« we're in an awful mess, and i don't mean maybe | Main | well i don't know where they come from, but they sure do come »
though i once preferred a human being's company they pale before the monolith that towers over me
by mg at 09:59 AM on March 24, 2003
Last year I did a post-Oscars edition of I Never Though I’d See You Naked. I was planning on doing it again this year, but most of the nominees were the same. I didn’t actually watch a second of this year’s ceremony, not because I thought the actors were selfish for holding a celebration while people were dying, because I believe that while we should forget what is going on, we really have no choice than to continue with the daily rituals of our life.
Sure you should get on with your life, but that doesn’t mean I have to watch you do your silly rituals. My attention last night was held a little more raptly wondering whether the American prisoners of war were being treated all right, rather than wondering whether Martin Scorsese would finally get his statue.
So, yes, I would have had no problem looking for naked pictures of Oscar nominated actresses, I just didn’t want to. Besides, I think any effort to find nude photos of Kathy Bates and Queen Latifah would have surely turned me gay.
Still, I’m glad I didn’t watch the ceremony, because something that happened last night would have really infuriated me. No, It wasn’t Michael Moore’s acceptance speech; I learned to tune that guy out a couple weeks after September 11th when he joined the crowd declaring America deserved what happened.
What really infuriated me about last night’s Oscars is that the same people who decry Bush as an evil man can stand up and cheer for Roman Polanski.
The next time you hear Susan Sarandon, Martin Sheen, or Sean Penn talking about an “unjust war,” remember that these are the same people who gave Polanski, a man who raped and sodomized a 13 year-old girl a standing ovation. Bush and the United States, on the other hand, have proven to be as humane as possible during this war, unlike the Iraqis, who’ve already broken the Geneva Convention accords in it’s treatment of American POWs, and have killed at least 9 coalition soldiers in sneak attacks following a feigning surrender.
I don’t blame Hollywood for having a party, but I do blame them for being so out of touch with any concept of morality or reality that they can’t find justification in a war to liberate a people kept sick and hungry by a rapist, and murder for 25 years, yet can cheer for a man who raped a child and has evaded justice for 25 years. I hope no really pays attention to what any celebrity has to say about public policy, but if you do, stop and think about where these people’s values really lie.
comments (43)
I am glad you are calling attention to this lunacy. Plus, these Hollywood elitists -- most of which just barely graduated high school -- have the gall to think they know better than our educated, highly briefed white house administration. Just makes me giggle at their stupidity.
However, you are misguided on one point. I think Queen Latifah would be hot naked.
by sydney at March 24, 2003 10:32 AM
I wasn't going to, but since you mentioned it, this articles compares the educational backgrounds of the U.S. cabinet to those of the most vocal anti-war celebrities. I wonder which group has more education?
by mg at March 24, 2003 10:52 AM
"Bush and the United States, on the other hand, have proven to be as humane as possible during this war, unlike the Iraqis, who’ve already broken the Geneva Convention accords in it’s treatment of American POWs, and have killed at least 9 coalition soldiers in sneak attacks following a feigning surrender."
?!?!?!?!?!!!
Has it occured to you that U.S. STARTED the war? Maybe that starting a war equals casualties?
What is this all about? You never thought US would have casualties while INVADING a country, now you see there ARE casualties and you're all mad about it?
Fuck man, I don't know what the media over there is showing, but over here we DO have global information (as I mentioned before, CNN is free for all here + Greek channels borrow news from channels worldwide apart from their own reporters) and all I can say is the pictures published yesterday of the unarmed casualties say it all.
You attack, they defend. As you would do if someone attacked america.
The geneva convention? How does your Government DARE talk about it? First day of the war CNN showed about a 1000 times Iraqi prisoners surrendering or getting arrested. Plus does "Guadanamo" say something to your government about the geneva conventions? Does farting on UNs face say something about international laws?
You must be blind not to see all that.
by necropethamenos at March 24, 2003 11:03 AM
+about hollywood:
who gives a fuck.
by necropethamenos at March 24, 2003 11:05 AM
"a war to liberate a people kept sick and hungry"
man, they don't want you there, isn't it obvious?? Even the opposing party of iraq (that incited the revolts) stated on tv that anyone who enters iraq with an army is an invader!
Will you liberate iraq like you liberated Afghanistan? you know you had your war, the new government is not really one, not to mention they do exactly what the taliban would do in their places (executing the opposing people), the whole place lives in relative anarchy, Bin Laden is still free, al khaida as well.
The day U.S. will want to liberate Greece (and this day will come one way or the other) I will know I must move to another country.
by necropethamenos at March 24, 2003 11:14 AM
Read what I wrote again. I understood there would be casulaties. What I'm most upset about is Iraqi soldiers would raise a white flag, and when coalition troops came closer to take them into custody, Iraqi troops begining to fire on them. THAT IS WRONG. And don't you see a difference between reporters filming Iraqi troops surrendering to coalition forces and Iraqi officials video taping American POWs and the bodies of killed soldiers and then handing that tape over to Al Jazeera? In case you can't see the difference, one is a free press reporting on an event (but, did you notice CNN not showing anymore surrendering Iraqis? that isn't because it has stopped happening, but because the U.S. gov't told reporters they weren't allowed to film it anymore), and another is a government going out of its way to break the rules.
by mg at March 24, 2003 11:22 AM
MG, that article you posted bogus! Eduction NOT everything. NOT! So what some peop;le smarter? So what some actors dont educated? So what? It doesnt mean the governorment knows what he's is doing or is doing later.
by Eviltom at March 24, 2003 1:28 PM
A government going out of it's way to break / ignore rules is holding prisoners in guatonomo bay and denying them any rights to counsel, or hope of ever being released.
Necro's point seems to be that the U.S. government is a mite hypocritical saying other countries are breaking the Geneva conventions when they ignore them when it is convenient to their aims.
Good point about the celebrities though. A public profile does not equal an informed opinion. I've never listened to those artsy types anyway... Pinkos all of them...
by ChuckWoolery at March 24, 2003 1:34 PM
You seem to be confusing the Geneva conventions with the U.S. Constitution. One provides for the right to counsel and a speedy trial, the other one doesn't. Guess which is which?
Unfortnately the U.S. government is treating the detainees as prisoners of war, rather than as criminals, which under Geneva, does allow them to be held indifinitely. However, the U.S. government does not consider them eligble as prisoners of war under Geneva, because they failed to abide the laws of war. It's not a policy I necessarilly agree with, but the U.S. isn't doing anything illegal under national or international laws.
by mg at March 24, 2003 3:07 PM
If celebs hate our "lying" and "stupid" government then why do they keep praising Michael Moore and giving his mocumentary "Bowling for Columbine" awards?
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
I have way more faith in my government than any celebrity group.
by MrBlank at March 24, 2003 4:34 PM
Listen, nobody I know saw the stupid Bowling for Columbine thing so screw him. Also, I believe Bates appears naked in About Schmidt, which, again, nobody saw. Here's a fun fact: Of the top fifty grossing movies, only two won Best Picture. Titanic and Forrest Gump, if you must know.
by Anna at March 24, 2003 6:08 PM
huh. I saw the opening of the academy awards, and I thought steve martin had a nice sardonic joke in his opening that basically summed up his awareness of the hollywood hypocrisy. I like being the son of a immigrant parents, because something like the Oscars is not all that culturally ingrained that by now, they'd be cliched enough to make obvious statements on how 'phony' and barnum and bailey the celebs are. MG, I wish you did just post something humorous and NON-Moralistic Searching or Grasping, seems like some peeps are bashing you in the comments, makes lockheed sad. THIS WAR IS dividing the BADSAM community, hee hee hahhhhah...
by LOCKHEED at March 24, 2003 6:39 PM
Though I no longer peruse other blogs (aside from Mr. Blank's, hosted here) I am sure that's the case across cyberspace. This damn thing is just divisive, and I can't wait till it's over.
by Anna at March 24, 2003 8:16 PM
I had to Sing this in Support of MG and MANHATTAN(anyone currently finding themselves born in the 70's, This is our Pathetic Vietnam, now, all we need is another Dallas...) So, courtesy of Buffalo Springfield, for What it's Worth:
What a field day for the heat... a thousand people in the street(Union Square)...Singing songs and a carrying signs(Hi Mom, I'm Scared Shitless and skipping my IVY LEAGUE Social Movements 101 class)... Mostly say(not hooray) for our side...
...There's a man with a gun over there(2,3 train, shuttle to Grand Central)... telling me...I got to beware(no shit, the fucking Dow just dumped 300 because of the rainbow "fun" threat level )...
....Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong... Young(Mostly rich and highly sheltered)people speaking their minds...
...Paranoia strikes deep(no additive needed)...
by LOCKHEED at March 24, 2003 8:58 PM
Jr. Bush singing to Sr. Bush: Neil Young's acoustic guitar plucking away... OLD MAN...look at my life... I'm a lot like you were...
USAY Hussein singing to Saddam Hussein... Old man look at my life...24 and there's so much more...live alone in a paradise... like a coin that won't get tossed... OLD MAN take a look at my life, I'm a lot like you...
by LOCKHEED at March 24, 2003 9:01 PM
International law or U.S. Constitution... the detainees should fit under one or the other, the U.S. government says they fit under neither and therefore have no rights.... that is bad...
I agree this conflict / "the attack on Iraq" (Canadian media term, don't know if it has the term in the states) is becoming/ is somewhat divisive in the Badsam community... its the only thing that has tempted me to abandon the site...
not that I've been coming around here forever or anything...
by ChuckWoolery at March 24, 2003 9:56 PM
Hey Lockheed, some lyrics just stick in your mind. Stephen Stills' "Nobody's right if everybody's wrong" is one of them. Probably make for a good post title.
by Anna at March 25, 2003 7:44 AM
"Iraqi soldiers ... raise a white flag, and when coalition troops came closer to take them into custody, Iraqi troops begining to fire on them. THAT IS WRONG."
It's not wrong. It's tactics.
If you want to look objectively, the Iraqis are the ones practicing self-defense. Here they showed a glimmer of cunning and intelligence, and the whole flipping world is shocked that they would dare do so and not roll over as soon as the coalition forces showed up.
There're no rules, and no fairness, in war, especially if you're the one on the receiving end. What the fuck did Rumsfeld (who complained they "weren't playing fair") think would happen-- everyone would line up on either side of a line, and someone would yell "Go!" and then they'd play it like a sport, with turns and referees?
War's hell, people. And if not, hell, heck.
by Adam at March 25, 2003 9:21 AM
There ARE rules to war. They are called the Geneva Conventions. They've been in place for 50 years, and specify what is, and isn't, allowed to be done during war time. And it isn't so shocking that the Iraqi government would stoop to acts like these, it's shocking that everyone expected they wouldn't. Considering they've been in violation of U.N. rulings for 12 years now, it really shouldn't have been a surprise that they'd choose to ignore the Geneva Conventions, too.
by mg at March 25, 2003 12:48 PM
I have an idea. Let's just shoot surrendering soldiers. Then we don't have to worry about them.
I can hear the rest of the world bitching already.
by MrBlank at March 25, 2003 2:34 PM
Those of you that are saying that Michael Moore doesn't have the right to discuss government and society really need to watch Bowling for Columbine or Roger and Me. B for C was by far the best and most intelligent movie that I saw this year. I am wondering why people automatically assume that all actors are nimwits. I would certainly like to get lunch with Martin Sheen, Samuel L. Jackson or Spike Lee. Musicians seem to be placed on a different level and I am not quite sure why-they are entertainers as well, but can make political criticisms all day long in their music. I certainly wouln't care to hear Britney Spear's opinion of the war, but I would love to hear what Beck has to say. It is the same with actors/producers. Don't care what Luke Perry has to say, but Michael Moore has made some of the most relevant social commentary the 21st century has seen (and probably for the 1990's also)-let the man speak! Just because you don't agree doesn't mean that his opinion isn't valid. Everyone here is obviously looking for a platform. We all want to be heard, otherwise we wouldn't be posting. Actors just have a bigger stage-you can bet your sweet ass that I would be up there spouting my opinion if I could get that many people to listen, and I bet Lockheed would too. So anyway, rent Bowling for Columbine and quit your whining.
by Shannon at March 25, 2003 4:33 PM
I hate to dredge up a "discussion" that was apparently buried a few days ago, and I hate to bring it up on a new post that has nothing to do with it because I was too busy to read BS for a few days and was out of the loop. (sorry MG!) But I have to make a few comments about the censorship issue between Lockheed and Linz. The whole "you're limiting freedom of speech" argument was brought up again. I don't understand. This site does not belong to or was not created by Lockheed. Any writer that posts entries has been approved by MG. He has made this website and gets to have the ultimate say over every single word that is typed here. He has put a lot of time and effort into making this cozy little world for all of us to enjoy and therefore deserves that right! Just out of curiousity MG, how much time do you put into BS-I am sure that it is substantial! He has also given the authors the capability to edit comments to their own posts. So if Linz doesn't want biggoted remarks attached or associated with her posts that is too bad for the commenters. And if Lockheed wants to go and make a website about how much it sucks that he can't post whatever he wants on other people's websites, he can do that! Viola! His freedom of speech exists. I have freedom of speech-but that doesn't mean that I can walk into work and tell all of my students how stupid they are. I also couldn't, even though he has been so gracious as to share all of his personal information, walk into Lockheed's house and start yelling ethnic slurs. MG could decide that he is tired of bickering on his website and delete this comment and you know what? I would have to live with it. Does that mean that I don't have freedom of speech? Of course not.
by Shannon at March 25, 2003 5:02 PM
Shan: I don’t think anyone is saying that Moore doesn’t have a right to speak, the question is why anyone would bother listening to him. And, you know what, I wouldn’t mind sitting down for lunch with him, Martin Sheen, Samuel L. Jackson or Spike Lee. I just don’t want any of them making my foreign policy. See the difference?
As for Moore and Columbine, did you read the article that MrB posted a couple comments up? Here it is again. It runs through all the points in which Moore maliciously went out of the way to alter the truth to fit his argument. I also read a quote from Moore after someone confronted him with several factual errors from his book – his response (paraphrasing) “I’m not a reporter, I’m a comedian.” The problem is that people take what he says as reality, even though even he doesn’t believe what he is saying. And this is coming as someone who really enjoys Moore’s work. I loved Roger and Me. I really loved his short lived TV show TV Nation. But I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him, and that isn’t very far. Why should anyone believe a rant about a “fallacious war” from someone who makes fallacious “documentaries.”
by mg at March 25, 2003 5:20 PM
"There ARE rules to war"
Look, either everyone follows rules (in general) or noone will.
U.N. has rules too. UN members should follow them. U.S. don't. Why should iraqis follow rules to war?
CNN stopped showing them surrendering. That of course does not cancel the fact that it DID show them days ago.
Free reporting? Come on, what are you talking about, is it a mystery to anyone where CNNs loyalties lie? Do you really think it is an objective news channel, especially on a war of its country?
It's just a technicality that creates the argument. TV in iraq is government-owned. What is it that makes the difference?
But most importantly I think that in a world where the most powerful force ignores international laws and treaties, it is just fine for another country under attack to ignore some too.
Last thing I write and then I shut up:
I really don't want to create the impression I'm attacking MG or anyone by saying all that (+all I've said before). It's just my opinion.
by necropethamenos at March 25, 2003 5:33 PM
I am afraid to say that I am far from convinced. Of course conservatives are not going to like the way that they are portrayed and do their best to pick apart every little thing. No, Charlton Heston's entire speech at the NRA meeting was not played. But I read the whole thing from that website, and it wasn't any better. It really doesn't change the fact that Heston is obviously losing it. And I really disagree with what David Hardy has to say about the 6 year old from Michigan that shot a classmate. Hardy says, "Bowling depicts the juvenile shooter as a sympathetic youngster who just found a gun in his uncle's house and took it to school." He then states that the boy was the class bully and the uncle is a crack dealer. Hardy is apparantly trying to destroy the credibility of the 6 year old and thus Moore for pitying the 6 year old. Is Hardy saying that a 6 year old who never sees his mother because she works all of the time and still can't make enough money to pay her rent (she was evicted, which is why they were living with her brother) is to blame for the tragedy? I guess Hardy has stumbled across plenty of other 6 year olds that deserve more sympathy. There was many other picayune points that Hardy makes that barely seem worth debating. And my husband is most likely wondering where I am now and why dinner isn't on the table, so I will let it go at that.
by shannon at March 25, 2003 6:23 PM
I lump Moore in w/ Bruce Springsteen. Both always trying to portray themselves as the little man or champion thereof. I want to see their income tax returns. It's the "I'm Just Jenny From the Block" Syndrome.
by Anna at March 25, 2003 6:36 PM
Michael Moore is NOT in the same category as Bruce Springsteen! Whether conservatives agree or disagree with him does not change the fact that he is a politically active social commentator and has been for years! Check out this interview with the onion. http://www.theavclub.com/avclub3638/avfeature_3638.html
by shannon at March 25, 2003 8:00 PM
Okay I take that back. But Shannon you stay quiet for such long stretches and then, Whoa. I love how impassioned you get about certain things.
by Anna at March 25, 2003 8:27 PM
I'm sorry, Moore admits to making shit up and passing it off as reality. Why should I respect any sort of opinion he has to share? The same way I don't pay attention to Rush Limbaugh, who also admits to playing up certain facts in order to play to his core demographics. Moore and Limbaugh are two sides of the same coin and SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. They are entertainers. Shannon, you'd be much better served listening to the opinions of someone who doesn't just say the things he knows his audience wants to hear. There are plenty of liberal thinkers out there who are much more credible and don't just make up facts to support their arguements.
by mg at March 25, 2003 9:58 PM
mg, it's time you realize that my sister is smarter than you.
by Linz at March 26, 2003 10:52 AM
is that good or bad?
by necropethamenos at March 26, 2003 1:46 PM
If Moore makes up 5% of what he says, how do you know what part is false and what part is true? You can't, so you have to take him with a grain of salt.
Let's say you post a comment to an entry on BadSam and the author decides to "edit" your comment. Then when all the other readers view your "edited" comment they think those are your words when they aren't. When the readers figure out that a comment was "edited", how do they know if other comments are original or "edited"? You can't, so you have to take them with a grain of salt.
No matter how great the rest is, one falsity, especially an intentional one, rules the rest invalid.
In other words: “WOLF! THER’S A WOLF!”
by MrBlank at March 26, 2003 2:29 PM
*howl*
by Linz at March 26, 2003 2:41 PM
I think that it is important to take EVERYTHING that you see in the media with a grain of salt. Moore has been involved in serious projects and he has worked on political satires, and I can certainly tell the difference. I love watching Saturday Night Live, but I don't take all of their political statements as fact. The link that you provided with the "truth about B for C" was nothing but standard conservative criticisms. All of the points made about Heston, Canadian gun laws, children shooting children were just as distorted by Hardy as they were by Moore. The few trivial facts that Hardy found inaccurate were not relevant to the point Moore was making, which was not to blame gun manufacturers or violent movies or loud music for the amount of violence that we have here in the United States. If he was trying to blame gun ownership, why wouldn't he have pointed out that Canada has banned hand guns? He was trying to find answers. And as he admitted, answers aren't found easily. The closest he came to making an accusation was towards our hyped up network news stations for dramatizing and exaggerating every crime, and I bet most people would agree that the local news can blow things way out of proportion! If you want to compare someone to Rush, try Howard Stern.
by Shannon at March 26, 2003 4:10 PM
Also, Mr. Blank, I guess when you post on someone else's web site, that is risk you are taking. If you don't like it, make your own website!
by Shannon at March 26, 2003 4:12 PM
Michael Moore is an entertainer. He is not an activist. If you or he thinks differently, you are gravely mistaken. That Onion article you linked just goest to prove what a loon Moore is - he is so self important that he expects Jack Welch, the CEO of one of the largest companies in the world to notice him, just because he is on a third rate cable station that is one / fourth owned by a subsidiary of the company Welch chairs? Moore is so full of himself that its absurd. Even in the article you linked, Moore says the Canadians watch all the same movies and tv shows we do. But, two years later, when it helps his case to say so, he completly reverses his arguement and says the only thing responsible for higher gun deaths in the United States is the media.
"If he was trying to blame gun ownership, why wouldn't he have pointed out that Canada has banned hand guns? "
Because it wasn't Moore's arguement that guns were evil, it was that American's were evil. By pointing out that Canadians have more guns but less deaths, but choosing to not mention things like population density, or the fact that most guns in Canada are rifles rather than handguns, what else could he be implying?
by mg at March 26, 2003 4:38 PM
Also, Nec said: "They don't want you there, isn't it obvious?? Even the opposing party of iraq (that incited the revolts) stated on tv that anyone who enters iraq with an army is an invader!"
Counting the Shi'ites in the south, the Kurds in the north, and the surrender of Iraqi soldiers, there are now about half as many Iraqis fighting against Saddam as there are fighting for him. Half is not all, but that hald is made up of people WILLINGLY picking up arms against their own government, compared to the Iraqi army, made up almost exclusively of people forced into service. How in the world can you justify saying we aren't wanted there?
by mg at March 26, 2003 4:53 PM
B for C wasn't advertised as a political satire. It was advertised and presented as a documentary. How can it be a documentary if it is untrue? That's deceptive.
If it were supposed to be political satire then I missed the point. Maybe Will Ferrel should have narrated it.
Kidding aside, I'm not concerned with the little kid and a gun story because it’s unclear on what the situation was. I also don't care for the NRA. What really bothers me is the part with Mr. Heston. Since when is it OK to take bits and pieces of speeches and put them back together completely out of context?
by MrBlank at March 26, 2003 5:47 PM
This goes to Mr. Blank's point. My job involves discrediting witnesses sometimes. What we do is try to catch them in any fib we can find. Then we get 'em on the stand and say look, it's clear that you do lie on occasion. So how can we ever believe you about anything? Works every time. And Shannon, he does have a site that kicks ass. It's hosted here.
by Anna at March 26, 2003 6:37 PM
Thanks for the complement on my site, Anna. Just curious, do you try to catch them fibbing under oath or anytime?
When I watched B for C I got so angry at Heston for being so insensitive (which says a lot coming from a big insensitive jerk like me) to the families and friends of the Columbine victims. At that point the NRA made me sick. I couldn’t believe how they could possibly exist. Now that I know what Heston really said in his speeches my feelings are entirely different. Moore manipulated me into a false anger and made me into a fool. I REALLY don’t like that.
by MrBlank at March 26, 2003 8:19 PM
Usually under oath but not always. We also delve into their background to find any evidence of past dishonesty.
by Anna at March 27, 2003 7:44 AM
I guess the debate is fizzling out, but last week I typed a really long, involved response about how Heston is an idiot, his whole speech sucked, he should have had the sensitivity to stay away from Colorado considering the circumstances, and the excerpts that Moore used were not misleading, just a reflection of the entire speech. But my computer froze and the whole thing was deleted. Bah! Anyway, the point was that Heston denied the NRA's involvement in the situation and I disagree. Gun shows, where many of the Columbine weapons were purchased, have been a loophole in the numerous gun laws out there. Why does that loophole exist? Because of extremely powerful lobbies (ie. the NRA). Virtually anyone can walk into a gun show and buy a weapon. Thanks Chuck.
by shannon at March 31, 2003 10:36 AM
http://www.outwar.com/page.php?x=2085427 thats where u should go
by asd at March 29, 2004 2:44 AM