fahrenheit 9/11

Tony Pierce cried. "Probably 6-7 times."

Cried? You mean actual tears? Six or Seven times?

Let me start by saying that Tony is a god in my book. The Busblog is the essence of effective and interesting blogging. He has codified what every blogger should do to be read. And he's right.

But, cried?

I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 on Saturday. Ironically, I saw it with Michael Moore. Not the Michael Moore. Another one.

One who's not so annoying.

I was so completely alienated by the condescending and pedantic tone of his voiceover that I was too pissed to even consider crying. Clearly his goal was to convince by bullying the audience into feeling stupid if you didn't see it his way.

Even if I did see it his way, I'd still have been pissed.

By the time stuff came around that I was clearly supposed to cry about, I felt completely manipulated.

I cry at movies (Dead Poet's Society). Hell, I cry over TV commercials ("Do it again, Daddy"). But I cry over truly moving moments. I don't cry because the filmmaker (a la Terms of Endearment) has chosen to show me pictures of someone crying.

I'm not saying that he didn't construct some tragic scenes. Showing a pastoral scene in Baghdad the day of the initial bombing juxtaposed with the actual bombing and burned corpses is certainly a tragic scene, but so clearly manipulative as to piss me off even Moore.

Consider this MSNBC Interview:

TAPPER: You declare in the film that Hussein's regime had never killed an American

MOORE: That isn't what I said. Quote the movie directly.

TAPPER: What is the quote exactly?

MOORE: "Murdered." The government of Iraq did not commit a premeditated murder on an American citizen. I'd like you to point out one.

TAPPER: If the government of Iraq permitted a terrorist named Abu Nidal who is certainly responsible for killing Americans to have Iraq as a safe haven; if Saddam Hussein funded suicide bombers in Israel who did kill Americans; if the Iraqi police--now this is not a murder but it's a plan to murder--to assassinate President Bush which at the time merited airstrikes from President Clinton once that plot was discovered; does that not belie your claim that the Iraqi government never murdered an American or never had a hand in murdering an American?

MOORE: No, because nothing you just said is proof that the Iraqi government ever murdered an American citizen. And I am still waiting for you to present that proof.

Since when is this kind of semantic shell-game anything but manipulation?

The last half of the movie was spent essentially trying to convince us that war is bad. Not necessarily even this war.

Okay, all war is bad--I'll stipulate that. All dentist visits are bad too. But that wasn't the implied point of the film--it was simply off track. It wasn't Bush that made war bad. I think Spielberg and Stone have well-convinced us that war is bad. Why dilute his message?

Did we get into a war under false pretenses? Did Bush have shady connections that may have influenced him? Moore raises many issues, once you cut through the sarcasm and manipulation. He has given me fodder for thought and discussion.

Did Moore convince me of anything? No more than JFK did.

Did Moore make me cry?

Not a chance.

about the invitation

It is printed on translucent, 17 lb vellum and heat embossed, measuring 3.5" x 8" from a magnesium form by Owosso Graphic Arts.

The backing stock is a thin, aromatic, rose-petal handmade paper affixed to 160-lb watercolor paper with spray mount (couldn't find raw hand-made card stock). It measures 4" x 8.5"

This form factor fits in white, 100% cotton, #10 envelopes. They are addressed by ink-jet in Copperplate Gothic Light.

Included is a response card, ink-jet printed in Copperplate Gothic Light on the same 160 lb watercolor paper without the handmade "veneer." Return address on the reverse are pre-printed with recipient's name.

The ribbon is 5/8" non-wire-edged.

The entire package mails for standard USPS envelope rate ($0.37).

This was the first thing I ever printed on my Chandler & Price 12x18 printing press.

you're invited



All (what? seventeen) of you who read this blog are invited to my wedding.

Please email me if you are interested.

atrocious


LadyCat bought this magazine for me 'cause she couldn't pass up the horrid assemblage of headlines. Has anyone at the Star ever heard of leading? Changing the color to make two different thoughts just doesn't work here.

Unless, of course, the point is to imply that Drew is marrying Courteney's baby.

there's something in this list you didn't think of

2000 uses for WD40

Test Blog

body of christ quality control

LadyCat asks: "So at the plant where they make communion wafers--how do they do quality control on the body of Christ?"

now there's a solution

From John Kerry's "The First 100 Days - Complete Action Plan"

(3) End the ‘Era of Ashcroft’
John Ashcroft has launched an all-out assault on individual rights, allowing for a wholesale invasion of attorney-client conversations, e-mails and telephone calls. Immediately after the election, John Kerry will name a new Attorney General whose name is not John Ashcroft. . . (Empahsis mine - Ric)

While you're at it, can you get a new UN Secretary-General who's name isn't "Kofi Annan" or "Butros Butros Gali" or anything silly like that?

trivia quiz

What do these three people all have in common?

• Layne Staley (Singer, Alice in Chains)
  
• Margaux Hemingway (Actress)
  
• Alexander Godunov (Ballet Star/Actor)
  

Post your answer in comments.

Winner gets bragging rights and a link to their blog (if applicable).

UPDATE [2:04 p.m. EST]: Todd was close, but the correct answer has not been given. And I fixed Staley's name, Todd.

UPDATE [3:14 p.m. EST]: Todd is our winner! The correct answer is: All died of a chemical overdose and weren't found until thier bodies were already decomposing. Extra credit if you knew the two actors asphyxiated in their own vomit.

hello...



Which Princess Bride Character are You?
this quiz was made by mysti

[courtesy heart]

bug

I just had a lightening bug crawling up my arm.

I was sitting at my desk.

It's a freaking sauna in here.

response

Thank you for your comments. I'd like to answer a few right now.

Lilfluffy
Interesting. Now, I blog for the same reason one would write in a journal.. To get my thoughts out of my head and find some organization within them. It's a meditation of sorts. Blogs are journals essentially. Does one write in their diary for the benefit of the audience?

If your main reason for doing this was the comments and feedback, then I don't feel that your motivation is correct.

Honestly, do you 'need' the audience? You should write for yourself, the best art is always art made for the sake of art. Hollywood can pander to the masses well enough already......

You're nuts, I tell ya! Why the hell would one post on a public forum if one didn't want folks to read it? If you want to journal, then open up Notepad. I'm here to interact. For catharsis and support. And, yes, to entertain.

T
I've always enjoyed reading your website, but find that you don't respond to my comments (perhaps because I don't have my own blog?). It's like being in the same room with someone and hopelessly failing at making any sort of conversation. Mind you, you're not the only blogger who does this. But it leaves the 'commentor' feeling uninteresting, or ignored. Sometimes, even a tiny response opens the door to an ongoing interaction. Well, that's my 2¢ worth, for whatever it's worth. You've written some insightful and fun entries and I will always come back to see how you and your girls are doing. Good luck, Ric!

That's a good point, T. I like my comments on other sites commented upon. I will strive to be better at that. Like right now.

And you not having a blog has nothing to do with anything.

Robin
I have found that I feel better writing if I know someone is reading even if they do not comment. Comments are great, but I waiver between writing for myself and writing because I want an audience.

Lilfluffy takes no comments on his blog/diary. I'd like to comment on his writings sometimes, but them seem more diary like that blog like. So there is a difference.

Also, the less one writes, the less likely I am to keep looking at their blog to see if they've written so the less I comment. Also if I am not blogging, I don't read blogs either.

I blog for an audience, I'll freely admit. The catharsis is only secondary these days.

Todd
I think for the last couple years, your blog was your pressure-relief valve. It helped you maintain sanity through all the crap with Ex.

Now that your life seems to be on a bit more of an even keel, the outside affirmation isn't so necessary for you.

Yeah, you're right. I'm not here for therapy anymore and I guess that's the biggest thing the comments did.

I'd still like to hear now and again, though.

blog

Quite frankly, I quit blogging because you quit commenting.

Theories about this range from "you're not posting about crisis" to "you're taken, so women don't comment." (Okay, those are the only two theories).

Any thoughts?