August 16, 2004
It seems that Moore, not being content to malign the Bush administration using those who agree with him, has added to his movie F**** 9/11 that.... well, read this:
WASHINGTON - Sgt. Peter Damon, who lost his right arm and left hand in Iraq, never set out to be a bit player in presidential politics and is furious at Michael Moore for making him one in "Fahrenheit 9/11.""It ticked me off," Damon said of the 10-second clip in the Bush-bashing documentary that shows him being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington.
This is unconscionable, he is being used in a movie that denigrates his service, without his permission! The fact that they (like all liberals) want to split hairs... oh we LOVE the military, but HATE the war... what utter rubbish! I hear this from radio announcers all the time and it just makes my blood boil. (I would likely be incandescent if I watched television)
So how do you get around the pesky little detail of permission?
The brief video clip of Damon used by Moore was licensed from an NBC News segment that focused on the treatment of amputees at Walter Reed using a new regimen to block the excruciating "phantom pain" of limb loss, in which the patient still feels the pain of the missing limb.
Yeah, that's right, find a clip that someone else did, for an entirely different purpose, and subvert this to make a completely different point.
Naturally, the news people can't stop there, they have to find another opinion using that most sympathetic of all characters, a mother who has lost her son in Iraq...
Lila Lipscomb, whose own appearances in the documentary are the emotional apex of "Fahrenheit 9/11," said she sympathized with Damon's distress, but disagreed with him on Moore's motives.
Ummm - I'm sorry for this mother, but she is NOT a soldier, so she should NOT be speaking for them. I have a son who is a soldier too - I still wouldn't speak for them.
In the end - any soldier Moore was going to portray in this film, should have had the option of saying yes or no themselves. They should never have been added at Moore's whim to support his twisted view of the War on Terror. For that alone, MM is less than a stain on the sidewalk left by a low flying duck.
Hat Tip : Rachel Lucas
Posted by: Teresa in
Film
at
09:37 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 465 words, total size 3 kb.
Quack!
Posted by: Low Flying Duck at August 17, 2004 03:55 AM (tJfh1)
Posted by: Teresa at August 17, 2004 04:27 AM (nAfYo)
I don't support Michael Moore or agree with his tactics, but if we're going to say it's OK for one, it has to be OK for all.
Posted by: Jack at August 17, 2004 05:00 AM (YFdhj)
If an image of a person - living or dead - is going to be used to promote something, then the person in question (or their remaining family) should have the option of saying yes or no.
Did I blog on the Bush commercial? No, but then I don't get around to blogging about everything. Sometimes it's lack of interest, sometimes lack of time, sometimes lack of correct wording. Mostly it's lack of time.
There's also the fact that personally I find MM to be one of the more repellent people on the face of the earth. This means my tolerance factor for his idiocies is very low. So, there you go, I am certainly not an impartial blogger. *grin*
Posted by: Teresa at August 17, 2004 07:02 AM (nAfYo)
Posted by: michele at August 20, 2004 03:27 PM (beN4P)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.









