Per Egil Hegge reports from the vicious trench war of American politics:

If you enter a large American book store, you'll find a mountain of books which explain how Democrats and liberals are liars. Right nearby, you'll find an equally large mountain of books documenting that Republicans are liars.

It's a free country, and the election is free. And most people who buy political books, are looking for content which supports their own beliefs. ..

The right considered the four large TV networks, NBC, ABC, CBS, and later CNN, as hostages for the liberals. So they began Fox News - and on that channel you won't hear many flattering words about Bill Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry, nor much criticism of Bush.

The split is so deep, the fronts so hardened, that the situation will astound a normally interested European. A faithful Republican would never dream of spending as much as half a minute on a liberal pundit. And a faithful Democrat will buy Kerry supporter Al Franken's book "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them - A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right".

Hegge introduces us to Rush Limbaugh ("marginally to the left of Djenghis Khan") and Ann Coulter. The moral of the story:

Has this rhetoric spread to political discussion in European countries? Whether there's been a spread is uncertain. But on our continent the far end of the pejorative scale is most eagerly used in Denmark, where it has become common to call the prime minister a monkey. .. If the Danes look at the US, they might catch a glimpse of how a political debate can be fed from the garbage dumps, unless someone raises an alarm.

So close, and so wide off the mark. I've written about this trench war before. As Hegge says, it does astound you as a Norwegian to be exposed to this level of rhetorics. It's easy to be suckered in. "Surely they wouldn't use such words if they didn't have good reason to."

But there are a number of lessons for Norway and Europe here, and "don't call the prime minister a monkey" is one of the least important:

Lesson one: Don't get fooled by the wackoes. Not by Michael Moore, and not by Ann Coulter. Learn to adjust for a higher level of rhetorics, and install powerful bullshit filters. In a country where Fahrenheit 9/11, a superficial anti-war propaganda movie, is a critical and popular success, this lesson takes priority. We're not, as Hegge implies, in danger of importing this rhetorics - we already have.

Lesson two: We have more to learn than we have to fear. Yes, there's ugly hysteria, but not all partisan rhetorics is dangerous, and a certain level of it is probably the sign of a healthy political culture. We need hard-hitting partisans to stir things up.

Lesson three: Open up the debate. All popular beliefs should have champions and challengers in the mainstream media. Where are the Progress Party's supporters in the Norwegian media? Where are the challengers of our foreign policy experts?

Lesson four: We can't have a healthy public sphere all by ourselves. The US has 300 million people to keep alive their wide selection of media. We have 4. So we should start talking to other Europeans. Let's do in Scandinavia or Europe what we can't do in Norway. Create European media for European readers, with debates not only about European issues, but between Europeans in different countries.

Lesson five: Don't be afraid of the amateurs. Per Egil Hegge writes about the recent CBS/Dan Rather scandal as if it were one of Rush Limbaughs crusades, when of course it were web forums and blogs that drove the story. I believe the fraud would have been exposed anyway, but it might not have been in Norway - look at NRK's treatment of Ester Kristoffer. Amateur media can play an important part in all of the above: Exposing the wackoes, creating diversity, challenging popular wisdom, creating a continent-size public sphere, and keeping the big media in check. I wrote more about this on Sunday.

Lesson six: Don't call the prime minister a monkey. Really. It's dumb. (Be worried, however, when nobody else calls the prime minister a monkey.)

This U.S. election seems more important to us voters because we're at a major turning point in history thanks to 9-11. But Europeans should study U.S. history a bit more. Our elections have often been quite full of invective. Supporters of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were notorious for their off-the-top rhetoric, and yet these men are considered great statesmen today.

Bjorn,I've mentioned this book before on your blog, but I found it quite helpful and think your readers would too: Walter Russell Mead's "A Special Providence." It covers a lot of U.S. history in a way that's useful for our times.

I can't read the original article, but it seems to miss the important point that large numbers of Americans tend to split their votes -- Democrat for legislature, Republican for chief executive. In normal times most Americans seem to prefer this arrangement as a check on government excesses. Only in very stressful times do both the executive branch and the legislative branch become the province of one party. Obviously these are very stressful times, given the fact that the Republicans trounced the Demos in the last federal Congressional by-election.

Given the fact that many Americans tend to split their votes very often, this fellow's thesis about bitterly divided camps that never meet doesn't seem to have much credibility. Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate often collaborate on writing legislation and the division is more on ideological lines rather than party lines; i.e. a conservative Democrat will vote with the Republicans on some legislative issues and a liberal Republican will hang with the Demos on others.

I've found that most Europeans really do not understand the US system of separate powers for legislature and executive branch. They apply the rules and assumptions of their own Parliamentary system to the detriment of their understanding of ours.

The one factor Europeans should keep in mind is that no matter how partisan and bitter American politics might become, Americans are the first ones to start making jokes about themselves and laugh it off.

That is what makes me trust the American political process more than the European one. Europeans are way too serious about it (perhaps because their lives are controlled so much by the welfare state apparatus), while Americans will always find a way to make it entertaining, - and go back to pursuing their pursuits of happiness.

No wonder the campaigning starts months and months in advance of elections (while in Europe its weeks and weeks). Even though Americans might hate that, it also points to a love of political spectacle, and drama.

Sometimes I think it would be good to actually read on of those books from the different heaps.

Reading Michael Moore, for instance, one will discover that he is hardly partisan - at least not in the Democrat/Republican-kind-of-way.

Clinton was the first major party candidate I had voted for in a long time. To be precise, I didn't actually vote for him. My daughter, Natalie, who was eleven at the time, wanted to see the voting booth, so I let her come in and pull the lever. Later I found out that it's illegal to let a child vote, but, hey, I didn't want any blood on my hands, voting for Clinton. I just felt, you know, so... uneasy about the guy. He reminded me of that wonk who ran for senior class president and was so ambitious about winning that he'd say or do anything to get elected

Moore criticizes "both" sides, heck - he even criticizes conspiracy buffs and wackoes. But I see, he's a wacko himself, because - erm... his movie is a propaganda movie?

I think a recent letter to the editor in the student newspaper Studvest sums it up nicely:

George Goodings critique of Fahrenheit 911 in the last Studvest makes him enter the line of people that haven't understood what Michael Moore is up to. If you've seen any of his earlier movies, tv-shows or read his books, you will know that the guy does not belong amongst the objective journalists in the States. Moore has never hidden his goal with Fahrenheit 911: He wants to remove W. Bush from the power at the November elections.

So. Yes. It's a propaganda movie - in the original Latin sense of propaganda: "things to be propagated". And sure - it's a propaganda movie - in the way all "new journalism" can be called propaganda, the objective ideal is dead, the journalist is clearly visible.

Some might call it dishonest, in fact it is more honest. Because of the way Moore works everyone knows what he himself thinks and everyone can easily make up their own opinion. Of course this means that one will have to actually see the movie. When I see some of the critique against it I do not feel convinced that people have seen it.

Because it is not only a biased movie (woah! surprise!). It is also a very good movie. That's the reason it won in Cannes. That's the reason critics love it. That's why the audience is happy. Not because they've imported "these rhetorics", but because Michael Moore is one the hard-hitting partisans we do need to stir things up.

Øyvind

Marrku has stated a very important point about US politics and the primary reason why the system continues to work: no matter how bitter and divisive the debate, once the election is over -- assuming the vote is counted correctly -the people have spoken and it is time to move on until the next election.

No Øyvind,

The reason it won in Cannes is because it serves the grossly indulgent fantasies within the ideologically conformist "progressivism" of the freethinker class at Cannes.

It is indeed the perfect crucible of our time, and the fact that so many walk out of the movie feeling "closure" on the VERY SAME concepts that are relentlessly pounded at them in Europe day after day from their own media is no co-incidence... it was by design. The critics "love" it for precisely the same reason... what else can they do.

Intellectually, Moores movie is a circle jerk of a darkly sensual image of freethinking, from the almost rabid hatred that is so arrogantly toyed with by the Media/Academia elite of Europe and the US. He himself never calls it (or Bowling for Columbine) a "documentary" whenever he is pressed, because of legal reasons. He knows... precisely what this movie is "about"... as opposed to what it says it is about.

He used the same contorted contexts and emotive caricaturing that SO many have used before to fan the flames of self righteous indignation. Like Brecht for example, who was famous for recognizing that very same thing as the gateway to hatred...and control. Moore did what he did without even the lingering sublety that Bertold still felt obliged to display. It appealed not to reason at all, but to feelings which were despicable in their contrivance.

From the selective quotations to the manipulative music, the shallow distorion of perceptions versus the deeply important relevance of the events he is recasting in his own clever image, it is perhaps the most appalling example in modern times of how ideology can dispace thought in sentient beings, both individually and collectively.

Some might call it dishonest you say? How quaint an "allowance" you give there. The question to really ask is how it uses the bastardized image of "honesty" to weave a blanket of stifling meaninglessness and hermetically seal so many minds. He can do this only because of the FACT, that his imagery is harmonizing with the memes that are perpetrated on the "herd", by the likes of so many of the philosopher king wannabees that you play acolyte to. The "love" of this movie by the exalted media elite is as reflexive as it is repulsive.

I have YET to see a single critic who lauds this movie, who does so on the basis of its "factuality". Indeed, it is invariably a very "nuanced" line indeed that must be taken when you are critiquing this movie, while attempting to sing its praises. No Øyvind, it is the "idea" of it, and its "intention" that is lauded. As though it is Ok to whip up distortion ... in the name of some higher truth.

How typical of what we have become. How typical of the "progressive" elitism wherein massive deceit is not only justified... but is praised in the name of the deceived.

It takes a deconstructed mind to roll in a pit of meaninglessness and despair... so proudly.

If there is to be a history that will look back on the likes of Moore's detritus as anything other than a terrifying example of the massive imbalance of power of this time, that threatened every meaningful expression of freedom by gutting the collective discourse, then it is a history we will all regret... even as it is being written.

I will not be there.

KM

Hear hear, KM !

JD

Hello, Bjørn. Like usual, it is a pleasure reading you and confirm again your unabated fondness of solutions and positive thinking. I think I'll get used to read your blog after my masochistic daily tour of the French media (right now a pretty ugly landscape, believe me).

The fourth and fifth lessons are really worth some thinking, particularly the fifth. In fact, there is a project in the making right now: a cooperative system of charter collaboration between economic magazines in different European countries, trying to get going some sorts of distributed network of correspondents in real time (gee, thanks, Internet).

The problem -as far as I can see- is that there are more candidates to generals (particularly here in France and in Germany) than to foot-soldiers...

Well, I reckon that kind of petty bickering has been from the beginning the curse of the European Union and, despite all miseries, the thing is sorts of alive and ticking...

Now, it would be interesting to start some sort of blog-ring with people from different Euro countries, just to see if it works. If the pros can't, why shouldn't the amateurs have a go?

The sixth lesson (about not calling one's prime minister a monkey) just shows that you don't live in France. :-(

KM.... You, re Moore, said what I wish I'd said. As some blogger somewhere pointed out, the movie should have been called "Fahrenheit 1400" because that was the temperature of the fires burning the people trapped in the Twin Towers.

Oyvind.... Please, do yourself a favor and try to learn more about the United States. Sure, we're fat, stupid, ugly, and boring, but there might be some interesting things to learn about us.

Susan....You made an excellent point about voters splitting their votes. This is normal in U.S. voting. Two reasons that this particular election is so hotly contested is (1) the direction of U.S. foreign policy is being determined. Now that so many Europeans have revealed themselves to be not our friends--dare I say it? Yes, I do--even enemies (France and possibly Germany--still don't understand Germany but do understand France). (2) The next President is expected to appoint new members to the Supreme Court. These appointees have to be confirmed by the Congress. Therefore, the nature of the future Supreme Court is also indirectly being voted on.

FYI, I will probably split my vote, as I usually do. If I don't, it's only to send a message as clearly as I can.

Calling the prime minister a monkey, eh? I think i've heard many rants about the norwegian prime minister beeing a drug / pill addict.

Since Bjørn probably does not want this to end up in a pro-con-Michael Moore discussion I will only post one more reply regarding Moore. I will have to do it thoroughly.

Kevin, you might not be aware of it, but you and Mikey have one thing in common. You're good at playing with words, but give me a break will you?

A circle jerk? Darkly sensual image of freethinking from the almost rabid hatred that is so arrogantly toyed with by the Media/Academia elite? Sounds nice, but does all of it really mean anything, or are you just happily climbing into the trenches as soon as you hear Moores named mentioned, and adding on all the words you can think of from your boohcabulary: conformist, jerk, academia elite?

Sure, sure, I must be an acolyte of "the philosopher kings wannabees" and why? Because I dared saying that the reason people like Moores movie is because its a good movie.

I did not even call it accurate. Just good. Because it is. Michael Moore manages to do exactly what he has intented: to create a whole lot of fuzz about issues that he finds important, some of them issues that mainstream media should have adressed, but have overlooked.

But still, Kevin, people will not leave the cinemas thinking: That was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They will know that they've been presented with Moores worldview, they will know that it is subjective. And why? Because that's the way that Moore works, and to be frank - it's sorta obvious!

Few of the Americans or Europeans that cheer over Fahrenheit 911 are filled with hatred, Kevin. Few of them are members of any elite. I, sure as hell, am not.

One should be critical to any political movie, and there are several factual mistakes in Moores latest movie that should be and are pointed out.

For instance, it is highly doubtful that Hamid Karzai ever did any work for Unocal (I wrote an article about these allegations - or rather about the true story, namely that Zalmay Khalilzad indirectly did - long before F911. Unocal denied the allegations, Karzai has done so too, and I couldn't find anything implying that any of them are lying).

There's also many examples where those looking for "lies" will find them (no, the Coalition of the Willing did not include only Palau, Costa Rica, Iceland, Romania, Morocco, Holland and Afghanistan. Moore knows that, and still leaves out countries like England. But then the thing is: His viewers know this too. Or at least, they should know).

Still - there are critics who laud this movie on the basis of its factuality. Rex Reed of the New York Observer writes:

There are other moments that will impact some viewers and polarize others. So many, in fact, that you watch Fahrenheit 9/11 with disbelief, and leave shaking with rage.

Sometimes sarcastic, always funny, Mr. Moore is armed with facts, and he presents them accurately and succinctly. The controversial filmmaker stated on the Today show that White House mouthpieces have denounced the film as "outrageously false" without seeing it, and right-wing Republicans have charged Mr. Moore with staging a "left-wing conspiracy" to influence the forthcoming election. Well, duh. For years, reactionary conservatives have been famous for staging right-wing conspiracies of their own to disgrace and discredit elected Democratic public officials. Maybe this is payback time. Whatever it is, everyone should see Fahrenheit 9/11 first—before debating the issues. The purpose of any documentary is to influence opinion. But instead of the customarily droning voice that comments on the action and tells you what to think, this one asks tough, logical questions, gets rational answers, and never loses its entertainment value.

Personally I think the USA Today reviewer Claudia Peig is even more right:

It's everything you've heard; it's also some things you haven't heard. And that makes Fahrenheit 9/11 worth watching. The documentary's scathing attack on the war in Iraq and George W. Bush's presidency is informative, provocative, frightening, compelling, funny, manipulative and, most of all, entertaining. Much of what filmmaker Michael Moore focuses on has been covered in news reports, magazine articles and books. But he still manages to present new data and little-seen footage, connecting the dots in a cogent way.

I agree it's worth watching - have all of the critics on this blog done just that? However, it's not worth swallowing raw. While some on "my team" might do just that, I will not, and I have never claimed the wisdom of doing so. I have just stated that it is a good movie. Because it is.

I've also stated that Moore is one of those dudes mentioned under lesson two above, and that he shouldn't be mentioned under lesson one.

Bjørn:

Lesson three: Open up the debate. All popular beliefs should have champions and challengers in the mainstream media. Where are the Progress Party's supporters in the Norwegian media? Where are the challengers of our foreign policy experts?

The debate should indeed be opened up. The example with the Progress Party (FrP), however, is poor. Few parties get so much publicity as them. Look at TV debates, for instance.

Lesson four: We can't have a healthy public sphere all by ourselves. The US has 300 million people to keep alive their wide selection of media. We have 4. So we should start talking to other Europeans. Let's do in Scandinavia or Europe what we can't do in Norway. Create European media for European readers, with debates not only about European issues, but between Europeans in different countries.

An interesting thought. The problem is of course language... English is still not a lingua franca for all Europeans.

Øyvind

Totoro:

You wrote: Oyvind.... Please, do yourself a favor and try to learn more about the United States. Sure, we're fat, stupid, ugly, and boring, but there might be some interesting things to learn about us.

What am I supposed to answer to this? Because I was rude enough to call Moores movie a good movie I suddenly think of all Americans as fat, stupid, ugly and boring?

Please, totoro, refrain from such silly debate techniques. I have never ever referred to Americans as any of those things. In fact, most Americans I have met have been far from boring, not especially fat, hardly stupid and not exactly ugly. I don't know what it is that makes you want to feel despised, but I'm not going to make your dreams come through.

And sure, I would love to learn more about the United States. One day I hope to find the money and opportunity to visit your country - but as I am not a member of any of those elites Kevin talks about that may take a while.

Until then I will have to listen to the stories from my brother, who has lived there, and read your books, newspapers and magazines - which I do all the time.

Øyvind

P.S: Okay, I admit it, Michael Moore might be fat and ugly. He's not boring, though.

Øyvind,

First of all, whats a boohcabulary?

Second of all, do NOT compare me with Michael Moore at all beyond the fact that we are both bipedal homineds.

Third, you cite Rex Reed in defense of Michael Moore's documentary-integrity and noble intent? You simply must not realize how laughable and revealing that is. Its not just that you and I walk in different circles...its that your eyes never seem to stray from the interior of your own.

Also, every single thing I said regarding what this Movie is and what it is meant to do is my opinion based on everything I know AND empirical observation. If you choose to believe I hear the name F911 and "jump into the trenches", be my guest. But note that the "hatred" I speak of does not disappear with your offhand dismissiveness. I see it everyday even right here in good old Norway... as does a growing group of Norwegian acquaintances of mine who are becoming alarmed and in more than a few cases, frightened, by its ascending spectre. It is not a grassroots phenomenon Øyvind. It is being cultivated both deliberately, as well as by mere arrogant folly. It is unsustainable.

Finally, as far as the conformity goes... I'll cite myself from a post the other day on a digfferent thread here:

To wit:

--Here is a 'slight' digression for the record, I just got off the phone with someone who told me that on Thursday, her entire school went to see (as part of the school curriculum for History!)the movie F911. Interestingly, she told me that of 70 students who went in, not even ONE had anything but praise for Michael Moore who they feel has enlightened them as to the way things are. They plan to collectively write a letter to him thanking him for having the "courage" to do the movie. It is deeply depressing to me that not even one wondered whether he or she, rather than being enlightened, was instead having already emmbedded prejudices stimulated with clever editing and getting relentlesssly reinforced illusions of innate superiority pleasantly stimulated. Not even one!!! Is this a concern to anyone here?---"

Update by the way, she also told me that the way the teachers were steering the commentary after the movie (they had a "debrief" session as part of the program), reminded her of the indoctrination scenes with the kid from the movie "Europa Europa" (highly recommended incidentally), and that the tone of the comments by the end of the session had become more than a bit like bobbing heads.

Alas... there it is Øyvind. I'll end with the observation that your tone changed quite a bit between posts... perhaps you should consider whether you were working hard to justify...what may be difficult to.

KM

To Øyvind from Bergen.

I think that M. Moore is one of the greatest propaganda movie makers ever, perhaps the best since Leni Rifensthal's Hitler Jugend (the scene of the beautiful adolescent death!). I think he's better than Roman Karmen.

Now, if I have to make an assessment of Mr. Moore's ethics, well... He's in the league of the Goebels, Plejanov and Azzam of this world. He rapes minds.

To Øyvind from Bergen.

I think that M. Moore is one of the greatest propaganda movie makers ever, perhaps the best since Leni Rifensthal's Hitler Jugend (the scene of the beautiful adolescent death!). I think he's better than Roman Karmen.

Now, if I have to make an assessment of Mr. Moore's ethics, well... He's in the league of the Goebels, Plejanov and Azzam of this world. He rapes minds.

Just to make it clear, Kevin, I quoted Reede to show you that there are indeed critics that have lauded the movie on the basis of factuality, i.e. you haven't been looking. Sure, we are in different circles - but Reede is not in mine, I don't even know who the fellow is.

Anyway, as mentioned, I think the USA Today review was better.

Øyvind

Godwins Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

This one wasn't even particularily long. Well, congrats, Juan. I guess calling Moores movie good does not only make me think of all Americans as fat, ugly, stupid and boring and an "acolyte of the philosopher kings wannabees". It also provides me with eyes "that never stray away from the interior of my own circle" and I am clearly a supporter of Nazism.

Sieg heil.

Øyvind

Oyvind..."Please, totoro, refrain from such silly debate techniques. I have never ever referred to Americans as any of those things. In fact, most Americans I have met have been far from boring, not especially fat, hardly stupid and not exactly ugly. I don't know what it is that makes you want to feel despised, but I'm not going to make your dreams come through."

Sorry, Oyvind, I was making a little joke, but in the future, when I write directly to you, I will be sure to write only simple declarative sentences.

to Øyvind

Sorry, really, I didin't mean to compare you with anything.

I was comparing Mr. Moore's film with the best propaganda films in history.

Personally I think that Hitler Jugend, Godwin law or not, is formally, cinematically and artistically a very good movie. And indeed, I'm sure that Mr. Moore has seen Rifensthal work and learnt a lot from it for his narrative (I don't want to go into the details, but if you want me to I could). Then you have Roman Karmen (on the other extreme of the totalitarian spectrum)and his film on Diem bien Phu (The famous antiimperialist scene of the defeated French prisonners) that I'm pretty sure Mr. Moore has also seen and has inspired him while polishing his "decking card" narrative that is a central piece of his craft.

Again, I think Farhenheit 9/11 is one of the five best propaganda films ever made. What's wrong with my opinion? I think he is an extraordinary movie maker. Like Rifensthal and Karmen were...

"If you enter a large American book store, you'll find a mountain of books which explain how Democrats and liberals are liars. Right nearby, you'll find an equally large mountain of books documenting that Republicans are liars. "

If its Borders or B&N its most likely the later. I would accept the former if the author will exactly state where he found this situation that he describe. I think his pox on both house attitude does a diservice to the intracies of American culture.

"Some might call it dishonest, in fact it is more honest."

In other words, "fake but accurate," eh Oyvind -- just like the Rathergate memos. Kevin's right -- someday the left is going to rue the sickness caused by its murderous assault on ethics and honesty.

"Sure, we are in different circles - but Reede is not in mine, I don't even know who the fellow is."

A boring old queen who hit his (very brief) influential zenith in about 1971. I thought he was dead, frankly.

Kevin McDonnell:

I think it is very apt to say that Moore is the antithesis to Bertolt Brecht who, though left-wing, tried not to convince an audience of a particular point-of-view, but always strove to depict a dialectical process between opposing points-of-view, in order to teach the audience to become better critics.

Both use humor to help them get their messages across. The problem with Moore is that he simply does not teach people to think critically: he simply tells them what to think.

As pointed out by most classical left-wing criticism, the problem with that approach is that it can also be humorously utilized by the right-wing. What they maintained, - and what Brecht achieved - was that teaching the public to become better in their criticism would eventually help the left-wing cause, and could not (at that point in history) be duplicated by the right-wing.

Unfortunately, Moore's so unfactual (sorry, Oyvind, but you're completely off-base) as to actually set back the left-wing cause. And since he doesn't even teach good criticism, his work is quite counterproductive to that cause in the long run.

I was actually astounded that the French filmmaker, Jean-Luc Godard - a former Maoist, and a major left-wing muckraker - condemned Moore completely. But then again, Godard is a follower of the methodologies laid out by Brecht, so it does make sense.

Spinsanitys review might be worth reading.

Susan et al:

The next time you want to teach the left something about ethics and honesty I suggest that you drop namecalling and an overload of adjectives as a technique. Ann Coulter might sound cool, but she's hard to take seriously.

Øyvind

Øyvind: Moore criticizes "both" sides, heck - he even criticizes conspiracy buffs and wackoes.

But he does it as the conscience of the liberals, not an independent observer. American parties are larger than ours, they include broader parts of the ideological spectrum. That leads to a lot of dissatisfaction in both camps. There are always rebels who accuse the mainstream of having lost its way. Michael Moore is one of those rebels. His worldview is partisan - the Republicans are evil almost by definition, and the Democrats are not, even when they're incompetent sell-outs.

And sure - it's a propaganda movie - in the way all "new journalism" can be called propaganda, the objective ideal is dead, the journalist is clearly visible.

Neutrality deserves to be killed off, but not objectivity. Moore uses neither, he's more of a movie pundit, but that's not my problem with him. I call him a wacko because of his opinions, which are loud and extreme. Fahrenheit 9/11 is not so bad, but it's still 1) superficial, and 2) a propaganda movie. Superficial in the sense that it never digs into the issues it covers, it just sensationalizes them, and it seems more comfortable implying spooky connections than actually making hard claims. And it's propaganda because it appeals primarily to the emotional level.

The debate should indeed be opened up. The example with the Progress Party (FrP), however, is poor. Few parties get so much publicity as them. Look at TV debates, for instance.

Their views get out, but there's no real discussion about them. From FrP's point of view, the opportunity to introduce soundbites into the media is good enough. What I want is to see those views explained at length, criticized and discussed.

Reading these comments left and right makes me wonder who or what these people are. At the risk of killing the messenger rather then the message, it would be interesting for people to list their background. For example, I am an attorney, who has taught in law school and have an international law practice. I am willing to bet that the people who would be considered conservative have a greater exposure to the real world and how it operates and by the same the token those who have that background tend to measure things by effectiveness

Hi Bjorn,

I agree that there should be more diversity in European media. From what I have seen it is pretty one-sided. It reflects essentially the view of MSM in the US. And this creates misperceptions of what is actually going on in US politics. Talk radio is really wonderful here in the US (blogs too). It is good to have heated debate. People like Limbaugh and Coulter are not as neanderthal as they are demonized to be. I actually read Coulter's recent book and found it to be well documented. Sure, she uses strong, outrageous words, that is her style but the info can make you think. Limbaugh sounds at times bombastic but that is done with humorous intent which drives the left crazy because he is the epitome of anti-PC. I really do not understand the controversy about Moore, he is really a flash in the pan. We all need to take information from a variety of sources and analyze it critically. So many people are still stuck in the old 60's paradigm which dates back even further from there.

Ann Coulter "The essence of being a liberal: The absolute conviction that there is one set of rules for you, and another, completely different set of rules for everyone else."

Sounds about right

"But still, Kevin, people will not leave the cinemas thinking: That was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They will know that they've been presented with Moores worldview, they will know that it is subjective. And why? Because that's the way that Moore works, and to be frank - it's sorta obvious!"

Before I begin with my comment, I first want to say: Bjorn - I came across your website the other day and have been glued to it. Very interesting!

I am an American married to a Norwegian citizen (just celebrated our 4th wedding anniversary) and we live in Washington State (Yeah... that's right... home of Starbucks and Microsoft); and I have to tell you that my in-laws (one is a professor and the other is a pharmacist) --who live in Trondheim-- hail Michael Moore's movie, F/911 as being "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"!!!

I was somewhat taken aback, but not completely surprised as I have come to see that they are very insular with their views of the U.S. (especially President Bush) and all things American and always have been. But they only stepped up their "down with the U.S.A." and "democracy doesn't work" rhetoric since the war with Iraq.

It must truly gall them to no end that, not only did their son marry an American, but that he truly enjoys living here. Sure, he misses Norway (I have always said: you can take the boy out of Norway, but you can't take Norway out of the boy) and we plan to split our time living in the U.S. and Norway --espeically since the birth of our first child, Leif, in 2003. It is very important to us that Leif grows up every bit "Norwegian" as he will "American." But he [husband] tells me (and unfortunately, his parents) all the time that he could never make the amount of money he does now, or we live at the lifestyle level that we do here, there in Norway, at our age (he's 30 and I am 36). We work hard and play hard and have a beautiful home that will be paid off in 12 years, two luxury vehicles that are paid for, exotic vacations, health care, a promising retirement plan and a whole slew of things that many Norwegians (and Michael Moore propaganda)are told we do not have. AND: we don't live in constant fear!

As for me, I love Norway, too. It is a beautiful country. But before 9/11, when visiting Norway, I found Norwegians friendly and charming (I just had an issue with them not understanding the concept of queuing up in lines). After 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I find myself defending U.S. policy and American attitude at every turn of a corner and at every dinner party. It has become soooooo annoying to the point that I really drag my feet when my husband wishes to visit Norway.

Well, now that I have vented, I feel pretty damn good! Thanks Bjorn!

Erin S.

PS: Should anyone wonder, I did NOT vote for Bush --I am a registered Democrat ;o)

Erin, good comments and yes, your experience is the same as mine with Europeans of all nationalities. The constant shrieking of "Americans don't have healthcare!" and all the rest becomes very wearying very quickly. (British are a bit better than the Continentals -- maybe because they have better access to Americans of all stripes because of the common language?)I have come to the conclusion that many (most?) Europeans are as "fundamentalist" about their chosen religion -- social democratism -- as they accuse us of being about evangelical Christianity. They are not very open-minded while pretending to be the last word in free-thinking-ness.

Oyvind: I didn't call you any names, but your remark about "dishonest but honest" was disgusting. There is a price to pay for such intellectual dishonesty and fundamental betrayal of our langauge, and I suspect that Wesern Europe is already starting to pay it. Closed-minded people who only believe there is "one way" and "one way only" do not create healthy or
sustainable societies. (i.e. the sorts of people who believe that there are such things as "true" falsehoods.) Exhibit one being France and Germany, whose citizens still cling (often violently) to the welfare state entitlement mentality even while their economies continue to sink into the toilet.

Firstly, in a debate it's really stupid to raise your hand and say: Well, I just wanted to say I agree.
But I do. Right on mark with this one, Bjørn.
Secondly, Per Egil Hegge is probably more informed than he sounds. Remember, he is writing for a Norwegian audience.
Thirdly. On AntiAmericanism, Americans are really to blame. Moore and Chomsky, to name but a few of them are Americans. We Europeans are just copycats when it come to AntiAmericanism. I DONT blame AntiAmericanism on Bush(or Clinton for that matter). Blame it on American media.
And nr 4: Not all Norwegians are as misinformed as Erins NTNU-pharmacist in-laws. Some of us have actually visited the US, and (god be praised) the internet exist.
Well, we can thank Al Gore for that, can't we?

Johann Norberg creates a storm in Sweden simply by pointing out that Swedish libraries buy left-wing anti-capitalist books 4 to 1 over free-market pro-capitalist books:

http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=displayblog&month=9&year=2004#470

Anyone who believes Michael Moore deals with the facts in any way except to obscure them is clearly unacquainted with either Moore, the facts, or both. But that is what makes him a great propagandist. He hides the truth behind a non-stop barrage of created images and skits that prevent genuine critical thought on the part of the audience, and compel an entrainment of thought that is satisfying to a weak mind.

I am unsurprised that many europeans enjoyed the film, since groupthink is quite popular among my european relatives and friends. Michael Moore would make a great filmmaker in the cause of a future Stalin or Hitler.

Its interesting to note again, that the movie is most popular in places that are presently living in Liberty (or at least living off its carcass) such as Germany and France and Norway whereas in places either beneath, or recently exposed to ACTUAL totalitarianism... it has generally met with disdain, as in most of Eastern Europe and Iran for example. The exceptions are in countries where Jew hatred and America hatred and radical Islamism hold sway with the populace as with Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.

The metaphysics of this observation surely means something, but I'll leave it to you all to decide for yourselves what it is.

KM

History will prove M Moore to be the self-loathing pitiful little fat bastard he is. The little fool looks into the mirror each day, sees his own filth, finds he really hates himself above all other things- then he promptly re-directs that venom of foolish hate towards the country that gave him the ability to make a movie such as his and NOT be beaten to death by opponents after it's showing. Just look at that pitiful neanderthal- anyone with an appearance as such is truly mentally ill. It is easy to explain this man and his sophmoric ideologies by simply having a look at him. A slob with such self-hate is trying to make himself feel better by tearing down and chastizing a country he couldn't live without. Anyone who does not see that is delushional at best.
**So an AX weilding Algerian asylum seeker in Norway attacks a flight crew during landing. With incidents like that happening more than daily- why as a population do we fret or feel joy over an overstuffed imbecile like moore?
hmm, another asylum seeker goes on another customized jihad. whats next?

To Kevin McDonnell

I agree with you regarding the disdain regarding Moore's movie in Eastern Europe, which I could experience first hand. People in the street just wouldn't care less about it and preferred the last Hollywood movie available and intellectuals pendled between contempt and despise. See for example what Hungarian film maker Istvan Szabo said on American leftist "documentary" directors in general and about particularly Moore ( Istvan Szabo ), it's very representative of the general feeling.

I Believe it has to do with their having a long exposure to propaganda movies that has made them somehow inmune against Moore's perception conditioning techniques.

The reaction of JL Godard also goes in the same direction.

Bjørn:

Moore belongs more to the Greens than to any other party. The Greens are not The Democrats.

Øyvind

Øyvind,

Be that as it may ... except its not.

He has been enthusiastically endorsed as a "truth teller" and praised as though he is a Profile in Courage candidate by a host of mainline Democrats as well as the vast majority among the "highest echelons" (self described... in my opinion they are wallowing in a narcissistic ideology of self indulgent and elitist solipisism and thus... pretty low) of media and academia in both the US and Europe.

You can pigeonhole him any way you like, but all that matters in determining what Moore's "ideas" represent.. is the observation of where his efforts are being embraced for their power to influence, and a perspective on the true nature of that influence. This also provides some insight into the nature of the rising strife within (and beyond) the West, but that's another thread.

Greens you say? It is always tempting to deconstruct the world into segments of the political spectrum, it is even useful as a model on where power and interests tend to propagate and conflict. But it is worse than useless (indeed, I think it often fogs the issues) when it is used in any way that depicts all the "segments" as though they are discreet. In most things, they are not... even when (often especially when)the major players say they are.

In truth then, the observation that he is "Green" and can this be "disowned" by those who greedily embrace and ruthlessly leverage what he does, is disingenuous in the extreme.

Moore's artful video-tome remains virtually uncontested as a "DOCUMENTARY" in Europe. The only reason it has begun to be a potential bane politically in the US, is that its premise and the ideas behind it, have been challenged enough there (in a discourse that remains diverse enough to do so) that it has begun to be seen beneath the veil... for what it really is.

KM

A little additional point on Moore's "dismissability whenever convenient for possession of Green-ness":

I noted with interest how in the Democratic Convention, Moore sat in the Maximum VIP balcony alongside our esteemed Former President and Nobel Prize Winner in the New and Noble category of "Best for Kicking Bush in the Legs in the name of 'Peace'"... Jimmy Carter.

KM

A new film:
"Like 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' Except Bush Is the Hero

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 - The Republicans finally have Hollywood's answer to Michael Moore: "Celsius 41.11 - The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die," a documentary made in six weeks that is billed as "The Truth Behind the Lies of Fahrenheit 9/11!"

After its premiere in Georgetown on Tuesday night, there seemed to be two prevailing sentiments among the solidly Republican crowd of 300. One was that the film is a lot more thoughtful and accurate than "Fahrenheit 9/11." The other was that it is not going to gross $100 million.

But then, that was not the point, as the Hollywood conservatives (yes, there are some) who made it kept insisting.

"We could have gone wall to wall with red meat on this, but we purposely didn't," said Lionel Chetwynd, a writer and producer of the film. His credits include the screenplay for "The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz" and documentaries on D-Day, Vietnam and Sept. 11* * * "The cheap shots may be entertaining in Moore's film," he added, "but we wanted to make the intellectual case and go beyond lecturing to the converted."
* * *
"Celsius 41.11" offers a point-by-point defense of President Bush (listed on the screen like a PowerPoint presentation) by politicians, journalists and scholars* * *

The film does have a few "Fahrenheit"-style juxtapositions, like an image of the World Trade Center burning as Mr. Moore declares: "This needs to be said on national television. There is no terrorist threat." * * *

Susan:

It would be nice if you chose to come with arguments instead of misquoting me, calling that misquote disgusting, and calling it intellectual dishonesty and fundamental betrayal of our language.

While you might believe so I have never referred to anything as "dishonest but honest" or "true falsehood", what I did say that some might call Michael Moores lack of objectivity dishonest, but that it - in fact - is more honest. Why do I say this? Because I think the ideal of objectivity in the media is a false idea. Why do I say that?

Because journalists, movie-makers etc. are like other people, they have opinions, and those opinions will naturally influence not only what they write but what they choose to write about. If I had to choose amongst the honest Republican and the Democrat that doesn't admit that he's biased I would prefer the Republican any time. Well, if she's not of the kind that uses most of their time to find new adjectives to add in front of "liberal".

I do not want propaganda - at least not in the way we currently understand the word - just like Bjørn I want a media market filled with different opinions. Unlike what Susan obviously thinks about me - I do not believe in "one way" and "one way only" - although it's highly ironic to quote Mao at the same time as defending free speech I will (gotta give you something to complain about):

Let a thousand flowers bloom, a hundred schools of thought contend

The fact that I think Michael Moore is honest when he openly admits his own views does not mean that every single claim he makes is true. It does, however, make it much easier to criticize and that is a good thing. If Europeans choose to swallow everything Moore says wholeheartedly - and we don't - that's a problem with Europeans, not with Michael Moore.

Then there's another thing with this whole discussion, which I admittedly did not really plan to take over this thread completely, but now has fallen for the temptation to write another post in. This thing strikes me as rather odd.

Almost every poster agrees that Moores movie is full of falsehood, some are adding statements suggesting that he's self-loathing, or that he's just pushing hatred to the stupid Europeans. Some of the statements have indeed been a vivid demonstration of the trench war talked about in the article Bjørn quoted. But the odd thing is that the only person in this thread that, as far as I can see, has pointed to any factual error in the movie - or to anything that can be seen as a distortion is... hang on, folks... yours truly.

Of course, Kevin said something about selective quotes, manipulative music and shallow distortions that make an appalling example of how ideology can dispace thought. Gotta love his adjectives.

I also did another thing, I linked to Spinsanitys critical review of Fahrenheit 911. Why did I do that? Because, I believe both Spinsanity, Kevin and USA Today is right about one thing: Fahrenheit 911 is manipulative.

Spinsanity points to several things they find to be deceptive half-truths and they're at least partly - even mostly right. Sadly, they also add some spin of their own, suggesting that Moore implies that the bin Ladens were flown out of the States while the ban was in place. He doesn't. Spinsanity is right about the bin Ladens not leaving the States until after the ban was lifted, but what Moore says remains a fact - they were allowed to fly while Ricky Martin wasn't.

Moore: In the days following September 11, all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded... [video clips] Not even Ricky Martin could fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one, except the Bin Ladens.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): We had some airplanes authorized at the highest levels of our government to fly to pick up Osama Bin Laden's family members and others from Saudi Arabia and transport them out of this country.

Moore: It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the Bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin Ladens out of the US after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.

Moore does somethings that he shouldn't have, but then - thankfully - he also does something more film makers should have. He provides us with his source material on his website. This makes it easier for us to both scrutinize and criticize those very sources. Let's look at the Hamid Karzai example again, shall we?

Now, I've already written that this claim is highly doubtful. Moore does, however, give us three sources for his claim:

“Cool and worldly, Karzai is a former employee of US oil company Unocal -- one of two main oil companies that was bidding for the lucrative contract to build an oil pipeline from Uzbekistan through Afghanistan to seaports in Pakistan -- and the son of a former Afghan parliament speaker.” Ilene R. Prusher, Scott Baldauf, and Edward Girardet, “Afghan power brokers,”

Christian Science Monitor, June 10, 2002.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a former Unocal adviser, signed a treaty with Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf and the Turkmen dictator Saparmurat Niyazov to authorize construction of a $3.2 billion gas pipeline through the Heart-Kandahar corridor in Afghanistan.

Lutz Kleveman, “Oil and the New ‘Great Game," The Nation, February 16, 2004.

And - translated from French - “He was a consultant for the American oil company Unocal, while they studied the construction of a pipeline in Afghanistan."

Chipaux Francoise, “Hamid Karzaï, Une Large Connaissance Du Monde Occidental,” Le Monde, December 6, 2001.

In my opinion Moores mistake here is to trust his sources - and admittedly, none of them are lightweighters.

While conducting research for my article about the trans-Afghan pipeline I also discovered the claims made in Le Monde. However, I could not find any other sources for the information, Unocal told me nope and I read an article where Karzai said nope as well.

Since every source I found making the claim seemed to be based on the unfounded statement in Le Monde I chose to forget all about it and instead focus on Zalmay Khalilzad - who worked for Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a firm advising Unocal, and wrote merrily about the Taliban in an op-ed in the Washington Post:

The Taliban does not practice the anti-U.S. style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran.

What did I do? I was critical towards the sources, just like I think people should indeed be critical towards Michael Moore. Moore in my opinion was not critical enough - and he should have been criticized for this also by people like me, people who found the movie to be good.

And Bjørn? Of course his movie appeals to emotions. If you turn on the telly or read a newspaper you'll discover that many journalists, too, do that. Journalists love stories about "the little man" fighting the "big bad guy", about everyday heros (like the people on board United Airlines flight 93), and emotions do make the stories better - just as emotions make Moores movie better.

60 Minutes appealed to emotions when they spent 11 or so of their minutes showing pictures of fallen soldiers in Iraq and playing (I guess) manipulative music. That does not make their work propaganda, although I can think of a recent example where they, too, trusted their sources too much.

Øyvind

Hey, Kevin, that Democrats like Moore does not make Moore a Democrat.

You're right, though, that I'm wrong. Moore isn't a Green - I knew that, but in the past he's absolutely been closer to the Greens than to the Dems. Well - I'll leave the stage to Mr. Moore himself (Source: Washington Times)

"I don't want to be on the podium speaking," Moore said. "It's not my place. I am not a member of the Democratic Party. I am an independent voter. I have voted for the Democrats, I have voted for the Greens. I don't have a label."

And Bjørn? If you think that Moore regards Republicans as evil almost by definition, I'm starting to have my doubts to how much you've actually read by the guy. USA Today gave him a press pass to the Republican convention, and he wrote several articles from it. In this one he writes:

Welcome, Republicans. You're proud Americans who love your country. In your own way, you want to make this country a better place. Whatever our differences, you should be commended for that.

The whole thing is worth reading. Sure, Moore is partisan. He doesn't like the Republican party or Bush and Cheney. But he's also repeatedly said that if Kerry gets elected he'll have a camera in his face.

I've got no problems with you thinking of Moore as a wacko, we don't agree, that's all. If you try to portray him as a Democrat wacko, though, you're just flat-out wrong. There's plenty of wacko democrates. Moore just isn't one of them.

Øyvind

Markuu,

I missed your comment the other day, so forgive my delay in replying to you. I've been pretty busy, but now its a Saturday and I can take some time to respond. Its a bit of a digression, but perhaps Bjørn will indulge us, because I think that at a very important level, this discussion relates to... a lot.

I certainly think it is quite strange to label Moore as the "antithesis" of Brecht. It may not be a perfect comparison but citing Brecht certainly sheds some light on Moore's intent in making his movie. You are acting as quite the Brecht apologist when you cite him as someone who never tried to convince someone "of a particular point of view" and was always striving to "depict a dialectical process between opposing points-of-view, in order to teach the audience to become better critics." I find these statements both amazing and depressing. Brecht, even before he became a tool of the East Germans, had built a reputation among those "behind the veil". There was a reason they wanted him in their machine. His work was "brilliant" Markku, not by any meaningful measure of an artistic ability to weave the sublime or somehow reveal a compelling vision of truth and beauty... rather it was in eliciting emotive and visceral responses in his audience (which tend to "feel" as though they are self validating to the subjective mind, no?), and combining it with a VERY clearly contrived storyline that was a barely concealed (if not actually screaming out in obviousness) metaphor for the "real world". This act is sublime, only to those who admire the projection of power by compelling masses of people to think quite specifically. It serves the views of those behind the projection, and quite frankly Markku, encouraging an audience to think on their own is probably the very thing that Brecht was LEAST interested in. (Indeed..when speaking as a member of what he certainly considered an elite, he said as much himself on more than one occasion.)

It is at this level that I place Moore, quite appropriately I think, in the odious circle of contemporary propagandists who have been permitted to wrap themselves in the garb of "artists". The mentality behind this sad state of affairs is a blight that free society is still suffering from.

If you want to see another example of Brecht's legacy that is perhaps more stylistically "Brechtian" today, consider Silver City. This new movie acts on imagery that has been contrived by the "Left et al", where the resulting caricatures have become more and more divorced from reality. This work then internalizes them in a "drama" where even the most outrageous concoctions of poisoned fantasy... are "real". The collective pathology of this is actually surreal in that it is MEANT to have impact in the real world... and I would unhesitatingly label any aspect of the mentality that is behind it as nihilistic. The fact that work of this ilk is eagerly embraced as "high art"... is simply an abomination.

If I may add, the reason you took the role of a Brecht apologist became quite obvious in your explanation of Brecht's "technique", and I would like you to consider it again.

You said:

"As pointed out by most classical left-wing criticism, the problem with that approach is that it can also be humorously utilized by the right-wing. What they maintained, - and what Brecht achieved - was that teaching the public to become better in their criticism would eventually help the left-wing cause, and could not (at that point in history) be duplicated by the right-wing."

I can only say that reading this was also depressing to me (though I have become jaded regarding its nature). You have aligned yourself in this statement with an ideology that has VERY specific intentions as to what the "public" should be critical of, and yet you have absolved yourself of any responsibility to the actual goodness or evil of ideas AND intent in this twisted conundrum of left-rightness.

Ultimately, the only meaningful dialectic Markku, is good versus evil, and that is a black and white issue. Beneath all the rhetoric and nuance (and the more there is, the truer it is) there are actual truths behind the words versus the intentions in any collective "cause", just as it is within any individuals sovereign self. There are people who are making choices as to what they believe in versus what they say are their beliefs.

The "problem is... that no human being can encompass this enormous existential state of the many and what IS.

The fact that these truths are impossible to discern by any one person, and the fact that the consequences of deceit are unpredictable has always been frustrating to the most arrogant (least humble) and intolerantly elitist among us... and it has always inspired them to move the many invariably towards totalitarianism in order to see that their narrow embrace of what IS becomes "real".

But even when they succeed, it will never make them right. And in arrogance we get paradises like the Khmer Rouge (and East Germany) gave the world... and all the rest. This is not evidence that they "did it wrong".... it is proof that they were wrong.

It is also always why the main focus of such arrogance, is the destruction of a free and open discourse. "Truth" is always disdained, by those who want to remake it... like Brecht... and Moore.

But it can't be done.

This is why Liberty is the only worthwhile "collective" cause Markku. Everything else MUST come down to moral choices by sovereign beings. In hope I would add, that if there are self-evident truths that are true, and if there are universal human rights that are universal... then we are bound as human beings... to something. As free people we can be humbly confident that we will eventually figure it all out. In freedom must we arrive at an understanding of where we are bound, becasue only all of us will discern what... if anything... is true of us all.

If there aren't any Self evident truths then one might as well join the ultimate "left wing cause"...The Human Virus Movement. Because really... whats the point?

No-one will "lead" us to utopia. Noone. We're not even close.

But we can surely be led away by those who twist its emotive promises in order to see their will imposed.

You lamented that Moores work has through its, perhaps too blatant deceit, "actually set back the left-wing cause". What is that cause exactly Markku? Dispense with platitudes about "social justice" which has a sordid history in manifesting itself for the corrupt lie it truly is, and define the "cause".

Long ago Plato relayed how in one of Socrates' discourses, he contradicted the seemingly intuitive observation (by someone he was engaged with... I don't remember who) regarding the Sophists being enamored of their own deceptions. Socrates made quite clear that in fact, there may be noone more interested in grasping the true nature of things than one who is intent on distorting it. What was amazing to Socrates, was the enormity of that deliberate intent in itself... for merely a corrupted illusion of "power".

Now we have Spacecraft, Nuclear weapons, and the world wide web... but little else is different.

Is it possible you proudly bind yourself to the Sophists Markku?

KM

Øyvind: Hear hear!! :)

Kevin: I agree for once. I think the first thing that needs to taken care of in any state-philosophy, is freedom for everyone. All other issues must be addressed subsequently. However, freedom also means that one can be free to do whatever what one wants to do, except when it harms another persons freedom. Thats why we need laws, and as such, we are constrained..

Øyvind,

I read that piece by Moore, and I actually find myself utterly perplexed that you cite it. It is a piece that I would readily cite as clear and easily discerned evidence that he does in the discourse, pretty much exactly what he does in his "art". Interesting that you seem to perceive this as evidence of his "evenhanded-ness". Distressing, but interesting.

From that introduction you pasted in... he goes on to reach a level of cartoonish caricature that muddies the waters even in the dank pond of relativistic equivalence in which Moore usually swims... whenever meaninglessness is convenient of course.

And OH the arrogance.

It is artfully composed (indeed, he did not actually compose it as is... it was reworked by the best sophistry that Academic journalism can provide) but then... that is the point.

Perhaps it is this level of rhetorical malleability in what should be the "Standard" among those who relay perspectives, that drives your positions to which I most objectionable. For example the debate you have going with Bjørn that seems to state that since objectivity is unattainable in perfection ... it doesn't exist and is worthless. The corrollary of course is that the same applies to any meaningful standard for truth, and the impact area must certainly apply to honesty and responsibility... and of course, the moral value of Freedom.

Is there a north on your moral compass I wonder? Do you have one at all?

Or does it all just depend.

If so... what does it depend on?

My fear is... that that would depend too. And so on. The result being that image trumps substance... and the most artful... "win".

Interestingly, that describes NRK for example, in the events that are cited in Bjørns latest.

KM

Øyvind,

By the way, I agree with you. Moore is not a "wacko"... and I disagree with Bjørn casting him as such. Would that it were so!... and that we had the clarity to simply see his work and disdain what he does is insane. But unfortunately, defining what a "wacko" is, if it were to include Moore, would impugn the vast majority of high dicourse across the length and breadth of the "Free" world. So to just call him a wacko would be to say that we live in the age of a wacko insanity framing the perception of our world. The potential for dire implications of such a thing would be almost impossible to contem...

Oh wait... I guess I do agree with Bjørn after all.

Never mind.

KM

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/815