Monday, June 28, 2004

Response to review of Fahrenheit 9-11 at

Dear Mr. Saulsbury,

I think that you severely missed the point of Mr. Moore documentary. Of course Moore has an agenda that he is promoting—that is indeed the point of even the most seemingly “objective” documentaries. Documentaries are meant to portray the world as the filmmaker sees it, and that will always be through the lens of subjectivity, no matter how hard one tries to keep their own opinion out of it. However, what I find more perplexing is that you are so irked that Moore leaves out the footage of 9/11. Instead, as you know, you only hear the impact, which makes the effect all the more potent. Those images are burned into the American national consciousness, so showing them again would be repetitive and lack the impact of hearing the screams of pain and horror, knowing full-well what we would be seeing if the screen were not black. Yes, it was an attack, an act of aggression against the U.S. And Moore never says otherwise. However, that is not the point of the movie. He wasn’t making a documentary to convince people that 9/11 was a bad thing. That would be a bit too easy, wouldn’t it? Instead, he’s making the point that while these attacks were horrible; they lead to more horrible actions by a crooked administration. And I honestly cannot see how you could walk out of that movie thinking “Hey, Bush is just looking out for the country and trying to protect us…he has no conflicts of interest whatsoever!” Yes, the attacks of 9/11 caused over 3000 U.S. innocents to die; As of yesterday, our operations in Iraq have caused almost four times as many civilian casualties. So, the question becomes, what is it in this movie that made you feel so uncomfortable? Seeing the human cost of the war? And again, Moore makes another point which you totally seemed to miss; the invasion of Iraq is, at best, tenuously linked to Al-Qaida. And there is no connection between 9/11 and the invasion. Bush has said as much himself. You would think that he would loathe to admit something that was so damning to his case for war. But no, ever Mr. Bush must face up to the facts. As for “misleading” information such as the portrayal of the coalition of the willing, Moore leaves the U.K. out because it is commonly touted as part of the coalition, because it is the only other substantial member of the coalition. So, what is more misleading, to always speak of this coalition of the willing as a large, united and powerful unit, when it’s really just the U.S., Briton and a host of other countries with no material support for the war and who are beholden to the United States, or to leave out England in Moore’s summary of the coalition? People know that England is our ally in this, unless they are entirely ignorant of world events, which they probably aren’t if they are going to see this movie. And imagine a filmmaker appealing to emotion! What a disgrace! Do you remember a documentary called “Mr. Death?” That was indeed an appeal to emotion and also a very well-respected documentary. I think that we need to appeal to emotions to get people to realize what it really means to invade a country. It is not a videogame. People die horrible deaths, innocent babies are burned to death, and peoples’ homes are destroyed. This is not exploitative in any way by Mr. Moore; he is showing us the true cost of supporting an unjust and illegal war and a corrupt administration. If you couldn’t see that as you left the movie theater, you must be in deep conservative denial. The most amazing thing about your review is that fact that you gave it an “F.” As a film, it excels even if you don’t agree with its politics. The majority of your colleagues are amazed, as I am, by Moore’s ability to mix the absurd with the grave and serious. This does not mean that he is simple making a series of jokes as you imply. He is showing the audience the juxtaposition of our indifference to the lives of thousands and the horror that the Iraqis are currently enduring. I think I know who you’ll be voting for this November (though that astounds me considering that the most compelling case Moore makes in the movie is for Bush’s corruption and incompetence), but it does not matter because the majority of people are starting to see the human, diplomatic, and economic costs of this war. As an American, however, I hope that you will take a closer look at what our country is doing, and what the repercussions will be for future generations.

Respectfully, Joshua Radon

Monday, June 21, 2004



What is the significance of academic acheivement?
Does it matter?
In what sense did I use the word "matter"?
I'm going to write a meta-masters about the process of writing my masters. But hey why stop there!

Band names:
Safe and Sound
The Sonic Spielunker
AV Imput
The Black Hand
American Meal
Need to Know
Things Are
Intentional Object
Short Legs
Junk, Sweet Junk
Toy Box
Future Band
Carbon Scoring
The Bloggers
Delt Hand
Personal Remarks
The What What Whats
Little Girl/Pregnant Woman
Giant People Houses
Earth Grows Weed
I have enough
Shout Down that Devil
The Placeholders
? Help
x sign out

Ok folks, there are some ideas, feedback?

Sunday, June 20, 2004

I am amazed that I turn on the radio and I hear good songs these days
It wasn't always that way, I remember just a few years ago everything sounded like Creed, Puddle of Mudddddd or Lipmt bizkit
Now there are a lot of good songs
Here's what I think: Emo saved rock
Believe me or don't, but I'm right
Don't argue with me.

Just have to write my masters except i'm too lazy
Starting a band with Kevin, Cody, and Cy
We're the Goleta SuperGroup
But we need a name
give me one

Sounds like a mess huh?


But think about this:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Is this:
a) A description of our invasion of Iraq?
b) A definition of terrorism?

Friday, June 18, 2004

post 1

peter pan
Philosopher's Stone