Talkin’ ‘Bout M-m-m-Mike’s Obfuscation
It makes perfect sense that “documentary” filmmaker Michael Moore would have grown up a fan of The Who during its late-1960s/early-1970s heyday, that British mod-rock band having held a famously particular appeal to ultra-geeky adolescent males. So it makes sense, too, that the 50-year-old though still-ultra-geeky and adolescent Moore would originally have included a Who song–1971’s “Won’t Get Fooled Again”–on the soundtrack to Fahrenheit 9/11, his smash-hit anti-Bush propaganda cartoon. Interestingly, however, “Won’t Get Fooled Again” is missing from the commercially distributed, final edit of Moore’s movie. How come?
Moore’s version of the story appears in his interview with Film Comment, relevant excerpts of which are posted on the Film Society of Lincoln Center’s website. There’s a moment in Fahrenheit 9/11 that all but “demands” the audience should be treated to The Who tune in question, Moore reports. But bandleader Pete Townshend simply “would not allow the song to be used.” According to Moore (who characteristically refers to himself in the third person):
To review, then: Pete Townshend is (1) a right-wing warhawk uncomfortable with the idea that his music might be used against the interests of Blair, Bush & Co.; (2) a craven person, willing to abandon his political views when it appears there might be valuable publicity to be got in the bargain; and (3) a craven and disappointed person at that, Moore having rebuffed Townshend’s pathetic, post-Cannes attempt to crawl back into his good graces.
Either that–or Michael Moore, as has been widely rumored, is a liar. Which is an impression Pete Townshend has now gone far to confirm in a July 7 posting on his own website. “Michael Moore has been making some claims–mentioning me by name–which I believe distort the truth,” The Who’s guitarist begins. For instance:
At this point I emailed Bill . . . that I had not really been convinced by Bowling for Columbine, and had been worried about its accuracy; it felt to me like a bullying film. Out of courtesy to Harvey I suggested that if he and Moore were determined to have me reconsider, I should at least get a chance to see a copy of the new film. . . . I never received a copy of the film to view. At no time did I ask Moore or Miramax to reconsider anything. . . .
I suggested in the email that they might use something by Neil Young. . . . Moore himself takes credit for this idea, and I have no idea whether my suggestion reached him. . . .
I have nothing against Michael Moore personally . . . but I greatly resent being bullied and slurred by him in interviews just because he didn’t get what he wanted from me.
Bravo, Pete! Ultra-geeky fan base notwithstanding, it turns out the kid’s all right.
And Eating It, Too
Late last week the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report blasting George Tenet’s CIA for its prewar judgments about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The bottom line was unsurprising: Our spywork about Iraqi WMD stunk; the CIA’s analyses were flawed; oversight of both processes was inadequate. But contrary to conventional wisdom, blame for these mistakes, the Senate report contended, lies squarely with the folks at Langley–not at the White House. And, no, there really isn’t any evidence that the Agency was pressured into altering its views about Iraq and WMD by Bush-appointed neocon zealots.
So now that this take on things–formerly a favorite theme of Bush-o-phobic Democrats in Congress–has been exploded by an independent, bipartisan review panel, who among the foamy-mouthed set will be first to acknowledge the baselessness of his past accusations
Not Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, that’s for damn sure. The same day the Intelligence Committee report was released, Durbin, a member of that panel, penned a Washington Post op-ed suggesting that senior Bush administration officials, though innocent of political interference with the CIA analysts, nevertheless should be held responsible for those analysts’ botched assessments precisely because they didn’t interfere. “They should have been more diligent in challenging the validity of analytical assumptions and the adequacy of intelligence collection and reporting,” claimed Durbin, to whom shame is apparently an alien concept.
A Gorgeous Mosaic
From the July 8 San Jose Mercury News, dateline Sacramento:
“A lawmaker who had called for Education Secretary Richard Riordan to resign for joking with a 6-year-old that her name meant ‘stupid, dirty girl’ abruptly backed off Thursday after mistakenly suggesting that race was a factor in the quip.
“Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally, D-Compton, canceled a news conference . . . after learning that the girl subjected to Riordan’s joke was white, not black. . . .
“A summer book club event Riordan attended at the Santa Barbara Public Library last week triggered the furor. Riordan, a wealthy former Los Angeles mayor known for both his philanthropy and his verbal blunders, stepped into a political morass when he joked that Goleta resident Isis D’Luciano’s first name meant ‘stupid, dirty girl.’ Isis had asked Riordan if he knew that she was named for an Egyptian goddess. Apparently confused, Riordan thought he was being asked what her name meant–and guessed awkwardly.
“He later apologized for the joke, saying he was teasing the girl. . . . Dymally told the Mercury News then that Riordan ‘needs to do more than just apologize. And I have to inject: This was a little African-American girl. Would he have done that to a white girl?’ Dymally did not return calls for comment Thursday. . . .
“Isis’s mother, Trinity Lila, was baffled by Riordan’s statement and Dymally’s actions. ‘If he feels that the man should step down, does it matter that she’s white?’ asked Lila. . . .
“Isis was apparently so unfazed by Riordan’s comment that she didn’t mention it to her mom until the library director brought up the exchange. ‘She was really OK,’ Lila said. ‘I asked her why she kept repeating what her name meant and why she didn’t tell him that what he said wasn’t very nice. She said she didn’t want to hurt his feelings. I think she thought he wasn’t very bright.'”
W. 43rd St. Style Report
“He looks like he is about 18. I’m going to card his ass tomorrow.”
–Whoopi Goldberg quoted on John Edwards, New York Post, July 9
“‘He looks like he’s about 18,’ she said later, joking that she would check his identification before serving him a drink.”
–Same actress, same quote, same day’s New York Times
