Falwell &Co. V. Moore & Co.

allythin · Sat, 15 Sep 2001 17:37:42 -0700

I read the article last night about the comments
that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson made in response
to the events on Tuesday. Then I read this post
containing Michael Moore's comments and those of Chomsky. I
had a very different reaction to each.

1)
Falwell's comments (and Robertson's for that matter) when
compared to Chomsky's are not even close to being similar.
It is an insult to Chomsky to contend that. Falwell
went beyond the bounds of reality when he blamed
virtually every social movement in the country for God
lifting his protection over us. First of all God never
had his protection over this country. We ARE NOT AND
NEVER WERE special in his eyes. Falwell chooses to pick
on people who he knows he can get his followers (who
are hopefully not in as great masses in recent days)
to hate and hate easily. Chomsky very rationally
looks at the situation and says "Hmm, we were
terrorized before in Sudan, and we reacted by killing
civilians and all that did was just add fuel to the fire.
So if we don't do as Robert Fisk advises, all
America will be doing is staying in this viscious cycle
of 'oppress, be attacked, attack back out of
revenge, repeat.' THAT IS ALL CHOMSKY IS SAYING. He (at a
little times in a way that is clumsy) is asking us to
transcend rage, unlike these 'holy' men who ask for us to
give in to rage.

2)Moore like Chomsky never
says that our foreign policy required us to have this
happen to us, only that we really should not be shocked
(see the above cycle). And we shouldn't. Not when we
created the Frankenstein monster that is bin Laden. Not
when we impose our will upon foreign nations (which
was why Moore brings up the Kyoto Treaty and Durban
conference, not because bin Laden or his followers actually
care about those issues but they do care about the
U.S. imposing themselves on the rest of the world).
Not when 2 months ago a 60 Minutes II reporter went
to Afghanistan and ominously threatened the United
States with statements in the general tone of "We're not
afraid to die", "America isn't as strong as it thinks",
and showing that reporter signs in Arabic which
praised bin Laden and condemned the U.S. and U.N. Moore
never goes so far as to say what happened Tuesday was
karma, but it was revenge that should have been
anticipated yet should not have happened. The only flaw in
the Moore article is the comment about the victims
not voting for Bush, although since this article was
written within a day of the attack, it is logical to
assume that Moore didn't actually know what the motives
of the attackers were (He was one of few who didn't
immediately blame bin Laden citing OK City as precedence.),
and that's why he set up the comment with the
hypothetical "if." Nothing in either article gives me the
impression that what either author believes what they say is
a riot act.

Finally, Falwell and Robertson's
words are repugnant because they advocate responding to
this act of hate with hate. Their words are not bound
in any credible religious or even rational thought.
Moore and Chomsky are not so distasteful or even
offensive. This is because they did an ACTUAL REVIEW OF SOME
OF THE FACTS AND MADE VERY LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS OF
WHAT WAS THE CAUSE AND EFFECT. My personal belief is
that we are not the nation we would like to be, one
that believes in freedom and individual liberty. I'm
only 19 and I've already witnessed far too much
injustice and oppression in this world that we've caused
either directly or by some careless act. While I don't
wish to begrudge anyone their idealism (If you have
it, bless you, try not to lose it.), I would like to
assert that we can do bad things too. And sometimes bad
things have bad consequences. This does not mean that
this should have ever in a million years have
happened. But an honest look at the how and why doesn't
leave us looking too good.