*****LONG FISKING ALERT*****



If you don't have the patience, the jist: I hate it when legitimate newspapers print unsupported, biased diatribes on the editorial page instead of articles that examine the facts and provide a detailed, well-reasoned opinion. It just wastes space and adds white noise to the already crowded national debate.



*****LONG FISKING ALERT*****



Op-ed columns exist to provide a forum for reasoned opinions on the issues. But isn't the operative word "reasoned" - logical, well thought-out, supported by fact, rational? Otherwise, the press isn't educating the public, but simply ranting. So please explain to me how this drivel gets published in a college town?



I've seen Fahrenheit 9-11. I am still gathering sufficient information to come to a reasoned conclusion about the claims made by the film, which is one of the reasons why I haven't blogged on it. But given the article by Ms. Yoder-Short, I am apparently mistaken in believing facts and/or a knowledge of the issues are essential elements for a reasoned opinion.



I find this particularly ironic, given the very title of the article: "Fahrenheit 9/11' challenges us to sort through 'truth'." The concept of truth versus fallacy implies a verifiable reality, tangible facts as evidence that one position is accurate and another is not. So with what facts and information does the article arm the reader, in order to improve the ability to discern truth from fiction?



"Recognizing the real thing can be difficult. My daughter loves to offer me her delicious looking doughnut. It appears to have sweet chocolate frosting. If you take time to sniff this delicacy, your nose is disappointed by the distinct smell of plastic. It is a deceptive doughnut, a trick to make you think you are getting something you are not."



Premise #1: There is truth and there is falsity. An example is provided. While some philosophers could argue with the notion of an objective reality, I can agree with it. Not a bad start.



"I have been thinking about recognizing doughnuts this week and judging truth. I blame Michael Moore for my new doughnut craze. I joined the crowds in Iowa City that viewed "Fahrenheit 9/11" (showing at Campus 3 theater at the Old Capital Mall), and I'm left trying to figure out which view of U.S. politics is the real one. Who offers the authentic smell of America - George W. Bush, Michael Moore or someone else?"



Premise #2: The concept of objective truth holds in politics. More difficult, that, even on a basic conceptual level. But the particular permutation that she requires us to agree with is even more difficult: not only is there a right and a wrong, but there is a "true" America and a "false" America, with one represented by George W. Bush, and the other by Michael Moore.



I find the concept of a "true" America interesting, but not plausible. I am a white female in Iowa. My world looks quite different from an African-American male in Los Angeles, or a Hawaiian . . . well, anybody, out in the middle of the ocean. Is their perspective true and mine the fallacy? Is any given person more "real" or "valid" than another? Putting that aside for a moment, I could look to the polls and decide that if a majority of Americans believe in one way, then it must be the "true" American belief. But according to the latest polls, George W. Bush is supported by approximately half the population. Can the difference of a few percentage points one way or another in the polls legitimize one viewpoint as truly American? Can one half of the population accurately say to the other that their view is invalid and illegitimate? So by what criteria does Ms. Yoder-Short weigh Michael Moore and George Bush to determine that one is truly American?



"The movie itself seemed to be about smelling out what is really going on. Did our president and the CEO's of oil and military-contract companies frost the Iraqi war with sweet deceitfulness?"



Premise #3: If George Bush was deceitful on the Iraqi war, then Michael Moore must be the true American. This just doesn't wash as a concept. It distills the entire premise of being a true American down to a single issue. I think the baseball, hot dog and apple pie people would have a problem with that. It also equates lying with being a 'false' American. I think Bill Clinton's folks would have a problem with that. So would the 40% of Americans who lie to their spouses, and the 75% of us who lie about our weight. Last I looked, we weren't all getting deported.



But for the sake of argument, let's give her this one. I do agree that Americans generally value truth, despite the evidence to the contrary. So can she provide facts to bolster this premise?



"You don't have to have a degree in political science to understand truth, but you do have to have a nose that can smell deception. We all have our biases, political and otherwise. I had read reviews but tried to leave biases behind; my lower class partiality and a deep motherly bias prevailed."



Premise #4: The fact I'm female, a mother, and from the lower class make me biased, but my bias defines truth and what is truly American.



Hold the phone. We've been dealing with truth vs. fallacy, objective facts, reasoned opinions. Did she just call partiality and bias truth, or am I misreading this? Did she just seriously say that the only truly American viewpoint is female and lower class? Or is she simply ranting?



Where are the facts? The evidence? The insight? Must be later in the article.



"Viewing the film with the eyes of the poor and have-nots enables one to see the huge burden underprivileged children are asked to bear. The film shows the poor of Flint, Mich., being recruited. When members of Congress are given the same opportunity to sign up their sons and daughters, they scamper like ants from a burning hill."



Premise #5: Some poor children are signing up for the armed forces. Members of Congress who were asked by Michael Moore to sign up their children did not. Therefore, Michael Moore is truly American and George Bush is not.



Fact: George Bush has no control over whether members of Congress, Democrat or Republican, agree to submit their children to terms of service in the armed forces.



Fact: Members of Congress cannot sign their children into the armed forces any more than I can sign in my neighbor or pesky little brother. Presumably they are aware of that fact, as I am?



Fact: Neither Moore nor Yoder-Short provides us with statistics on how many children of Congressmen - or Congressmen themselves - have been or are currently serving in the armed forces. Nor have they told us how that number compares, per capita, with the number of poor children - in Flint or otherwise - who have or have not served. Another point: Moore's film also never gave the full context surrounding his request to the politicians. How many of the senators and house members approached have children who are all still in diapers? Does that make them less American? Does that in turn make GWB less American? If you're going to imply such things, should you be obligated to provide the full disclosure?



Fact: Only about 28 million Americans are veterans or currently serving in the armed forces. If serving in the armed forces is required to be an American, are the other 250 million of us applying for our exit visas yet?



Conclusion: Presuming that serving in the armed forces makes one person more American despite the fact that the majority of Americans have not so served, and presuming that George Bush has control of over the private lives of the children of the people in congress (absent some weird hostage situation), we still don't have enough information to determine whether or not Michael Moore or George Bush is the true American.



"Viewing the film with the eyes of a mother is excruciating. "Fahrenheit 9/11" smells of grieving mothers. There is the Iraqi mother who cries out asking Allah why her son had to die. You can smell the grief and taste the unquenchable anguish. Later, we return to Flint to hear the mother of Michael Pedersen read her son's last letter, a letter written just before his helicopter was shot down. This mother, thousands of miles away from the Iraqi mother, asks the same question: Why? Why my son?



This question should be our question: Why?



Killing is no easy task. A young soldier tells us that a part of him died each time he killed. Even our sons and daughters that come home will be forever changed. Why are our children dying? Is it for democracy and freedom and ridding the world of terrorism or is it about oil and wealth?"



Premise #6: If we are in the Iraq war for democracy, freedom, and ridding the world of terrorism, then George Bush is the true American. If it is for oil and wealth, then Michael Moore is the true American.



There are all kinds of holes in the logic, but I won't dissect them here. For the sake of argument I'll grant that there are only two possibilities for why we are in Iraq, oil or freedom, and no mixed motives are possible. I'll even grant that if oil is the motive, then Moore must be a true American, a line of reasoning that would make my former logic professor's head spin. Just please, dear God, give me some facts to assist me in my analysis one way or the other: are we in Iraq for oil or for freedom?



"What is worth dying for? Who's answer do we accept?



"Fahrenheit 9/11" isn't anti-American but hopes for more from America. Last weekend we celebrated our nation with fireworks, patriotic parades and music. Let's continue to celebrate by calling our great nation to be greater, to rise above sending troops to kill for oil, to kill for the haves. Let's work hard at smelling what we are being told.



"Fahrenheit 9/11" challenges us to sort out what to believe. Critics continue to attack Moore's biases. I'm not always sure what to believe, but I do know that the pain of war must be taken seriously. I do know that I would rather cut back on oil consumption than send anyone to kill or die. I do know that "the war against terrorism" hasn't diminished terrorism.



If you haven't seen the movie, go and think about what is real and what is fake frosting. For now, for the real view of America, I'm trusting mothers. They've had practice in discerning a lot of plastic doughnuts. Mothers are good at smelling what stinks in life, and losing a son reeks.



If only there was a mother running for president, she'd have my vote."



"I'm not sure what to believe?" "For now . . . I'm trusting mothers?" That's it? Was there a fact in there I somehow missed? Did she really just say that she would vote for a mother, any mother? How about this one? Or this one?



Premise #7: War is bad, losing a son is bad, therefore Michael Moore is the true American.



I can't begin to justify this one. War is bad? Always? I thought she just said that it was okay if we were in Iraq for freedom and ridding the world of terrorism? I guess not.



Like most Americans, I am sifting through the massive amounts of information being thrown at me regarding the situation in Iraq to determine my opinion on what is true and good and right. I read newspaper and magazine articles closely to glean any new facts to gain insight on the situation. But unlike Ms. Yoder-Short, I don't simply decide that one perspective is correct because the person holding it is female, or poor, or Michael Moore.



If the Press-Citizen can't find any better fodder for op-ed columns than this sort of vaporous ranting, I can give it the names of several good bloggers who might be happy to contribute.