridled environmental degradation, racism, sexism, fascism, militarism, etc--on the objective level--and on the subjective level, they are often fighting for money for college education, self-esteem issues, hero-complex, travel, adventure, relatively good pay for relatively little formal education, training, skills, resume embellishment, the Audy-Murphy-syndrome, family traditions, etc. And no, not all Americans hold the Bill of Rights as sacred; certainly not those who vote for Bush and also a good percentage of those who vote for Kerry do not hold these de jure (hardly rights de facto) "rights" as "sacred." Jim C. ^^^^^ CB: I'd pick and choose among the Bill of Rights. Among my favorite Amendments are 13 ( Lucky 13 !), 14, 15, 19, and the Amendment Provision itself. Lawyers and judges have interpreted the Constitution; the thing is to change it ! As you say, Jim, a lot of de jure, of ideals. But this is a bourgeois idealist constitution with the _First_ Amendment being freedom of Conscience -speech, religion, press. We materialists would make the number one Amendment - in fact, lets put it in the original text - as a right to a living, to exist materially, bodily and economically, to thrive. You have to able to eat in order to speak. This provision is a premise for making the right to speak de facto. But what is it to just exist ? We must be able to thrive. We need an ERA for women's equality, if we are going to get real about life and the facts of it. And lets take the War Power away from Congress, because they have , in violation of the Constitution, abdicated it to the Executive. I'm for an Amendment that requires a vote of We, the People, before war can be declared. Well, all this is still idealist, constiutionalist talk. We've got to critique all, new Gotha Programmes more. Meanwhile, it seems as though Michael Moore is doing more good than harm, but criticism-self-criticism is one of our modes.
