Michael Moore, war and shameful self-promotion
March 2003
by Micheal Walls

Michael Moore is a fat bastard who cares about nothing more then himself and his next cheeseburger.

As I watch these news reports about U.S. POWs, about Iraq's use of human shields, about Iraqi soldiers killing their own commanders so they can surrender, about Iraqis executing American prisoners, about Iraqis burning their own country, about the innocent children killed by both sides, about US soldiers voluntarily risking their lives to fight this war – I look upon people like Michael Moore with utter disgust.

Whether or not you agree with this war, no matter what you believe is true or false, no matter what the final outcome is, to stand in front of millions of people at a function as meaningless and superficial as the Academy Awards, and scold your country and president, is completely inappropriate and unproductive. And to further your selfish agenda by proclaiming that the majority of the audience, the country and the world agrees with you is either blind ignorance or just self-promoting grandstanding.

Somehow, someone has estimated that millions of antiwar protestors, worldwide, adds up to a "majority" of the human race. What about the other 80% of the human race that doesn't protest? What about all of the families of U.S. soldiers that watch their children, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, fight and die for their country. Is Michael Moore representing them? I don't think so.

It's pretty easy to sit in your big fat lazy-boy recliner, in your big fat New York apartment, eating a big fat greasy cheeseburger, and play armchair president, or armchair peace negotiator, or armchair diplomat. Try deciding when foreign powers may or may not be a threat to your country. Try making a decision to place 250,000 men and women in harms' way to protect our way of life. Try sleeping at night when you know U.S. soldiers, you sent into battle, are being killed or captured. Hell, try putting on a 70-pound backpack and humping it across 80-degree desert heat and sand while Iraqis are shooting at you.

I don't think Michael Moore could hump his way through the front door of a McDonald's.

America is at war. Supporting our troops, and supporting the families of those troops, does not have to be a signal of support for this war. It simply means you care about your fellow Americans and your country.

Michael Moore doesn't care about his fellow Americans or his country. He could have accepted his award, said thank you, maybe a word or two about the safety of our service men and women, and walked off the stage. But by Monday morning, award or no award, nobody would remember or care about Michael Moore and he would still be an obscure guerilla filmmaking that needs to depend on video rentals to pay off his new Tuxedo. So what better time to give your personal PR a huge boost then in front of a captive audience. And nothing works better then a controversial subject like war. And Michael Moore knows – we always remember the people who piss us off.

(Michael Walls is a volunteer staff writer for 2 Walls Webzine)

Better Than Indifferent
(Response to: Michael Moore, war and shameful self-promotion)
March 2003
by Matthew Scrivner

Before I start, let me list my qualifications so that my ability to object is not in question. While I may have gotten slightly pudgy from drinking batches of homebrewed beer over the past few years, I am still an avid hiker and backpacker and as such, have easily lugged 70 (well that's an exaggeration, but at least 35) pound backpacks across the wilderness and into the Grand Canyon and across New Mexico and Arizona, sometimes for a week or two straight. Nope, no cheeseburger slurping here. Well, maybe minimal cheeseburger slurping. But not often, and health-guilt makes me enjoy it far less than I could. Also, I have no self-agenda to promote other than the expression of my opinion, no movies I've made, no books on the bestseller list. As such, I feel I am qualified to say that Walls's rant about Michael Moore is way off base. Specifically, I object to all the name-calling.

It's fine to disagree with Michael Moore, to disagree with his beliefs, and even disagree with his actions. Indeed disagreement is the salt of rational political debate. But calling someone a "fat bastard" is not rational political debate.

I could agree with the sentiment expressed in the anti-Moore rant insofar as it objects to the general quality of the speech Moore made. Let's face it, whether we agree with him or not, Moore was a bit direct with his speech at the Academy Awards ceremony. Best Actor recipient Adrien Brody's speech expressed the exact same sentiment, but did so with more diplomacy and tact. But criticizing Moore's physical appearance or his weight, saying that Moore couldn't "hump his way through the front door of McDonalds," is not the same as attacking his lack of tact and diplomacy. Hell, it's not even productive.

The problem is, that this is the sort of name calling that continues across the board to anyone who is brave enough to stand up and express their opinions against the war. Watching CNN last night I saw several pro-war political commentators label war protestors in New York who staged a sit-in where they faked their own deaths as "dangerous radicals" and "potentially a threat to National Security." In hindsight I wish I wrote the commentators' names down so I could tell you specifically who to watch out for when the witch-hunt starts. But on a more personal front, opposing the war got me myself labeled as "anti-American" by a co-worker. This really frustrates me because it makes clear how few people really understand words like "freedom."

Last time I checked, expressing an opinion openly without fear of backlash or reprisal (such as name calling) is one of the things that makes America what it is, it's one of the things that those troops over in Iraq are allegedly fighting for (while not busy securing our oil interests.) Historically, it is regimes like Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, and perhaps, sadly, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, that oppressed people who publicly opposed them. How troubling when my fellow Americans begin to result to labels and name-calling because there are those that disagree. Here's the thing: this isn't grade school, people, and we can't keep using playground tactics to brush off the opinions and concerns of millions of Americans about the validity of this war.

Indeed, the people who should be far more feared than the Michael Moores and Ariana Huffingtons of this country are the "indifferents," the millions of people who would rather watch College Basketball playoffs or the Academy Awards then pay attention to world events. No, Michael Moore isn't "lazy" by any stretch of the imagination, and if the tough, direct language he used to describe his perception of the Bush presidency and it's war struck such a strong chord in everyone, perhaps it was for the better. After all, and this goes both ways, Michael Walls and Michael Moore, having the wrong opinion is better than having no opinion at all. Since a wrong opinion can at least be changed.

(Matthew Scrivner is a volunteer staff writer for 2 Walls Webzine)