I watched an interesting little documentary today – The Story Of The Weeping Camel.
It followed a family of Mongolian nomadic shepherds, who assist in the births of their camel herd. One of the camels has an excruciatingly difficult delivery but, with help, out comes a rare white colt. Despite the efforts of the shepherds, the mother rejects the newborn, refusing it her milk and her motherly love. When any hope for the little one seems to have vanished, the nomads send their two young boys on a journey through the desert, to a town in search of a musician who is their only hope for saving the colt’s life.
The two boys travel to the town by camel, which I thought looked like fun. It got me thinking…. A couple of weeks ago, whilst visiting my local Health Club, a helicopter landed in the car park. I later discovered that it belonged to a club member. My initial reaction was “What a show off…can’t he just use a car like everybody else?”. But the more I thought about it, I thought good for him…if I had a helicopter I’d fly to the club myself, and to hell with what anybody else thinks. If you can afford to have a helicopter then you may as well use the damn thing.
Unfortunately, for me, my current desire to own a helicopter does not match my bank balance. However, after watching The Story Of The Weeping Camel I’m considering (temporarily) an alternative form of transport, other than my car – Yes folks…you’ve guessed it – a Mongolian camel! It would be eco-friendly after all. I wonder what my fellow club members would think, as I hopped off my camel, tied it up, and strolled through the enterance, tennis racket in hand??
However, where would I purchase one from? Would it be expensive to look after? Where would I keep it? I don’t think my garden is big enough. Even if it was I think my local ‘Residents Association’ would complain that its presence breached some rule or other – spoil sports…So until I can afford a helicopter, I want a camel…
I also watched Fahrenheit 9/11 this week. Michael Moore angrily examines the Bush administration’s actions in the wake of the tragic events of 9/11. Considering the presidency of George W. Bush and where it has led the U.S., he looks at how and why Bush and his inner circle avoided pursuing the Saudi connection to 9/11, Bush’s own connections to the family of Osama bin Laden and the background to the war in Iraq.
I my opinion Moore’s films are thought provoking and entertaining. But they’re often full of lies, half-truths and exaggerations, which often destroy what little credibility he has. I decided to go to see it (even though i knew it would be a totally biased view from Moore), because having watched his last documentary – Bowling for Columbine, I hoped it would be at the very least entertaining. How wrong was I….
I have since read an excellent review of Fahrenheit 9/11, by Christoper Tookey in the Daily Mail newspaper, which puts into words exactly what I feel:
“There’s little logical structure to his rambling arguments; he has no revelations to make; and much of the footage is already in the public domain. His most damaging assertions are either unsubstantiated or untrue – often both……”
“Its tone is one of personal hatred, with George Bush the scapegoat for everything that Moore thinks is wrong with America. This gives the film what cohesion it has and is clearly meant to make its audiences feel angrier and angrier, but it also makes for monotony and a feeling that truth is being over-simplified….”
“The second half of Moore’s uniquely repellent movie is about the inevitable losses and horrors brought about by any war, and exists simply to wring tears and outrage out of any audience cretinous enough to think that bombs and bullets don’t kill people.”
“The first half is rabble-rousing rhetoric so unscrupulous that it makes Nazi propaganda films look namby-pamby.”
“Moore cheerfully and cynically crams dozens of factual distortions into Fahrenheit 9/11. But he will make millions because he’s telling the Unthinking Left exactly the lies it wants to hear. Sitting through the film is almost as depressing as listening to the people who are taken in by it….”
“Moore’s most outrageous lie is to paint Saddam’s Iraq (which, of course, he’s never visited) as an idyllic place, full of jolly, smiling faces. I suppose that kind of footage was easier to find than photos of the thousands who disappeared into Saddam’s torture chambers, or all those Kurds he gassed, or the Kuwaitis that his men slaughtered…..”
“Still, its a pity that Moore couldn’t find time to make even one mention of Saddam’s history of intimidation, murder and genocide….”
“Even if it does turn out that Bush and Blair were misled into thinking Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (and he certainly had chemical weapons in the past), even Moore should be prepared to acknowledge that Saddam wanted these weapons, had the oil revenue to buy them and was ready to support terrorism in countries other than his own….”
“The evidence is clear, but Moore refuses to see it, preferring to cloud the issues in snide character-assassination and unsubstantiated innuendo..”
“I went into this film expecting it to be unscrupulously selective and intellectually dishonest; after all why would it be any different from Michael Moore’s other films? I did not expect it to be quite so lazy, incoherent, foolish and dull.”
Read this excellent article about the so called documentary.
For further info on Moore, order yourself a copy of: ‘Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man’