Moore & Me

For years I would hear things from my mom about the crazy and immoral Michael Moore.  I never actually saw one of his movies, but when you're a kid you tend to share the opinions of your parents.  So when I found out that we were watching one of his documentaries in American Studies I was pretty excited.  I found myself enjoying the movie immensely, you have to admit it's very persuasive, not to mention entertaining.  But I couldn't help feeling a little manipulated by Moore.  It kind of felt like he was twisting this story to make a point of his own.  It's brilliant filmmaking, but when Mr. Lawler said that he actually did get an interview with Roger, I felt a little cheated.

In an article from Canada.com telling about a documentary about Moore I found out some things that tainted my image of him even moore (haha pun).  It turns out the guy' not even from Flint! This really made me upset.  He has used the false information that he was a resident of Flint to make us feel sympathetic for him.  As he was getting upset at the destruction of Flint so were we because we were seeing it from his point of view.  It also tells us about the fact that he did interview Roger Smith and that us just decided not to use it because it would create a stronger argument for him and garner some sympathy from the audience.

One of the parts that really made me mad was when I found out that the whole news van being stolen part was completely staged.  A documentary should not be tampered like that.  It's supposed to be all true, not based on truth.  It's almost the Stephen Fry effect.  At what point do you call it fiction?  

The article makes a good point.  Documentaries are supposed to have all the facts, good and bad, black and white, positive and negative, so that the audience can decide for themselves.  When Moore makes up facts he is giving us no choice but to agree with him.  It makes for a good movie, but not for a good documentary.

What is war?

For this blog post I wanted to explore how we think of war.  We talk about war daily, we're even currently in one.  But how do people's definitions of war differ? What is the proper definition?  How is that different from our own?  How is that different from the government's definition?Merriam-Webster defines war in several different ways.  As a noun: 

1 a (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed conflict (3): state of war b: the art or science of warfare c (1)obsolete :weapons and equipment for war (2)archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war2 a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end war> war against disease> c: variance, odds 3

And as an "intransitive" verb:

1 : to be in active or vigorous conflict2 : to engage in warfare

There are other more archaic definitions but these are the two main ones that we use today.  But in my opinion, I don't think these are specific enough.  This makes any conflict or skirmish a way.  As we know, the U.S. has recognized 12 American wars since the U.S. began, but by the dictionary's definition, we've been in a lot more.  So to find the legal definition of war I looked on the "Lectric Law Library" and found this definition:

WAR - A contention by force; or the art of paralysing the forces of an enemy...
War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it. 
National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence; it is defensive on the part of that government which receives such act; but it is very difficult to say what is the first act of violence. If a nation sees itself menaced with an attack, its first act of violence to prevent such attack, will be considered as defensive. 
To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the Constitution with this power. And it seems it need not be declared by both the belligerent powers. By the Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Congress is invested with power "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; and they have also the power to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy." 

So this definition gives us a little more insight as to how the government whittled down the thousands of skirmishes and disputes to 12 major wars.  According to this war is not just an act but a state or condition and there must be a public declaration saying so.  It also explains that congress has the power to declare war and manage armies etc.  But I still think this isn't enough.  These formal definitions of war do not account for when a country is supplying weapons or money to fuel a civil or national war.  The term war really bring awareness to a situation and I think that making the definition inclusive to these types of scenarios would be very good for the state of the world.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war[1]

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/w038.htm

A Presidency of Dunces

I found an article from The Times (see link at bottom) where a "panel of experts from The Times" ranked every U.S. president in order of how "great" they were. Some of the results were very obvious, but some were not as easy to see as you'd think.
Lincoln topped the list as the best president of all time (surprise surprise...) and James Buchanan brought up the rear as the worst president. Neither of these were huge surprises to me. What I wasn't expecting was our good friend James Polk to be number nine. The reason they give for giving him such a high place on the list is that he acquired a ton of land for the U.S. It also celebrates him for suffocating the Mexicans. We are supposed to believe that he was one the the best presidents because of his ideals of "manifest destiny." I'm not saying he was bad, I really do think he was great (not that I know a whole lot about him), but I think that LBJ or Andrew Jackson deserve to be higher on the list then Polk. (Even though his name is a lot of fun to say.) LBJ did great things for the Civil Rights Movement that I think are more important historically than the expansion of the nation. Please understand, I'm not saying that the expansion of the U.S. wasn't importaint, in fact I think it was incredibly important for the nation. I just think that if I had to choose between U.S. expansion and the civil rights movement, I'd pick the second one.
On the note of LBJ, I think that he and JFK should've tied. JFK beat out LBJ by one place, but I feel like they kinda worked in tandem. JFK had the new ideals and the fresh policies, but he was assassinated before he could carry out many of his intended plans. LBJ picked up where he left of and made his political dreams real. They did a tie later in the list, why can't they do it here?
Also, I'd like to talk about the tie between Nixon and Bush Jr. I wouldn't move them from their place in the list, because they were definately not good presidents, but at least in Bush's case, I don't think he should be hated as much as he is. He was truely doing what he thought was right for the country, and how can he be completely blamed for that? His mistake letting people influence him into not changing what he was doing. He needed a drastic change in what he was doing. Also, I don't think he was suited for the role of president. But that doesn't mean we should crucify him. I personally think he seems like a really likeable guy, but people judge his character by his poor skills at being president.
Anyway I thought that was an interesting article. Also, it should be noted that I am not an expert at presidents, I just made judgements off of what I read in the article, and what I had learned from other places (such as AIS). I'm probably very wrong in most parts.

link

Dimming the City of Lights

"We'll always have Paris."
So says the hero of Casablanca, one of the many, many, cultural influences that over-romanticize the city of lights. Maybe it is deserving of all its hype, but you cannot deny that it is widely considered the end-all be-all of romantic hotspots. People call it the city of love, describing l'amor as something physical, floating through the city. The drifting cigarette smoke, the bohemians sipping cappachinos at a nearby cafe, the artists painting the surrounding city; it does have an air of romance. But what makes Paris so different from London or Madrid or Barcelona or heck, even Chicago? We've hyped up an otherwise normal european city to be the Mecca of love. I've personally never been to Paris, and I bet it's really great, but I find it hard to believe that it will the incredibly mysterious romantic city that it's built up to be.
In an article from away.com (see link at bottom), author Elina Furman writes lovingly about the beauty of the city and the many locations that are ideal for romance. "Everything about the City of Light... acts as a kind of elixir to the soul," she gushes shamelessly. I don't doubt that Paris is a beautiful city that I would one day love to visit, but it is so heavily romanticized that I feel almost suffocated by the idea of it. It's made out to be so unimaginably astounding that I'm worried the novelty will wear off before I even get to visit it.
If I ever get to visit Paris, I hopefully can get past my reserves concerning the over-romatic antics the city seems to be made from and just enjoy the city. There has to be something to the stories, right?

link

I'm a huge fan of eating meat. I was just raised to like it. It's tasty, it's satisfying, it get's the job done. But I found out some pretty disturbing things about meat and how it effects the entire world. According to vegsource.com, there are many arguments as to why our meat consumption should be toned down quite a bit. They have many arguments with evidence for this, but I think the most convincing was the hunger argument. According to them if Americans reduced their meat consumption by 10%, the land freed up could feel 100 million people. It doesn't give many details like a time frame or how they'd get the food or what food would be grown, but it still packs a powerful punch. It also goes on to say how most of the corn and oats and grains produced in America are used to feed livestock. This is rather convincing because it shows if we ate less meat there would be less livestock and if there was less livestock there would be more food. It seems to make sense. Another convincing point is that on one acre of land 40,000 pounds of potatoes can be grown while only 250 pounds of beef can be produced. It all makes perfect sense and if you read the page the other arguments are very logical too. But my question is, if it's so obvious that less meat is a good thing, then how come we are still eating it by the shovelfull?
I have some ideas. For starters we're really used to consuming meat, and plus it's tasty. Old habits die hard and plus, I can say personally switching from meat eating to vegan is tough. My mom had a phase of at least a year and a half where she was obsessed with eating organic. We would often have meatless meatballs and meatless bacon and meatless meat. I'm not gonna lie, it was pretty disgusting. But another reason is because it's profitable. There's nothing more important to people than money, and less beef means less money. So in order to keep the cash flowing they have to keep the beef flowing. That also makes perfect sense and it's probably the main reason. Another main reason is that many people just don't know. I know I didn't. Meat is thought of as being healthy and the stuff that builds muscles, it's hard to see the overall impact that producing meat has on the world when we see the immediate benefits so much sooner. So for now I will try to eat less meat, but unless somehow the word is spread quickly and well about the harm meat has on the world, I don't see less beef in our future.

link

Stalkerazzi

My sister is a frequenter of sites such as perezhilton.com. She likes her celebrity gossip and candid photos, and hey, who can blame her? Let's be honest, it's really interesting to hear about what the daily life of your favorite movie star or musician is really like. Here's where the Paparazzi come in. I always hear about the Paparazzi ruining lives, so being the curious person that I am, I decide to look wikipedia it. I never realized what horrible people these photographers are. For example, a photographer crashed his car into Catherine Zeta-Jones's car in order to get her out of it. Some photographers were found camping on Susan Sarandon's property, as in her house. And of course the most famous would be the debate of whether Princess Diana's death was due to the Paparazzi they were fleeing from. This seems like a minor subject, but I feel like it's exploitation and pornography. These leeches are making a quick buck out of harassing celebrities. They intentionally try to get a reaction out of them to make the footage more sensational. If you've ever seen a show called TMZ it's all they do. If you haven't seen it, count yourself lucky. It's painful to watch. It's a room full of people saying who they harassed and then showing the footage. It's truly despicable.
This makes me wonder how far is too far. When will something so horrific happen because of the Paparazzi that laws will be put against them. Already there are laws against being too aggressive while getting photos of celebrities. But just look at all the photos of people like Amy Winehouse. It's horrible of course what she's doing to herself and she obviously has some issues that she needs to deal with, but for Christ's sake leave her alone! She's troubled enough without four trillion people trying to get her to look bad. Anyway, I didn't even expect to be writing about this, but after looking at what a person will do to get a stupid photo I had to say something.

On Gugle Making us Stoopid

I wanted to touch on the topic we discussed a few days ago with the "Google is making us stupid" article. There is really no way to measure the affect on google on the entire population, but we can make good guesses based on certain cases. When Carr quotes Karp and Friedman, two persons well versed in literature according to Carr, this evidence really puts in to words something I've noticed myself. I'm beginning to read books the way I read online, in short bursts. I have diagnosed attention deficit disorder and I have trouble listening and reading one thing for too long. It's a trade off though because when I get into something I'm interested in, I hyperfocus for a short burst of time which can be personally rewarding. It's not a big deal, but ADD does affect almost everything I do. But I feel like more and more people are beginning to have ADD of some kind. This makes me wonder, are we being conditioned by society and by basically ourselves to have short attention spans? This is basically the argument Carr is making. Will our education system then adapt to this new way of thinking? I can personally say that a short attention span and our current education system do not mesh. I don't think either the person or the system are at fault. But something has to be changed in one or the other won't survive.
But we can't forget that google has revolutionized the way information is gained and shared. It's truly incredible the hieghts technology has taken us to. But we have to be careful with all this new power, it might make us stoopid.