George W. Moore... Err- Michael Bush?

When "Bowling For Columbine" came out, I was very impressed with Michael Moores creative challenge of the fear culture that is sweeping through North America. Certainly he drew some over-simplified conclusions (not to mention his utopian delusion of a Canadian "slum"), but I found it an interesting reflections on our society & world.

However, while I initially raved in support of "Fahrenheit 9/11", I have had time to temper my perspective. Designed to expose the true nature of the George W. Bush administration, viewers were stunned by the blatant "bad" of their elected leader. It dawned on me that the quasi-documentary (or as Leonard Maltin calls the "Docu-tainment"), created to challenge the simplistic and misleading propaganda of the US government, was in fact a simplistic and misleading bit of propaganda.

So, am I pro-Bush and anti-Moore? Or anti-Bush AND anti-Moore? Which is it?

Neither and both! What we are seeing, sadly, is two sides of the same shallow coin.

In the end, we cannot allow ourselves to be polarized so harshly in extremes, especially when those extremes are articulated at sixth grade level arguments. We need to discover ways to both oppose governments, policies, etc. While still constructively contributing to the well-being of our societies, RECOGNIZING that we have to accept some of the realities of world as they are until such a time as we can bring true change.

In the end, I am not pushing any partisan politics, nor do I want to talk anyone out of their beliefs. All I hope for is that each us will take the time to think more deeply about our beliefs and assumptions. And while we should be willing to listen to the "other side" (that means Moore fans listen to Bush with openness and Bush fans listen to Moore with openness), we also need to look deeper than what we are spoon fed by media and other institutions (even churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) and ask the hard questions.

Give it some thought.

The Unfortunate History of the Autograph

Recently, I finally realized one of my life-long dreams- to have a book published. While it has been exciting, there was one unfortunate by-product I had not anticipated: Autographs. Nothing feels more sickingly self-indulgent than signing a copy of my book. First, the book is by no means a masterpiece. Second, I am by NO means a master. I found the process painfully uncomfortable.

While I won't o so far as to say that the autograph is pure evil (as that would be more of a reflection of my own insecurity), it is at best a mixed blessings. It could be argued that the objectification of art- when it lost its integrated place in the very fabric of our lives- came hand in hand with when artist began to sign their works. Now, an unsigned masterpiece by a great artist won't have equivalent value as a mediocre signed piece by the same artist.

Then again, autographs of a sort are celebrated on historical documents, such as the American Declaration of Independence. In fact, they are so famous, that one of the signatured names have become synonymous with autographs in general- John Hancock.

With the dawn of the celebrity culture, autographs have went from prized possession whose value is determined by the possessors love for it to pricey commodities that are sought after for cash value alone.

So, while it is truly just semantics, I will gladly personalize a copy of my book (and even then grudgingly), but balk at any request for an autograph. Then again, perhaps I am being anal.