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