I consider myself liberal and a Democrat. Yes, I voted for Gore and I would do so again in a heartbeat, despite the fact that I feel Bush is handling this crisis situation very well.
However, I find myself disagreeing with Moore rather extensively, not only with his latest message, but with many of the messages he wrote during his cross-country trip (as posted by Danospano).
In a previous note, Moore criticized the opening of the stock market. He claimed that the U.S. was so greedy that we couldn't wait to get back to making money. Funny thing to say from a man who mentioned fighting his own deadlines for a book deal...
What irritated me most about Moore's criticism here is that when I heard the clanging of the stockmarket bells (on the NYSE) on Sept. 17th (as rung by NCY firemen), a tear welled up in my eye. I felt pride. I felt honor. I felt conviction. I felt perseverence. We will go on. Anyone who owned stocks clearly lost a fortune that day as the stocks plummeted. This wasn't about money. It was about the U.S. persevering despite this horrible tragedy. This was an honor to those who lost their lives, not an insult. To me, Moore completely missed the point. As Bubba mentioned, it seems Moore is so anti-capitalism that not only can he not see the irony of his own capitalist actions, but he is incapable of recognizing the good that came when the market reopened.
Moore's writing is also rather immature - despite the fact that he does have some brilliant ideas. It seems he lacks the ability to fully or properly express himself. Barring a few token exceptions, whenever I read his works, I feel lacking - as if something is missing. As Melon wisely stated, Moore oftens little to no alternatives. Perhaps this is what is missing. It's easy to complain, but genius comes from those who are able to offer alternatives and then make those alternatives work. Moore simply criticizes - any child can do as much.
Nonetheless, strip away Moore's often poor attempts at humor or irrelevant references and his ultimate points do prevail. Is war the only alternative? Why did we have to attack now? Why not provide more time - especially since there isn't conclusive proof of Bin Laden's guilt? I've read countless articles which state that the counts found against Bin Laden "look good" but would not hold up in court. If this is true, then are we truly attacking the right man, government or country? Why not gather more proof? Why not direct the bombs so that they do the most damage - not so that Taliban can gleefully declare that Bin Laden is still a free man despite our attacks? Why bomb at all? Why not use a series of covert operations to capture this man? And after his capture or death - will this truly solve anything? Why not prepare the U.S. better to prevent further terrorist attacks first? And perhaps most important of all, why not correct our egregious foreign affair mistakes?
Melon's point also stands. It seems that too many people in this country are far too enthusiastic for war or revenge. Anyone that dares say otherwise is considered "anti-American." It seems to me that the MOST American thing a person can do IS to challenge those in power. Those who blindly follow the current thinking are far more suited to serving Bin Laden than living in the U.S.
In summary, Moore, despite his fame, needs to retake "English 201" to improve his writing. Still, he raises valid issues and concerns that should be addressed. And as Americans, we should challenge those in power, for this is what creates true growth.
.
[This message has been edited by doctorwho (edited 10-10-2001).]