I do a lot of these kinds of things because questions both respond to real world conditions whilst also tapping into the imagination for solutions; the left brain merges with the right brain, unity.
So:
What is our fascination with guns and war?
Are certain terms we use, all euphemisms, fear by any other name?
Does the media glamorise self destruction, and how do we deal with that?
Do we need bullet control?
Are M16s strictly necessary?
If you don't own a gun, are you irresponsible?
Does prudence equal a life worth living? Isn't leftist compassion, no matter how misguided, closer to the spirit of life than conservative nest eggs?
If you own a gun, does that make people feel safe around you?
Are women with guns sexy? (...yeah??)
Does the American second amendment (right to bear arms) include the right to have plutonium? If not, then there's a line to be drawn, but where?
Where's the line between gun owner and psychotic?
How do we deal with stupid gun accidents?
Isn't Marilyn Manson actually very smart?
Isn't school a prison with no options (read the dictionary definition) that doesn't give kids what they want at all?
Aren't Moore's omissions and selective use of statistics, cleverly designed to make us draw conclusions in our own minds that aren't really there, based upon other truths that are present? Shouldn't all the facts be present - is Charlton Heston really bad, is Canada really that better than the US, and at the same time, isn't it also your responsibility to be neutral before casting blame? I mean, does the film really invite you to view Heston as a villain, or is that your choice to view those segments independent of the emotional charge of the rest of the piece?
Is Dick Clark, well....a dick?
If said omissions were not deliberate, what was Moore's narrative and emotional intention in these moments and how can we see it?
Is it really important that Moore omits the fact that the 6-year old who killed his classmates with a gun, got it from his mother's crack addict brother's house, and that he was already violent?
Isn't the final Heston interview a bit manipulative?
Are right wingers scared that Moore's general points might actually be right, despite the distortion? Aren't they all a little too eager to jump on the anti-Moore bandwagon because it is a kind of alternative vogue and secretly enjoy the social stroking as much as the left? Are they hoping no one notices that their debunking is both a little too spiteful, and also still doesn't discredit the central arguments? After all, isn't Moore a NRA card carrying member, and doesn't necessarily have anger towards Heston?
Aren't those who attack others emotionally motivated towards the pleasure of being right?
Don't all documentaries have bias anyway? Don't all circumstances only present a small part of infinite knowledge and truth, based on what is 'hermetically sealed' in our collective agreements, and wouldn't it be more honest to take personal responsibility and view all the facts rather than blaming someone else?
Are the government good or bad or both or neither?
Isn't corporate downsizing, like GM's layoffs and foreign outsizing and using the savings to buy up the competition, truly prudent just because they have enough money to filter reality? Don't they have all the blood on their hands that results from the homelessness - the crime and murder? Or is outsourcing to Mexico just a kind of reasonable 'band-aid to stay afloat in a competitive world'? Should we be doing that just because there seems to be no other way, no matter the consequence?
Isn't the bailout thusly, the greatest crime in history?
Isn't it tiring to have these debates, almost knowing there is no answer?
Isn't the underlying issue just fear?
No comments:
Post a Comment