|
Quote of the day:
"Viddy well, little brother. Viddy well." -- Malcolm McDowell (A Clockwork Orange) |
 |
|
 |
 EXCLUSIVE REVIEW: Fahrenheit 9/11
By Ag on June 30, 2004 4:15 PM
A Butcher, A Baker, A WMD Maker:
Michael Moore spins one for the rest of us
By Andy Gurevich
“The president has adopted a policy of ‘anticipatory self-defense’ that is alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at Pearl Harbor, on a date which, as an earlier American president said it would, lives in infamy. Franklin D. Roosevelt was right, but today it is we Americans who live in infamy.”-Arthur Schlesinger,
historian and Kennedy advisor
Michael Moore has lied to you, America. But not in the way many of his critics might have you believe. Moore’s new film, Fahrenheit 9/11, has been heralded as a prophetic voice of dissent by supporters and as leftist, fact-twisting, conspiracy-laden propaganda by opponents. In reality, it is little more than a modest and fairly accurate re-presentation of what anybody with basic cable should already know. If Moore can be criticized for anything, it’s not that his film goes too far, but that it does not go far enough. A fact, considering Moore’s blatant and unapologetic political agenda, that probably has more to do with decisions made by the film’s producers than its director.
Fahrenheit opens with the 2000 election scandal and the troubled Florida recount; a necessary and appropriate entry point. Moore realizes that Americans are notorious for having absurdly short attention spans. We are a nation whose unparalleled level of consistent creature comforts has unfortunately afforded us the ability to quickly forget even the most salient political events. For those who have either forgotten or chosen to ignore this truth, Moore combs through the dusty archives of the not-so-distant past and reminds us that in January of 2001, George W. Bush, and his band of Old-World Washington insiders, high-jacked the presidency of the United States and have since smashed their Borg-like ideology into the twin towers of human dignity and freedom.
Sure, Moore’s “Was it all a dream…” voice over, set to the watery, Disney stock soundtrack is emblematic of the filmmaker’s oft-noted self-indulgence. But it is the parade of mostly female, minority local and state representatives (none of whom could get the support of a single Senator) asking the Congress to finish the Florida recount that leaves the strongest impression. Like the Administration’s early shunning of the Kyoto Treaty, this was surely a sign of things to come. If you were poor and non-white, the best you could hope for from this Administration was for them to ignore you. The worst? Well, if they saw you as a threat to their religious and economic hegemony, they would set your children on fire.
In fact, knowing Mr. Moore’s penchant for grandstanding and over-editorializing only makes one congratulate him all the more for the restraint he shows (choosing, for instance, to go to black screen during the 9/11 plane attacks instead of the easier, more gratuitous, replaying of the now-infamous footage) as well as the maturity and rhetorical wisdom he displays as a filmmaker by allowing his targets to honestly and ironically hang themselves. Opponents will point out how Moore relies on “cheap shots” such as that of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz spitting on his comb and running it through his hair before a press briefing, or John Ashcroft’s hauntingly nationalistic karaoke performance. But while these scenes do elicit giggles and sneers from the liberal illuminati and the enlightened, self-congratulatory audiences, the power of the film lies in moments where top Administration officials are shown lying again and again to support and further their boss’s narcissistic, apocalyptic agenda.
Critics of the film, like professional-Moore-hater and Arizona attorney David T. Hardy, chastise Moore for being rich, a ploy often used by the right to “discredit” anyone who questions how they steal and launder their money. Mr. Hardy claims to be a true representative of the proletariat because, “Unlike Moore…I've really been working class…I worked some law school summers in my father's tile shop. I've re-tiled a bathroom and built an addition to the house.” Hardy is also proud to be a member of the NRA, President of Tucson Rod and Gun Club, and the holder of a provisional patent on bullet design. In a lame attempt to sound like an ally of the disenfranchised, Hardy claims that he will vote Republican when “they decide to run Colin Powell.” Apparently Mr. Hardy likes the stooges of tyrants better than the tyrants themselves. Powell, for my money, should have his blackness revoked for his silent, impotent role in this Administration’s slaughtering of innocents.
In a typical Republican “pot calling the kettle black-style” smoke screen, Hardy calls Moore to task for what he believes are factual inaccuracies in Fahrenheit 9/11. Along with Hardy, a Web site creatively called “MooreWatch” boldly offers a series of vacuous logical fallacies and inane whistle-blowing over specific facts, dates and timelines that ultimately amounts to little more than your little sister telling mom that you are looking out her window on the car ride to the Grand Canyon. MooreWatch claims,
“Moore asserts that in the days immediately following the September 11th attacks President Bush whisked Osama Bin Laden’s family out of the country. Moore’s contention is that this was done because Bush and Osama Bin Laden enjoyed a secret alliance. This is wholly untrue. In reality Osama Bin Laden’s relatives long ago disavowed Osama Bin Laden, and cut off ties to him because of their profound disgust with his violent acts of terrorism.”
First of all, despite what the President and his cronies keep telling us, many have questioned the reality of the severed ties between the Bin Laden’s and their warrior son (a question given some validity by the report that many members of the family recently traveled to Afghanistan to attend the wedding of Osama’s son).
Michael Isikoff writes in Newsweek that Moore also falsely contends that the flights took place at a time when U.S. airspace was closed to all air traffic. Isikoff cites the 9/11 commission’s investigation into this issue:
“Author Craig Unger appears, claiming that bin Laden family members were never interviewed by the FBI. Not true, according to a recent report from the 9/11 panel. The report confirms that six chartered airplanes flew 142 mostly Saudi nationals out of the country, including one carrying members of the bin Laden family. But the flights didn't begin until Sept. 14—after airspace reopened. Moreover, the report states the Saudi flights were screened by the FBI, and 22 of the 26 people on the bin Laden flight were interviewed. None had any links to terrorism.”
Well, actually, the film claims that the Bin Ladens were the “first to leave the country” after the grounding and that they left “in the days immediately following the attacks” after only an initial interview with the FBI. Regardless of this blatant misappropriation of what the film actually says, this line of reasoning is still beside the point, especially in light of the fact that the family members of the prime suspect in the 9/11 attacks were subjected to much less scrutiny than many of the prisoners being held at the now infamous Abu Ghraib and in Guantanamo; people who have been held for over a year without ever officially being charged with a crime.
Washington Post reporter Tina Brown, in yet another display of blissfully aggrandized non-sequitors, has warned you about the mechanism of Moore’s deception: “Their [Democrats] Bush-loathing is so intense there is a pent-up longing for excess, a desire to be swept with emotions the cautious Democratic nominee can't arouse. After the weapons of mass destruction fallacy and the Saddam-did-9/11 fictions, it's payback time. The left can have a Rush Limbaugh, too.” The comparison to Limbaugh displays little more than America’s ability to make fat jokes instead of ever dealing with the issues. I am reminded here of James Carville’s remarks at the onset of the Monica Lewinsky matter when he said that the leader of the free world would never put his job in jeopardy for a fat girl. No, Michael Moore does not, like Limbaugh, make ridiculous, Oxycotyn-induced claims like the sexual revolution of the sixties was responsible for the horrible abuse at Abu Ghraib.
Tina Brown, in her usual pristine journalistic hubris, supports her attack by going to the experts. “Hollywood agent and Kerry supporter Tom Baer told me, ‘Kerry should flee Moore's movie. It's Goebbels all over again.’" And we all know that if a Hollywood agent says it, it must be true. Especially one who, in his time with Frankel and DraftWorldwide, has represented branding and marketing efforts for Bank of America, Microsoft and Verizon (all major contributors to the 2000 Republican presidential race) as well as other infamous Republican cash cows including frequent Moore target General Motors, Adolf Coors and Associates and Johnson & Johnson.
Moore is, like Rush Limbaugh, clear about his own political agenda however and never, despite constant attacks from the other side, pretends to be otherwise. In a recent interview on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show,” Moore responds to host Jon Stewart’s question, “Is your movie fair and balanced?” with an unequivocal and unapologetic, “No, it is not.” But this is far from self-incrimination. Moore contends that the facts he presents are accurate but that he has a definite political ax to grind and it is his right as an artist and an American to do so. Those who criticize Moore probably also tried to discredit Spike Lee when Bamboozled, his scathing portrait of racism in the media, opened to similar cries of being lopsided, reactionary propaganda. It should also be noted that the group leading the charge against Fahrenheit 9/11 even being seen by the American public is the same group that spearheaded the attack on ABC’s Reagan movie a few months back and is closely affiliated with the Governor Davis recall effort in California (http://www.moveamericaforward.org/).
Slate.com’s Christopher Hitchens employs the “stuff left out” approach to try to discredit Moore’s movie. “If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.” I feel compelled to remind Mr. Hitchens that Afghanistan was not the focus of Fahrenheit and in fact Moore never directly disagrees with the decision to respond to the Taliban and their refusal to turn over individuals who claimed responsibility for the deaths of over three thousand Americans on September 11. What Moore does question, is why members of the Taliban were not only initially funded and considered allies of the United States, in spite of their abhorrent human rights violations and connection to anti-American Muslim extremists, but also why Afghanistan was seen only as a decoy, according to the Administration’s leading terrorist expert Richard Clark, to divert the American public’s attention from the preemptive, unprovoked invasion of Iraq. I also offer Mr. Hutchens this report, published by Amnesty International, concerning the current conditions in Afghanistan:
A deteriorating security situation undermined human rights. Serious human rights abuses and armed conflict continued in many areas. The criminal justice system remained ineffective and was a source of violations rather than a mechanism for providing justice. Women and girls in particular faced discrimination in the justice system. Police lacked pay, training and control structures. Prison conditions were poor. Detainees were held for excessive periods before appearing before a judge. Women and girls faced a high level of violence. Rape and sexual violence by armed groups was reportedly common. Violence in the family, and forced and underage marriage, were widespread. Past human rights abuses were not addressed and the international community did not provide the necessary support to ensure progress in this area. The US-led coalition was responsible for arbitrary detentions as the "war on terror" continued. Refugees continued to return from neighboring states but in much reduced numbers, owing largely to concerns about the security situation, employment opportunities and housing. There were serious concerns about the voluntariness of returns from Iran and Pakistan.
If Mr. Hitchens wants us to ruminate about what things Mr. Moore did not include in his film (another classic example of Republican sophistry) maybe he should, look at the fact that Afghanistan is again quickly becoming the world’s leading producer and exporter of opium. Afghanistan and Columbia (a country locked down during the Iran-Contra scandal when the Bush I envoy ironically sold Saddam Hussein whatever meager weapons he did have) are the world’s leading producers of the product that serves as the base for the two fastest growing drugs abused by young people in the United States: Heroin and Oxycotin. Maybe Mr. Hitchens would want to focus on the fact than the Red Cross estimates that it will take at least another six months to a year, under optimum conditions, to restore electricity and running water to the areas in Afghanistan and Iraq that had such luxuries before we “liberated” them? Or that “honour crimes” (violent crimes against women) are still a cause for “grave concern,” according to Amnesty International, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Turkey, a nation Bush recently called a model of democracy in a speech before NATO despite the fact that their treatment of the Kurds was so unspeakably barbaric that they chose to face the now-famous slaughter by Saddam Hussein in Northern Iraq over life in Turkey.
Or perhaps Mr. Moore could have shown us the coalition of award-winning scientists from virtually ever field of scientific inquiry, that have drafted a document accusing the Bush Administration of adopting a policy of twisting, distorting, and even ignoring the findings of published research in every area of science; dismissing it as promoting a leftist agenda. Mr. Moore could have mentioned that a group of former diplomats, including high-ranking members of the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, have drafted a document condemning the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent peace-keeping and rebuilding efforts, calling for American regime change as the only way to begin to stop the international bleeding. We could go on about what is not in the film. Republicans, like many of my ex-girlfriends, have always been good at winning arguments by either assassinating your character or incessantly changing the subject, but never, unfortunately, by dealing with the topic ipso facto.
The number of civilian casualties in Iraq since the start of this war is between 9,436 and 11,317 (three to four times that of the Trade Center bombings). It is an offense to the people of the world that we continue to behave this way. Bush can still not even pronounce the name of the prison where American troops were photographed humiliating Iraqi POWs. The President’s hawks instead would rather focus on Mr. Moore’s weight, or his baseball cap, or the fact that his movie says the Bin Ladens were flown out of the country on September 13 when it was actually September 14. The Republicans have made it a habit to answer genuine criticism with ad homonyms and red herrings. But it is incumbent upon us, as a citizenry, to accept this brazen tautology no more. There is simply no one else to blame; no acceptable scapegoat but that of our own agency. We can be silent no longer.
The media instead will give coverage to the President’s press secretary saying “The White House doesn’t have time to see this film,” or “We don’t have to see something to know if it filled with factual inaccuracies,” or my personal favorite, “If the president has time to watch a movie it would probably be Shrek 2.”
Obviously the President and his press secretary didn’t see another rather interesting documentary that came out recently. In The Fog of War, James McNamara discusses his life as a public servant. He was intimately involved in producing intelligence reports, efficiency briefings and delivery improvement strategies that led to the seldom discussed firebombing of Japan by the U.S. in WWII. McNamara went on to become the youngest Secretary of Defense and held the position through most of the Vietnam War. Vietnam was even called “McNamara’s War” by many anti-way activists.
After his stint in the Pentagon, McNamara went on to become the president of the World Bank in the 1970s, a time when the World Bank adopted the policy of offering high interest “restructuring loans” to impoverished third world countries. Loans that many activist groups blame for keeping these countries in third world status indefinitely. So, quite possibly, McNamara has been responsible for more human death, suffering and destruction than any other single human being, including George W. Bush that has ever lived. And McNamara, yes even this legendary, uber-butcher, understood that it is vital to not only get to know your opponent intimately, to make every attempt to see things from their perspective, but also that war, the ugly, harsh realities of war, should always and forever be a last, humble, acutely regretful option.
This president doesn’t feel like watching it. He already knows it is full of distortions. Although Fahrenheit 9/11 was made by an Oscar winning director and one of the most powerful production and distribution companies in the world, even though it opened in more theaters than any other documentary in history, in spite of the fact that it took in 23 million dollars its first weekend and won the prestigious Palme d' Or award at Cannes, this president doesn’t have time to watch. But unfortunately for you, Mr. President, we do.
It’s time to equip yourself America, with the weapons this Administration fears the most: knowledge and unity. Read William Saletan’s analysis of the President’s essentialist, a priori epistemology. Watch your leader tell you to your face that he’d rather watch Shrek then even try to understand why at least half of his country, and most of the world, think he is a foolish, incompetent, antisocial madman. Doesn’t matter, it’s filled with inaccuracies. Jesus is on his side. You, me, the citizens of Iraq, the families of those lost on 9/11 and Michael Moore can, and probably will according to the President’s faith, go to hell. Halliburton has its rebuilding contracts. The Carlyle Group made 237 million dollars in one day because of Administration policy decisions to invade a country based ostensibly on a series of propositions that have, without exception, proven to be fabricated, mishandled, distorted, and just plain inaccurate.
Since the Nixon administration, it has become evident that our elected officials, or rather the bloated and distended bureaucracy of which they take part, has lost its sense of obligation to the public it was created to defend. In the years that followed, Americans awoke from the gushy slumber of their political adolescence. Vietnam, the Civil Rights movement, the faux gas crisis, and a mindless B-actor who sold arms to Saddam Hussein and other Middle East extremists to fund his puppet South American governments all stood as signs of the increasing disconnect between the governors and the governed. But things are different now. Gone are the “salad days” when we could simply distrust our leaders. Now, they are out to get us. I think it was Woody Allen who once said, “What you call ‘paranoid,’ I call ‘perceptive.’”
The facts are unmistakable; the philosophical question remarkably simple. Should we be allowed to kill innocent people for no discernable reason save the increased wealth of those making the decisions to kill? Those challenging the story presented by Fahrenheit 9/11 have obviously not read a piece of postmodern literary and cultural theory. We already know that this is just another perspective. It is you, Mr. President, who is unaware of the concept of “another perspective” in the first place. Isn’t that right, Mr. “War President?” Feminist and postcolonial theorists have long contended that there is no such thing as “is” in history. Only perspective. Postmodern linguists and literary critics join Robert Anton Wilson’s pledge to undermine that neurolinguistic habit which we call "essentialism" and which Korzybski claimed invades our brains and causes hallucinations or delusions every time we use the word "is." In this sense, Bill Clinton was right. How we should gauge our decisions, then, is not based on their abstract connection to a metaphysical reality but on how well they stand up under the scrutinizing light of risk and benefit for our planet, for humanity.
As Noam Chomsky accurately points out, “While the methods differ sharply from more brutal to more free societies, the goals are in many ways similar: to ensure that the ‘great beast,’ as Alexander Hamilton called the people, does not stray from its proper confines.” So then, America, your leaders have stopped ignoring your concerns. They have stopped turning a deaf ear to your fears. Now they prey upon them. They have open contempt for democracy and rely on a system of institutionalized fear and guilt-driven nationalism to maintain their death grip on our freedoms. The terrorists do not hate us for our freedoms, as the President never misses an opportunity to tell us. They hate us for how much of the world we feel justified, even obligated, to enslave, destroy and commodify for the proliferation of our own opportunistic social paradigms. Michael Moore has offered an alternative and less bloody, if not completely tenable, solution. If you don’t like it, assuming you’ve even seen it, perhaps you should offer a better one. Until then, the rest of us will be busy creating a space, arbitrary and shifting as it may be, for human dignity to take root. The film is an important step in the quest to take back our humanity from those initially entrusted to protect it; and, as is the case with most journeys into history, its effectiveness will probably be measured by what comes after it. And that, my friends, is ultimately up to us.
|
Reader Discussions:
|
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on July 1, 2004 7:04 PM
This was a great peice and a very well writen review!
|
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on July 1, 2004 7:08 PM
Sorry dude, I lost interest after reading for about 5min. Mainly because it's not a movie I want to go watch.
|
|
Wasn't this supposed to be a MOVIE review?
|
 reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on July 2, 2004 10:09 AM
I thought this was intended as a movie review, not a political dissertation or just another anti-Bush diatribe...? I am by no means a Bush supporter (go Harry Braun!), but it seems that the author could have said more about the quality of the movie's production, and less about his own political ideology. All I read here was just more rhetoric and fodder for the politicos and pundits, and this review amounts to little more than the verbal fellatio of Michael Moore.
|
|
RE: Wasn't this supposed to be a MOVIE review?
|
reply
|
|
Posted by Jack (jack@dtheatre.com) on July 2, 2004 12:03 PM
You are right. I wouldn't generally categorize a column like this as a review but rather a opinionated editorial or column. Unfortunately, due to a lack of funding (i.e.: no one is clicking that gawddamn PayPal Donate button) we are currently a little restricted in the organizing of our content. We have a new layout currently awaiting additional funding which will support a little better categorization.
Andy's piece may very well be a "political dissertation" and/or "anti-Bush diatribe." Should someone submit "pro-Bush" material that was somewhere nearly as well written with a few researched arguments and loosely based on a film or a film related event I would post it on this site. That's what we're here for.
|
|
RE: Wasn't this supposed to be a MOVIE review?
|
reply
|
|
Posted by ag (ag@dtheatre.com) on July 2, 2004 12:09 PM
This is yet another example of how people will respond to criticism by saying what it is supposed to be, rather than dealing with what it is. Let me be frank, there is no supposed to be, there is only what is. Realistically, my job is to respond to the film, not necessarily "review" it. Furthermore, the piece is intended to expose the lack of care and attention to sound logic and fair reporting exhibited by our national press more than it is an indictement of the Bush Administration. I take it as common knowledge that the current Executive Branch is morally-bankrupt and almost completely inept in matters of policy, foreign and domestic. What has not been addressed adequately, in my opinion, is the national media's inability to string two coherent thoughts together. We have three 24 hour news networks and are less informed as a nation than ever before. Most of these hacks, even those writing for pretigious publications, would be tossed out of a freshman Philosophy, Political Science and/or Communication class for their abundant straw men, ad hocs, and red herrings. My piece was intended to survey and respond to the critical and cultural wave the film has produced; not, unfortunately, what the reader expected but a worthy task nonetheless. Thanks for reading.
|
|
RE: Wasn't this supposed to be a MOVIE review?
|
reply
|
|
Posted by ag (ag@dtheatre.com) on July 2, 2004 12:22 PM
P.S. What does oral sex have to do with anything? Apparently someone was teabagging the reader when he/she read the piece so they were not able to see the sections where I not only deal with the film specifically, but call Michael Moore to task for being self-indulgant and for over-editorializing. Whose knob I decide to slobber all over is my own business. Your business is to read, think and act. The content of the film necessitates the form and content of the review. Do we really need a discussion of Michael Moore's aesthetics? While children continue to burn in piles, set ablaze by the Christian fundamentalism and economic polarization of our "representative" government? Perhaps the reader should write that review. For my part, I will continue to expose these self- righteous wind bags for who and what they truly are. Having said that, I thought the film was well lit. Happy now?
|
|
RE: Wasn't this supposed to be a MOVIE review?
|
reply
|
|
Posted by ag (ag@dtheatre.com) on July 2, 2004 12:40 PM
And by the way, all communication is "rhetoric" douche bag.
|
|
RE: Wasn't this supposed to be a MOVIE review?
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on July 3, 2004 11:15 PM
"While children continue to burn in piles, set ablaze by the Christian fundamentalism and economic polarization of our "representative" government?"
How old are you and how long have you had this remarkable ability to make yourself look so incredibly naive?
|
|
RE: Wasn't this supposed to be a MOVIE review?
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on July 4, 2004 1:05 PM
Again, the ad hominem. Welcome to the Republican world view ladies and gentlemen. If someone criticizes your plan to kill a bunch of innocent people, then you call then naive. You call then stupid. You make fun of them because you have no real response. You divert attention from the issue by marshalling yet another anemic and self-contradictory attack on those whose oppose your tactics. What exactly, is naive about my response? Is the reader suggesting that Mr. Bush is not letting Jesus and his buddies in the oil and defense contracting businesses influence his decisions on matters of foreign policy? And I am naive? Ultimately, I am happy that anyone is reading my piece and taking the time to respond to it. Also, I could give a shit what the reader thinks of me personally. I do think that you might want to read a book or two, stop watching network news, pull your head out of your ass, and stop using words that you don't fully understand. As for the Executive Branch and the ridiculous warrants they provide (if they provide them at all) for their policy of genocide, I will continue to call it what it is. Am I naive? Perhaps. But I am also tired of watching people die. Let me ask the reader this: How many innocent Americans, including those killed in the 9/11 attacks, hve been killed by terrorists? How many innocent Iraquis and Afghanis have become collateral damage figures on some DoD report? And while we are at it, find me the New Testament support for condoning any type of warfare whatsoever, since the President loves the Scripture so much, surely there is at least one verse supporting his actions, is there not. And finally, I'd like to tell the reader that whatever you say about me bounces off of me and sticks to you.
|
|
RE: Wasn't this supposed to be a MOVIE review?
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on July 4, 2004 1:55 PM
By the way. Hi, Jen.
|
|
RE: Wasn't this supposed to be a MOVIE review?
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on July 5, 2004 5:01 AM
Amen to that, people should only be able to practise religion in the privacy of their own home.
|
|
This maybe just my theory or It may be true.
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 1, 2004 7:35 PM
I think the reason Michal Moore is so rich and yet still cant afford some normal clothes is because he spent all of his money on.....Food
|
|
RE: This maybe just my theory or It may be true.
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 20, 2004 11:21 AM
Being a gentleman of the larger persuasion myself, I was about to write something about the absurdity of this comment and how it marginalizes overweight people and ignores the heavier issues (yes I am that good). But the reader is astute and should be commended. Michael Moore is a big fat fat ass fatty fat fat fuck, and so am I. Furthermore, I believe the doughy filmmaker, like myself, is more afraid to take his shirt off at the pool than of any Homeland Security shit. It can be argued that being a fat fuck is a character flaw in that it represents a psychological weakness and an obsessive and/or greedy and lazy personality. Fat people, such as Mr. Moore and myself, lack temperance, moderation, and balance. We consume more than we should, crap more than we should, fuck less than we should, and cause many young girls in Palau or Saipan to work late hours stitching together some sort of temple curtain to cover our sagging, hairy man boobs. So good show reader. Perhaps Michael Moore can steal Steadman and Dr. Phil away from Oprah for some concentrated psychological evaluation and dietary expertise. Until then, I will be content to think of his pale, distended torso every time I am trying to last longer with a chick. Tantric, baby. Fatties unite.
|
Post YOUR opinion!
|
|
|
dtheatre.com
|
![Digital Theatre [DTheatre.com]](images/logo.gif){kind=logo}
