| Thursday, May 20, 2004 |
11:24 - Just a dumb question
|
(top)  |
Okay, so this has been nagging at me for a little while.
Remember in Bowling for Columbine, when Michael Moore was interviewing that wild-eyed, backwoodsy, soybean-farming brother/cousin/whatever of Terry Nichols, asking him about the rationale behind Americans owning guns? Remember when Nichols stared back at him and intoned with a twitchy, breathy voice that "The people will rise up in furious anger against a tyrannical government!"? Remember when Moore said, "Well, what about Gandhi? Wasn't he able to bring down the whole British Empire, without firing a single shot?" (And remember how Nichols just stared back like a deer on train tracks and said, "I don't know nothin' 'bout that"?)
Well, I was wondering: How does one reconcile that with Moore's later statement that The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win?
Maybe someone should let al-Sadr know that Gandhi's methods are a lot more effective, huh? Maybe, if they want to drive out the American invaders, they should sit cross-legged in village squares and refuse to move? Maybe they should live on ashrams and go on hunger strikes? Moore doesn't approve of them defending themselves with weapons.
Oh, wait. I remember now. Everybody's allowed to have guns, is what Moore says... except for Americans.
|
|
Brian Tiemann
