Great comments! I should have stated more emphatically that I truly respect Moore and Spurlock for their ability to satirize, entertain, and hyperbolize. What I’m not really convinced of, however, is how much weight their films should carry in the political / social arena.

I’m not a great lover of guns, fatty hamburgers, nor W (sorry, Mom!). But I’m not sure I like the alternatives any more — extreme gun control, mandatory health food, & Kerry. I’m first and foremost moderate in just about everything. I like the occasional junk food, though I like to watch my diet and am quite athletic. I enjoy smoking an occasional cigar but generally abhor chain smokers, though I respect their right to destroy their health. I can’t stand guns personally and dare not contemplate pulling a trigger on another human being. But I respect others’ rights to arm themselves as they see fit within the law.

If I may, I’d recommend a very good balanced critique of Fahrenheit:
http://tinyurl.com/2r2zu

the difficult thing about any kind of commentary/critique/controversy is how quickly the conversations landslide into a polarized discussion. for some reason, western logic seems to be to pick a side- make someone bad and someone good. find a villain and find a hero. often without the finger ever pointing at us.

over the last several years, i have learned to purposely try to look at controversial issued as multi-faceted and complex. to me, the problem with documantaries like Columbine and Super SM is that they represent only one extreme. When you present that extreme to a country that is largely not educated to scrutinize information or contemplate complexities, you end up with alot of blind allegience.

i think individuals have responsibility. i think corporations have responsibility. i think institutions have responsibility. doesn’t it take of them exercising responsibility to maintain a holistic, healthful society?

last year i was reading a book by Walter Wink about the powers inherent to institutions. He had this to say about what he terms capitalist heresy:

“Many businesses and corporation executives ignore God’s humanizing purposes, and speak rather of profit as the ‘bottom line.’ But this is a capitalist heresy. According to the eighteenth-century philosopher of capitalism Adam Smith, businesses exist to serve the general welfare. Profit is the means, not the end. It is the reward a business receives for serving the general welfare. When a business fails to serve the general welfare, Smith insisted, it forfeits its right to exist. ”

i found it interesting that one of the founding fathers of capitalism married the free market to corporate responsibility.

finally, as an educator, i am troubled by what i believe to be the intentional mind numbing practices of the public education system- how children are systematically uneducated to become irresponsible consumers. too much profit is tied to public education and too many corporatations have their hooks into children through the doors of America’s schools.

ok. enough. it’s too early in the morning for me to write a dissertation. i’ll need at least another cup of coffee before i can do that.