Ah, Yes

When asked why he glorified violence in his movies, Sam Peckinpah said, "I've made non-violent, family movies and no one goes to see them."

Something similar can be said about blog posts - when I write nice, correct things, no one seems to care....but it's the offensive, provocative one's that get attention. I blog for many reasons, among them, getting attention. Funny, eh.

Finally Sarah has checked out my blog after much pestering and she says she would be more "interested in your criticisms of liberalism and am interested in engaging them - but i'm less interested when you make extreme statements." Sort of rings hollow, especially after posting many criticism of Liberals (not liberalism - that's different) and then generating a response only from the extreme statements. Examples of such posts, here and here.

I'll address some of the issues Sarah brought up.

1. Fair enough regarding the entirety of the film - although the cartoon section does present itself as an abbreviated history of America, which as I noted in the comments was a history that Alice and Cindy found to be "more accurate" than the textbook version. So, stand where you will on that particular example.

2. I'm certainly not suggesting we ought to silence criticism of America. But it ought to concern Michael Moore or a Michael Moore supporter that Osama Bin Laden quoted F 9/11 in one of his public addresses...he mocks Bush for listening to a donkey story instead of reacting to the attack. Does that give anyone else pause other than me - not from a right wing standpoint, just from an overall social-political standpoint?

OBL says America is an aggressive, violent country that is attacking Muslims to further our own economic interests and therefore, Muslims have a duty to fight to the death to protect themselves.

Let's examine his first premise: Is American an aggressive, violent country that is attacking Muslims to further our own interests?

I say no. I think Michael Moore says yes.

If this premise is true - isn't it legitimate for Muslims to fight back, violently? If they are being attacked, aren't they justified in making a counter-attack? I suppose you can argue a pacifist approach, that even if one is attacked, it doesn't mean you have a right to fight back, but most people don't believe that. A basic right is a right to self-defense and the self defense argument is the one OBL makes.

So, I guess my point is that while is it legitimate to question America's actions, it's important to distinguish between what I think is true: (View 1) the American goverment makes hugely important decisions that affect the lives of Americans and non-Americans, either by action or inaction...we weigh the pros and cons of particular actions and inactions and make decisions based on the information we have. Sometimes we are wrong and sometimes we are right, but the consequences result in some people living, some people dying, some people getting money, others not getting money. To look at a given action and say - look guys, I think we were wrong to support the Shah of Iran or to drop the bomb on Hiroshima, or go into Vietnam is fine. But it is also much different than saying:

(View 2) America is a violent, aggressive country that attacks other people and countries to further our own interests whenever we see fit. America attacks Muslims by invading their land and starving their people through sanctions, indescriminately supporting Israel (who also kills Muslims and steals their land). This is OBLs position. And I suspect there are many on the LEFT who agree more with View 2 than View 1. And yes, I think View 2 gives support to those who violently oppose America and think we deserve retribution for our aggressive policies.

3. My only comment on the third section is that Hollywood also uses free extras and unpaid interns for slave labor. Bastards.

Lastly, regarding the dixie chicks and howard stern and bill mahr, etc...it seems to me is another issue altogether. If anything, those are issues of censorship and the entertainment market. While some on the right think F 9/11 should not be released because it gives aid to terrorists, etc....that is not what I think. What I think is that it ought to be released and watched and discussed for what it is and whether we buy into his arguments. Same thing with Leni R. What if her films were released in Germany at the time and folks stood up and said "NO! This is fucked up. This glorified version of Hitler is not accurate and is untrue and furthermore, she used gypsy slaves to make the film." That's the world I envision. Blindly supporting Michael Moore MERELY because he stands up to the right wing establishment means you are privileging partisanship over truth and accuracy.