How quaint and cute of the News & Record to give all of us out here the opportunity to remake Michael Moore. By turning him into a quasi- cartoon character, you demean him personally and diffuse his message of peace.
I tell you what, I will only re-create him this week if you promise I can do the same thing to Mel Gibson next week. Moore may look disheveled to some, but his message is clear. On the other hand, George Bush wears $3,000 suits and has a nice haircut, but his policies make him rather unappealing to many people.
As it says in "The Little Prince," "it is only with the heart we see rightly, what is essential is invisible to the eye." You tread on thin ice when you diss one of your blue county's heroes.
Liz Napoliello
Greensboro
Comments (8)
Yeah, we should show Michael Moore the same respect we should show Ward Churchill, "Bomb thrower of the year". Moore (and Churchill) are nothing but rabble-rousers, albiet Moore has more technical skills.
Anti-American bomb throwers should go live someplace else so they can experience the "other forms of government" they so admire....like Cuba, Saudi,Iran or N. Korea.
Perhaps you would like to join them?
Posted by mike crouch | February 11, 2005 9:28 AM
Micheal Moore is neither a nice person nor a "person of peace."
He's a vindictive, hate-filled, pus blob whose goal is to destroy something, not bring "peace."
What if Michael Moore took all the money he spent trying to destroy our government and way of life and spent it on the homeless, or built a school, or used it for tsunami relief?
It's a shame Michael Moore wastes his talent trying to force the public to share his narrow views.
Posted by JayCeeNC | February 11, 2005 9:56 AM
Attempting to stifle opposing viewpoints is antithetical to the concept of a democracy. Our country was founded by those who dared to openly question authority. Once our freedom was won from the autocratic British empire, the founders strove to preserve the freedom of citizens and the press to open criticism and dissent. These rights - guaranteed and passed down to us by our forefathers - are the rock on which we have founded the strongest constitutional democracy the world has ever known. Critical discourse is as American as apple pie and allows us to question the policies of a George Bush or a Bill Clinton.
"If you're not with us you're against us," is the mantra of countless dictatorships and autocratic empires. As a child of the cold war I well remember the cold institutional brutality with which the communist Soviet Union and its slave states were accustomed to crush debate and dissent. God protect us from the day that we eschew these liberties.
Posted by larry | February 11, 2005 11:58 AM
It's funny to see what the name Michael Moore does to conservatives. You may hate him, but he does tell the truth. (mostly the truth) That is alot more that can be said for our resident president, George W (liar) Bush that has turned out to be more of a flip flopper than Kerry ever was.
Posted by Brian Harper | February 11, 2005 12:58 PM
I don't hate anybody. I simply don't appreciate liars--and that is what Michael Moore is. (Fahrenhype 9/11 exposes Moore's movie for the propagandist machine it really is.) Furthermore, I do not "attempt to stifle opposing viewpoints," as Larry implied. I am not running out and trying to get the government to legally censor Michael Moore. Nor do I support taking away Michael Moore's First Amendment rights. But that doesn't mean that I cannot militantly and openly oppose Michael Moore's lies. The freedom that gives people the right to dissent also gives me the right to obstruct the progression of their dissent if I deem appropriate.
Posted by Justin | February 11, 2005 2:43 PM
Justin, my comments were directed at Mr. Crouch's posting. Your statements are precisely the kind of debate that I extolled. Rather it was Mr. Crouch's startling implication that critical public discourse is somehow "unamerican" that caught my attention. Indeed, could anything be *more* American?
Whether public debate takes the form of scholarly erudition (in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson and William Buckley) or appeals to a more visceral appetite (in the tradidion of Thomas Payne, Bill O'Reilly and Al Franken), it is the fact that such debate flourishes that makes our land so great.
Posted by Larry | February 11, 2005 5:42 PM
Thank you for explaining your position, sir. I agree with you.
Posted by Justin | February 11, 2005 11:02 PM
How perplexing and peculiar that Liz Napoliello requires a chance to remake Mel Gibson before she agrees to remake Michael Moore.
How pitiable and pathetic that Napoliello quotes a children?s book, ?The Little Prince,? in attempt to make some political point and to threaten the News & Record.
How painful and unpleasant it will be for Napoliello when she leaves children?s books behind and discovers both Gibson and Moore are just in it for the money. Neither is a hero or a savior or a little prince. Both are in the movie business, and their only goal is to separate Napoliello and me from our money.
But there is one big difference between the two.
I tell you what, Gibson doesn?t need a remake. He looks good. Darn good. Very darn good. Very, very, very darn good.
Posted by Evelyn Jutte | February 15, 2005 1:05 PM