An argument for the sake of Argument

Why are people in this country so into dominating each other? We use our right to free speech to chastise others for using that right. Are we living in a big, gaudy, Hollywood-style remake of China’s Cultural Revolution? Why must all be revised, reviled, subtly despised and yet used to the hilt? This question comes in large part as a reaction to the writing of Denise Spellman in the DFP Wednesday March 26. Why would a person such as Denise Spellman react with chastizing anger towards a fellow American (Michael Moore) who makes a social commentary when given an opportunity to speak freely? Looking at the quote she used from Michael Moore’s heady and melodramatic diatribe at the Academy Awards last week, I see that Moore seemed to be stating his feelings and describing his circumstances. Moore had just won an award from a notoriously fickle organization for a critically acclaimed and wildly successful documentary -Bowling for Columbine- which lambasts the U.S. obsession with weaponry and particularly Charlton Heston’s role in that obsession (Heston, it might be noted, won the Academy’s Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award in 1977). In fact, Moore’s blurb seems to be a mini-documentary: social exposé and commentary. So the man is just doing his job. His job is not to be respectful, but to cut through the fat with his acerbic words and grating voice, pointing a mid-American finger at those who he deems the progenitors of travesty. This makes one wonder what those in charge might expect by putting an obviously angry and controversy-driven man on stage. Certainly, we should not expect the producers of the Academy Awards to have known the results ahead of time (that would be downright postmodern!), but let us just suppose that the top-grossing movie in a given field has a larger chance of being viewed and thus getting Academy votes. Thus, this writer equates Moore’s speech with that of John Cameron after winning one of his Academy Awards for Titanic, in which he observed a moment of silence, and then said “now, lets go party!” Both remarks showed little poise from those little boys, but their two big-grossing movies had in common the adoration of the audience. Our society (it being a representative government and all) “let the people we revere speak for us!” and they do, with their own voices. If one cares to be distinct from the masses, he or she would be well-advised to avert his or her yes from the screen when rich people congratulate themselves, for that is what the masses have to cope with all the time. But, it seems the true issue at hand is not Moore’s statements as much as their context. Let us just say this: The Academy Awards are a spectacle. If one wants a spectacle to conform to one’s personal constraints, one had better make it oneself. Otherwise, one will keep being disappointed for a long time to come. In conclusion, I would like to say that supporting our troops abroad is certainly our job, but supporting George W. Bush is certainly not. Our obligation is to the nation, not to the $250,000,000 man. To argue is American, but to deny people the right to argue is not. What will we do for our American friends, coworkers and neighbors when they come back to us after another shell-shocking war? How warmly will we greet them? What rights will we have to allow them? What liberties can we bestow upon our soldiers. Defining and maintaining that is our job. Not to quietly flash the peace sign, or to “hope it all ends soon.” Our role is to turn off the television occasionally and make this country a good and welcoming place to live for the people who make living here such a privilege. Then we’ll talk about the proper way to hold an Awards Ceremony.