Why We Fight and Other Stuff

I've had a pretty lazy day. I watched a movie this morning, and another at a matinee this afternoon, grabbed some great veggies for a good deal, ate too much for supper, and will probably head out for a lazy stroll around the 'hood pretty soon. Man, eating potato soup with bread's about the best way to kick your energy levels into the negative integers, you know, but gosh, was it yummy.

So, the matinee I saw was Eugene Jarecki's Why We Fight. Guess what? It's biased against the American war machine. No big surprise there. Face it, the majority of the world's biased against the American war machine, and if you're American and this surprises you, I suggest you take a trip in from your orbit of oblivion and really take a look around you.

I don't get the whole notion that journalists and documentarians can't be biased. Why the fuck not? The best ones are. We're still waiting for another goddamned Edward R. Murrow to appear on the political landscape. There are times, I believe, that journalists absolutely MUST abdicate the notion of objectivity. When your country is at war based on what appears to be entirely fabricated evidence, maybe it's fucking well time to have an opinion. When your countrymen's phones are being bugged at random, at an overwhelming rate, maybe it's time to question the erosion of constitutional freedoms in the face of a war that is, ironically, supposed to be in the name of freedom.

I think the so-called objectivity in journalism today is irresponsible. Journalism today has taken objectivity to new heights; it's now apathy in action. I'm fucking thrilled to see some biases out there.

I think Dan Rather, for instance, was railroaded out of the news industry because he was one of the few who was standing up for his beliefs that the war was a crime, and the President was responsible. He had strayed away from objectivity, and took great personal risks in doing so. I think he was framed, and hung out to dry by a network that had no balls -- ironically the same network that stood behind Edward R. Murrow so many years ago. It's not a coincidence that all the great anchors have been walking away from news in the last year... I'm surprised more haven't. News is owned by industry -- industry that has its hands in the government's pockets. NBC's owned by GE, for instance, who manufacture lightbulbs... and weapons for the war. "We bring good things to life," indeed. Can we really expect deep investigative reporting? Can we really expect the truth? Colour me a skeptic.

Yeah, Why We Fight is biased. Fucking well right it is. It's researched well, though, and it's a little depressing. On the plus side, it's a true documentary: Words and people speak to the subject, not the egotistical director who's doing all the narrating (insert Michael Moore reference here*). It does have flaws, and anyone who has an intelligent eye can see them. For starters, on such an important topic -- like imperialism being alive and well in today's America, and industry essentially having the influence & monetary power to inspire governmental desire to put its citizens' lives on the line for a war that did not need fighting, not now, not today -- you would think the director and his people could've found more than the 15 or 20 people they found to speak to the topic. A great documentary should be monumental enough to span the demographics to really drive a point home, like "The Corporation" managed to do. The fewer the sources you use, the more holes can be driven into your argument. So, that's a flaw right there. However, given the unpopularity of the topic at the time they were making the film, it's not surprising that they may not have found the monetary support to film a more expansive selection of interviews.

There were other flaws. A few heart-strings were tugged with really noxious images of the Iraq war, featuring kids and women killed in air raids, bodies decomposing en masse at the Baghdad morgue, and though grizzly photos of these things might seem to strengthen the argument, they really weaken it, instead. The photos themselves can be doctored or biased. They're so biased that they can turn the viewer off, make the viewer wonder if, indeed, the director is hoping to sicken you into agreement with their POV. There were sadly no real investigative moments in Iraq, just token emotional moments found here or there. It could've been better explored with more interviews or even via footage used from Al-Jazeera, which is actually an excellent news source (see the movie Control Room to open your eyes on the propaganda spun about that network, a network that has indeed tried to be objective and encompassing in its coverage of war-related events).

There's also a rather pointless look at one fellow who enlisted in the army, and the 10+ minutes spent giving him screen time does little to back up the arguments they're trying to make -- that the government recruiters prey on the troubled, the poor, and the disenfranchised when it comes to trying to beef up the Army enrollment numbers. Statistics could easily be found to support their argument on this fact, but such statistics were not given. Hell, one could even make an argument that the weak economy better serves government interests by providing a willing pool of poor / neglected volunteers who feel that there are no other options available to them in a country that has the poor getting poorer while the rich keep getting richer, to quote that old standby. The movie didn't make that point, and probably would've well gotten away with doing so.

Still, I enjoyed the movie. I'm one of these people who sees the potential for America to really lead the world, not just pose as a world leader. I'm tired of the America I see before me; the corruption, the duplicity, the shallowness, the ethnocentricity, the ignorance. It's a pity the people don't do more to change that image -- they're letting the government speak far too loudly, and the youth of America today are fucking apathetic to the nth. Of course, education has been quickly eroding in the USA and the generation coming up behind mine is about as uninformed as they could be. It's disgusting to see what's become of youth today. They're more obsessed with cellphone ring tones and voting for American Idol than they are with speaking to their country's place in the world and the people representing them in it.

(With more than 60 million folks voting last week for the latest Idol, there's a shocking revelation that more voted for Taylor Hicks than for any American president in history. Does America REALLY have the right to try and fight to spread democracy throughout the world when they themselves show so fucking little respect for it at home? Sorry, but I think not.)

If biased movies are the only way to shake that apathy apart, then I say bring on the bias.

*Michael Moore: I strongly believe that Michael Moore played a large part in John Kerry losing the election. There's nothing more unattractive than an angry, bitter person who keeps shouting "I told you so!" as his main argument. Michael Moore was once a brilliant documentarian, but he's let his devastation and emotion speak too loudly. He's too shameless when in comes to skewing perspective to meet his argument's needs. He commercializes his beliefs in such a way that causes him to look dishonest and duplicitous, whether he is or not. A once-great spokesman has turned himself into a mockery, and the causes he fights for are paying the price. Had he simply released Fahrenheit 9/11, and did very simple, fun interviews that made people interested in the film, he might well have been the feather that broke the back of Bush's re-election. Instead, he painted a rabid picture of what a Democrat in 2004 seemed to be, and, in my opinion, drove a lot of undecided voters to the Bush camp. It's a fucking crime. The guy needs to drink less coffee and chill the fuck out. I'm tired of regretting the fact that I agree with many of his points, because he makes me feel shame for believing what I believe.