RRbanner.jpg

June 30, 2004

My favorite part of Fahrenheit 9/11 is when Doc Ock dangles the Iraqi baby over the bridge

No, I haven't seen F911 yet. And with a certain superhero movie now in theaters, I can't say it's my top priority. But I'm happy to keep rounding up other people's idiotic responses to the film -- on both sides.

First blowhard up, Michael Moore himself. You may know that some people played a little gotcha with MM because he failed to acknowledge in the flick that the guy who authorized those controversial Bin Laden family flights is the same guy who, in other sections of the film, is cast as the hero: Richard Clarke.

My guess is that Moore simply made a stupid miscalculation. As a heavy-handed propagandist he thought, "Just don't mention the stuff that causes people to question anything about my argument." A more deft propagandist would know that raising small questions about your own point of view is actually what wins people over to your side, making you look fair-minded. If he'd simply said, "The call was made by Richard Clarke. Nobody's perfect," it might get a chuckle and people could focus on the important part of the story: the flights themselves.

Hell, Moore probably didn't even think it through that far. But once it became an issue, he had an obligation not to dissemble about it, which is just what he did. Here's what Jake Tapper asked him on ABC News: "What the film does not mention is that Richard Clarke says that he OK'd those flights. Is it fair to not mention that?"

Moore's response: "Actually I do, I put up The New York Times article and it's blown up 40 foot on the screen, you can see Richard Clarke's name right there saying that he approved the flights based on the information the FBI gave him. It's right there, right up on the screen. I don't agree with Clarke on this point. Just because I think he's good on a lot of things doesn't mean I agree with him on everything."

Yes, I'm sure MM really believes that when he flashes an article on the screen, the audience is not just going to look at the headline, they're going to read the entire thing, and make note of every person who's quoted in it. The second part of his statement is fine. Why didn't he just say that?

But Moore's critics are stooping even lower than that. Apparently unable to catch him in any major falsehoods, they're changing his words in order to trip him up. Drew has the scoop:

I came across the link to a transcript for the first half of Fahrenheit 9/11 that was done by [right wingnuts] redlinerants.com.... There's been a great deal of criticism (fueled by a Newsweek article) which alleges that the film claims that the Bin Laden family members weren't interviewed before leaving the country. Michael Moore refutes the claim here, where he quotes an exchange from the movie:

Moore: "So a little interview, check the passport, what else?"

Unger: "Nothing."

But according to redlinerants.com's transcript?

NARRATOR: So what did they do, they checked the passports, what else?

CRAIG UNGER: Nothing.

See the problem? This isn't a semantics issue, there's a whole world of difference between the two quotes, and Moore is getting creamed for this so-called omission. So I took it upon myself to make a 10 second AVI clip of the scene. There's absolutely no question whatsoever that Moore said "A little interview, check the passport, what else?"

Can this issue officially die now?

Die? Drew, you crazy dreamer!

But the homerun blowhard king is, of course, Jack Valenti. Per Defamer: "The MPAA is disallowing a quote by Roger Ebert caddy Richard Roeper that it wanted to use in its ad campaign. The offending quote: 'Everyone should see this film.' You see, F 9/11 lost a ratings appeal and carries an R rating, so the MPAA interprets that 'everyone' as a call to violate the age restriction the rating carries."

If that's true, and not just another MM publicity stunt, that's the stupidist thing I've heard from the MPAA in, like, a week.

Posted by Daniel Radosh

Comments

Just when I thought it was safe to come out and complement you on your last non-review, you’re on Moore’s case again. The previous review I would say was remarkably on target for someone who hasn’t seen it, but the last one is not. Here is something I wrote after reading Hitchens’ review; you want your name in here instead??

Why Christopher Hitchens hates Michael Moore:

On the surface it appears to be left criticizing left. Christopher Hitchens gives Michael Moore’s latest movie a review so uncontrollably vitriolic it’s hard to imagine anything above Adolph Hitler’s artwork, or John Ashcroft’s singing, deserving of such hateful treatment. But when comparing these two, left and “left” have two distinct meanings. Hitchens has all the credentials. He wrote for The Nation prolifically. He certainly possesses a flowery vocabulary. He has blasted Mother Theresa. He’s British. Who is Michael Moore but a blue jean and ball cap wearing “bum” from Flint Michigan? So; why all the venom?
Christopher Hitchens hates Michael More because of blind, reckless jealousy. Moore’s slanted but poignant art highlights Hitchen’s blithering and vicious dribble for exactly what it is, and Hitchens can’t stand it. How DARE such an upstart like Moore redefine what the American left is, and make the bitchy, shallow, self important gossip Hitchens vomits out so completely irrelevant.
Could someone rightly criticize Moore for being manipulative and non-objective? Yes. Could someone honestly say Moore is bias and unrefined? Probably. Is he sincere? No doubt. Brilliant? Unassailably. An artist who, though his passion just drove the last nail in the coffin of the Bush reelection campaign? Absolutely. So where does this leave Hitchens besides pathetically insignificant? To work the “darling leftist of the right” shtick for a few more paychecks no doubt. It’s ironic that the right has always criticized the “liberal elite”, and it is exactly that faction that soullessly attempts to give “leftist” weight to the radical rights murderous, thieving cause. I am at least comforted by knowing that Hitchens is fully self aware of what a grotesque little man he is; His hatefulness and desperation leaves me no doubt in that.

Well, Hitch can defend himself. But as for being "on Moore's case again," is there anything about the specific charge I make here that you want to refute, or is it just that challenging Michael Moore at all when So Much Is At Stake is inherently -- what's the word? -- hateful? Even if I go on to challenge Moore's critics too? Seriously, if you think slapping Moore's wrist for lying on TV gives" weight to the radical right's murderous, thieving cause," you ain't gonna make it with anyone, anyhow.

Also, you may want to be careful about throwing around the "weight" in the context of Michael Moore. Don't you know how fat the guy is?

Daniel and Christopher Hitchens are nothing alike. For instance, you can spell "Christopher Hitchens" using only the letters in the word "nephrotics" (people afflicted with kidney disease), which clearly shows his degenerate nature. Daniel would never allow such a thing to happen.

I think it would have been worth a little extra work to find something about liver disease instead.

To answer your “charge”, yes, you are correct, but this is on criticism you really shouldn’t make without seeing the movie. If Moore had given Clark a major role in the movie, which I was actually expecting before I saw it, then such an explanation would have been necessary. But Clark’s part is rather minor. If Moore had gone out of his way to make it obvious that Clark approved the flights, then that would have come off as heavy handed. And what does OK mean?? Was it Clark’s idea?? Or did he cave into pressure from Bush?? The entire country gave Bush far too much latitude after 9/11 (except a few freaks like me), and I’m sure Clark was no exception.

If you were to SEE the movie, and still felt in the grand scope of the movie that this omission is as bad as you characterize it above, then fair enough. As far as the “Hate” goes, I have a rather specific definition. Whenever the political debate goes from a critique of ideas to the meaningless name calling, bullying; “playground politics” that the media is rank with, it becomes hateful in my book. Calling Michael Moore fat in the same article that you’ve attacked him in other ways is hateful, no different than Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton “the white house dog”. Also, when one politician attempts to gain political power though exploiting one group’s prejudices about another group, that is hateful. Who gives a fuck about the fact Michael Moore is FAT? I was FAT as a kid, as well as being a FAG, a NERD, and a GEEK. I have an idea, let’s go with the cool, popular, attractive, “likable” rich kids who are devoid of any intellectual curiosity, “elect” them president, and watch them FUCK UP THE WORLD.

What started as a disease of anti-intellectualism in this country has given fertile ground to the disease of hate we have now. Let’s face it, it’s a lot cooler to be clever than intelligent. When I call Hitchens a “grotesque little man”, I’m not talking about his physical appearance.

I thought I made clear that my main criticism here of Moore was not of what he did in the film, but what he did on TV defending it: he lied. When Tapper asked him about Clarke, Moore could easily have said what you did: Clarke's not a big part of the movie, so calling attention to him here would have been heavy handed. Instead, he said, oh, I expected people to read his name in this New York Times article I put up on the screen "40 feet high" Bullshit (and what if you downloaded it?)

But now that you've offered a definition of hate, what exactly about Hitchens' piece fits that definition. I made clear that I disagree with him on this, but he's clearly offering a critique of ideas. Other than perhaps calling the film "crap," which is an aethetic judgment he backs up at least as well as you back up calling Hitchens "grotesque" and "little," where does Hitchens stoop to "meaningless name calling" or "bullying."

Wait, bullying? Are you sure you want to include that? I haven't seen F911, but I've seen all of Moore's other films and I could reel off numerous people -- from the powerful and famous who maybe deserve it to minimum-wage security guards who most certainly do not -- whom Moore has bullied mercilessly.

Why don't you just admit that your side is always right and the other side is always wrong? And that Michael Moore is fat. I wish you'd stop trying to deny that.

In what way did Moore actually LIE? not mislead, not avoid, but LIE. As far as Hitchens being hateful, how about "I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible". As far as me not admitting to Moore being fat; How about this, Michael Moore is FAT, hugely FAT, clinically OBESE, ok?

Kev writes:

"To answer your 'charge', yes, you are correct, but this is [a] criticism you really shouldn’t make without seeing the movie."

Since when does one need to take special steps to make correct statements? Anyway, your other point (that is, your relevant point) is much better made by simply saying that you feel Richard Clarke plays a smaller part in the film than has been reported, and not burying that in a screed about how Daniel and his minions are bringing down the left with their dangerous thought crimes.

And what's with calling Moore clinically obese? Do you have something against fat people?

And now that I have a few extra minutes, a more long winded response again. I wanted to answer: “Why don’t you just admit your side is always right and that the other side is always wrong?” Such a statement, along with being insulting and presumptuous, leads me to believe that you haven’t really been trying to understand what I’ve been saying. Have I not said Michael Moore is far from perfect?? You want more? I will tell you this, after watching Columbine, I thought he went way over the line with Charlton Heston; no matter how much of an asshole he might be, Moore trapped him and it was uncalled for.

Mark my words, our country is about to embark on a large swing to the left, and when it does, inevitable ugliness will ensue. If you get such a kick out of calling the left on excesses, you will get your opportunity to do so responsibly. Right now however, when 95% of the irresponsible, sloppy, hateful and shallow journalism is on the right, and when every figure in the left continues to get more than their fair share of criticism, you think I go after you for going after Moore because I’m just so blindly devoted to my side? You don’t know me at all, and I think presents a problem for you. What audience are you going for? I think for the most part I’m a pretty level headed, rational person who has been radicalized because the entire country has been radicalized the opposite direction. If I find work of yours revolting, doesn’t that cause you a little concern? I know the right for the most part would not only never be exposed to your work, but they would also find other pieces revolting; so who are you left with? A small community of people who just find it kind of cool to indiscriminately bitch about everything and everybody? In my opinion, only drag queens get the OK on that.

You said that you hold yourself to the same high standard that you do Moore and others. From my perspective, I would say that is just as much of a lie as the way Moore defended himself on TV; I’m just not convinced. Oh well….It is probably pointless for me to post anything else on this site, but out of curiosity I will look for your first critique after you have actually seen the film.

>A small community of people who just find it kind of cool to >indiscriminately bitch about everything and everybody?

Strangely, I'm pretty sure that if you look up "blog" in the dictionary, that's the exact definition.

Please keep posting, for reals. Or better yet, get your own blog. You've obviously got it in you.

Going to see it tomorrow if I can get in.

Rose and I tried to go see it earlier tonight, but it was sold out. So good luck to you.

Kev wrote earlier: "I suppose of course that it depends on what one's definition of hate is, but a bush=hitler sign is not hateful in my book."

Kev also wrote: "Whenever the political debate goes from a critique of ideas to the meaningless name calling, bullying; “playground politics” that the media is rank with, it becomes hateful in my book."

Seems like your book could use some revising, Kev.

Well, in my opinion, the Bush administration IS fascistic.

a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

If genocide somehow made Halliburton money, I would not put it beneath them. Anyway, I hold journalist to a different standard than people on the street. I would assume you didn’t see a “Bush=Hitler” sign held up by an anchor of the nightly news? I admit such a sign isn’t really constructive, but it is a subtle difference between extreme anger and hate. Hate is about control and distraction, or at least contributing to the "noise" that smothers meaningful debate. Someone holding up a “bush=Hitler” sign is expressing anger. I'm sure you'll wildly dissagree; however, I honestly believe the extreme right in this country (just read Ann Coulter), would rather have no political opposition. People on the left may want to be in power, but they at least recognize a need for there to be another side, or even more than two sides (wow, what a concept). I've been in events protested by Phred Felps (alot of them actually). The signs they hold up make "bush=hitler" look nice, but protest is protest, and I would never want to rob Felps of the right to do so.

One man's hate is another man's anger, I suppose. Your criterion for differentiating seems to be the target of that emotion. Bush is a target of anger, but Moore is somehow a target of Daniel's hatred?

"Consistency is all I ask- Give us this day our daily task."

Michael, you seem far more interested in one-upping me by pointing out perceived inconsistencies that actually trying to understand what I’m saying, which I suppose is consistent with this website. I went back and read the “5 reasons” article again just to see if I had gotten it all wrong. Nope. Whether it is “hateful” or not, it is a series of petty jabs and cheap shots. I could go through and point out how irrelevant and irresponsible the article is point by point and examine Daniels hypocrisy; but I’m sure it would just a be a waste of time.

Actually, Kev, I care to understand why you have multiple standards more than I care what you have to say, if only because what you say is driven by those standards. You have accused a broad swath of people, "the right," of hatred, which smacks of the very intolerance you decry. When similar actions are performed by "the left," you call that anger, which is supposedly justifiable.

This is an inconsistency. Do not wish it away by calling it "perceived." I gave you as much room as possible by letting you use "your own" definition of hate. Here's a hint when it comes to "it all depends on your definition of X:" You can call an onion an apple, but don't expect me to eat your apple pie. Moore may swallow that, but I won't.

Your take on hate and anger goes further than this, though: Those on the left who do not feel as you do are "haters." Michael Moore makes a film- he is "angry." Christopher Hitchens, whoever he may be, critiques that film. He is characterized by you as, and I quote, "...uncontrollably vitriolic...blithering and vicious...bitchy, shallow, self important...pathetically insignificant...grotesque little man..." All of which *could* be true- I don't know the man or his work. But you also say that you would characterize Daniel in the exact same terms because he does not follow your line. I won't swallow it, as I *do* know Daniel and his work.

Kev, I'm going to share two bits of hard-earned wisdom I wish I had known about 15 years ago:

1) If more than 3 people in your life are assholes, maybe it's you.

2) Life is far too short to be angry every day.

And a bonus, which I *did* know:

3) The root of ALL humor is pain.

There's no denying you are angry. Your splitting of hairs between anger and hate is most telling, though. It reminds me of the doctor who catches the disease he's studied all his life and says, "but on ME, it looks good."

You wrote: "People on the left may want to be in power, but they at least recognize a need for there to be another side, or even more than two sides (wow, what a concept)."

Well, Kev, you can talk the talk. So when are you going to recognize Daniel's side? Y'know, the side that says that few things are too important to be made fun of, but many things are too important to be covered with bullshit?

For all the talk of hate and anger, the only one frothing here is you. There's hope, though- At least you've come to admit that Moore has a massive problem. We were beginning to worry. It's a weighty issue.

Well Michael, I’m not a writer, and I have made contradictory statements because I’ve tried to describe in a few paragraphs what really would need a book to describe, and I’ve largely been “thinking aloud” on this blog. If you really want to know where I’m coming from, I would suggest reading “What’s the matter with Kansas” by Thomas Frank. You said “I care to understand why you have multiple standards more than I care what you have to say”, which confirms what I said in my previous post.

I can say this; the difference between hate and anger is about intent far more than the actual words or tone expressed, and I know that this is purely my subjective take on things. The rhetoric on both sides might sound similar in some ways, but I’ve never heard a convincing case of “liberal hate speech” in the media, and Bernie Goldberg certainly doesn’t make the case. As a liberal, I honestly cannot think of any way that I am trying to limit the wrights and freedom of anyone else. Can you? But this is what hate is all about to me. Everyday I drive on interstate 35, I see a gigantic sign that says “Kobach for Congress: Protecting marriage, fighting terrorism, cutting taxes”. Can I ask how passing laws blatantly discriminating against homosexuals “protects marriage”? Therein lays the essence of hate to me. This Kobach idiot fosters a lie that would result in damaging people’s lives for his own political gain. What laws are liberals trying to pass that would single out a group to deprive them of equal rights? What laws are liberals trying to pass that would result in a crippled press? If there are any, I certainly haven’t heard of them. Whatever lines he has crossed or “bullshit” he has said, these are the kinds of issues Moore is talking about; he has never given me any reason to doubt he is on my side.

I certainly am angry about many things, but I don’t see why I shouldn’t be. As far as “frothing at the mouth” and taking myself too seriously, once again you don’t know me. The whole reason why I started posting here is simply to call Daniel on the same type of bullshit that he claimed he was calling Moore on. Daniel of course has the right to write whatever he wants. He might believe that what he has done has resulted in some type of social good, and it might even be true; but frankly it just strikes me as a big fat lie (sorry to bring up the weight thing again). Daniel has time and again said something like “if Moore just admitted to x, then…” Similarly, I could say to Daniel, why don’t you just admit your articles are purely about “entertainment” and have no social conscience?

-"Well Michael, I’m not a writer, and I have made contradictory statements because [...]"

It doesn't take professional writing skills to keep from contradicting yourself. What it DOES take is a willingness to hold to a single standard. It's not easy, but it is rewarding.

-"You said “I care to understand why you have multiple standards more than I care what you have to say”, which confirms what I said in my previous post."

Who said I was denying it?

-"I can say this; the difference between hate and anger is about intent far more than the actual words or tone expressed, and I know that this is purely my subjective take on things. "

So, when you called Daniel a "blithering moron," you meant it in a good way? Like a term of endearment, right? Or did it depend on a definition of moron of which I am not yet aware?

Well, let me help you out here with a more objective source- Hate(n): an intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or a sense of injury. (Merriam Webster) Wow! Yoda was right! Fear DOES lead to anger which leads to hate which leads to the Dark Side! Or you can keeping splitting hairs fine enough so that your side's "anger" is somehow better than their side's "hate."

-"I’ve never heard a convincing case of “liberal hate speech”"

Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson
Al "Digital Brown Shirts" Gore
Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton
Robert "Grand Wizard" Byrd

Does these (very) few examples exculpate "the right?" Of course not. But don't think the left is squeaky clean, mister. Not by a long shot. If you haven't been convinced, that speaks more about you than it does about "the left."

-"As a liberal, I honestly cannot think of any way that I am trying to limit the wrights and freedom of anyone else. Can you?"

Oh, no, no, no... yes. You'd just like everyone to THINK as you do, which is more pernicious.

-"Can I ask how passing laws blatantly discriminating against homosexuals “protects marriage”?"

You can ask. I wouldn't know the answer. You can try asking Bush. Or you can try asking Kerry. Neither of them support gay marriage, y'know. I guess that means that Bush hates gays, while Kerry is merely angry at them?

-"This Kobach idiot fosters a lie that would result in damaging people’s lives for his own political gain."

This differs from Kerry's Vietnam war crimes claims in what way? Or Sharpton destroying the life and reputation of Steven Pagones? (Again with Sharpton! Sigh.)

-"What laws are liberals trying to pass that would single out a group to deprive them of equal rights?"

Gun owners, for one, but the right to defend oneself against, say, a pogrom or a "hate crime" may not matter much to you.

-"What laws are liberals trying to pass that would result in a crippled press?"

So I'm the only on who remembers Tipper Gore and the PMRC? True, that didn't involve the press per se, but it was a first amendment issue. Thanks to the right, I have to worry about saying words like "fuck," or was that the left? Perhaps I should ask Senator Leahy. Thanks to the left, I have to worry about saying words like "God." Or was that the right? Who can tell anymore?

Now riddle me this- what laws are conservatives trying to pass that will, as you put it, "cripple the press?" I really don't know. If there are, I'd like to know, so I can fight them.

-"Whatever lines he has crossed or “bullshit” he has said, these are the kinds of issues Moore is talking about"

That still doesn't excuse him from crossing those lines, pal. Moore is a professional. He knows how to construct an argument in film. That he does what he does in the way that he does it is laziness at best, dishonesty at worst.

-"The whole reason why I started posting here is simply to call Daniel on the same type of bullshit that he claimed he was calling Moore on."

No, you wrote to call him a blithering moron. But what do I know? Maybe that pick-up line works in Kansas, but New Yorkers are a bit more sophisticated than that. In any case, Daniel's taken.

-"Similarly, I could say to Daniel, why don’t you just admit your articles are purely about “entertainment” and have no social conscience? "

Since when is that a sin? And why do you take it upon yourself to get so, well, angry about it? Look at the top of the page. It says "Pop, Politics, Sex, So on." You want people to share your "anger?" Go to the Democratic Underground. You want people to "hate?" I'd bet you'd have fun at nicedoggie.net .

I wouldn't let Daniel's critiques of Moore cast a large shadow over your mood. Given everything else, I just don't think Moore should eclipse this site- otherwise, we would suffer from excessive gravitas.

Well goodness, look who’s foaming at the mouth now! I must have struck a nerve. I could systematically deconstruct your last post as you did mine, but I know this is all an exercise in futility since you’ve made it very clear that you don’t care what I have to say. I might suggest however that you do actually listen to a liberal every so often. If you did, you might avoid making insane mischaracterizations like “You just like everyone to THINK like you do”. God forbid; what a tedious place the world would be if that were the case! No, in all actuality, on that subject I would suggest as a matter of principle it’s a virtue to try to understand the thinking of those who disagree with you. I certainly have tried to do this. I suppose you, as a white straight male, (I admit I’m guessing on this one), find some crazy liberal holding up a “Bush=Hitler” sign as much of a threat to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and I find being fired, physically threatened, denied health care, property rights, tax breaks, and the ability to adopt. Personally I don’t quite understand that, but maybe if I had the “sophistication” of a New Yorker I would. Speaking of sophisticated New Yorkers, I did call Daniel a blithering idiot, but I was honestly trying to match the tone of him calling Moore a blowhard and a prick. To this point I’ve continued blogging because Daniel said he wanted me too, but I have to admit after this silly exchange I really have a sour taste in my mouth. I may respond to Daniel after he finally sees the movie for cathartic reasons, but until then I think I will not bother you with the “multiple standards” you find so troubling. I’m sure you’ll enjoy getting the last word in making yourself right and me wrong; the paramount importance you place on that is quite obvious.

-"Well goodness, look who’s foaming at the mouth now!"

Who? Me? Heh. Just what insult slipped my cybernetic tongue?

-"you’ve made it very clear that you don’t care what I have to say. "

Yes. Your message, however worthy it might be, is compromised by your invective and loose understanding of facts. I will leave the parallel betwen you and Moore as an exercise to the reader. Indeed, it's the entire point.

-"I might suggest however that you do actually listen to a liberal every so often. "

Every time I talk, Kev. I listen to myself every time I talk.

-"If you did, you might avoid making insane mischaracterizations like ...

Like calling someone a blithering moron the very first time you communicate with him? Or equating a US president of suboptimal intelligence who (whether you agree with the war or not) undeniably kept thousands of Iraqis from the future plans of Saddams' prisons' depredations and mass graves with the National Socialist monster who sent millions upon millions of humans (on the basis of them being Jews, Catholics, Gays and Freemasons) to their deaths in the gas chambers? Or equating bloggers who suport the war with some of the nastiest brutes in that Socialist regime? I find trivializing the holocaust for mere rhetorical purposes hateful, Kevin, and I don't have to invent a definition of hate to justify that opinion.

-"... like “You just like everyone to THINK like you do”."

Well, I must admit I have trouble understanding just why it is you expect Daniel to think like you do on this issue. You say you want to learn from other points of view, but when confronted with them, well, your invective is already part of the record.

-"To this point I’ve continued blogging because Daniel said he wanted me too, but I have to admit after this silly exchange I really have a sour taste in my mouth. "

Well, don't let ME stop you from writing. You can always learn from another point of view. I know *I* always do. Of course, if you'd rather just hear your thoughts echoed back to you, that's your business. Feedback is part of the learning process, you know.

-"I’m sure you’ll enjoy getting the last word in making yourself right and me wrong; the paramount importance you place on that is quite obvious.

I did not make you wrong, Kevin. You did that yourself. I merely held the glass to your words- and there's very little joy in that. I do place a paramount importance on trying my very best to understand the facts of a situation, though. If that makes me right, well, perhaps you should try it sometime. It beats calling people names just because you feel threatened. It can even give you the power to face down your threat.

Remember, Kevin: Life is too short to be angry every day. If more than 3 people in your life are assholes, it may be you. Pain is the root of all humor- when you can laugh at pain, the healing has begun.

You have a lot of passion within you, Kevin. It gives you your power. Don't let it blind you, though.

"If only you would use your power for good!"
-every single SuperFriends episode.

Oy.

Post a comment

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2