The proper targets of dissent

Regrettably, I watched part of "Michael Moore Hates America" on Hulu. What a trite piece of garbage. Did the filmmaker ever ask, "Would the object of my movie's scorn write a movie title as slanderous as mine?" At one point in the movie, he asks Moore for an interview from the audience of one of Moore's college campus speeches. However, he makes the fatal mistake of telling Moore the title of his documentary. Moore justifiably answers,"why the hell would I interview someone who already has me figured out? You're the one who 'hates America'". But then get this: after making a dick of himself in front of Moore's audience, he talks with some of them after the speech and actually finds some supporters! These fickle liberals basically go on camera and say, "Well, Moore was being impolite. He should have agreed to an interview." WTF!!!

The filmmaker of "Moore hates America" adopts this annoyingly soft voice of faux-concern throughout the whole film -- as if to mitigate the fact that his film is indeed called "Michael Moore Hates America". He also makes a big deal about dissent. He even features Thomas Jefferson's quote about dissent being the highest form of patriotism. But here's a crucial difference between libs and conservatives when it comes to what constitutes dissent: Conservatives feel like dissent constitutes calling people unpatriotic. This is completely fucked to a liberal. To a liberal, you can't ridicule someone like Moore on behalf of the powerful and call it dissent. Dissent must always be directed upward, whether it be the government or big corporations. You can't dissent against the working poor, minorities or Michael Moore. Yes, Moore is rich and influential, but he's not powerful, especially politcally. Among the political class, Moore is the easiest target there is, which makes a film called "Michael Moore Hates America" really lazy, and ultimately illustrative of the GOP attack machine.