Monday, June 21, 2004

Michael Moore's Contribution to the War on Terror

Late last week it was reported that Hezbollah, the people that bring you the exploding Palestinian suicide bombers, are offering to help Michael Moore distribute his latest film, Farenheit 911, in the United Arab Emerites. As much as you may think that Moore is against the war of terror, the willingness of Hezbollah to aid Moore might suggest otherwise.

You see, it takes money and other resources to do anything, including getting a film that lionizes the terrorists that the Bush administration is oppressing distributed in Middle East countries teeming with such oppressed terrorists. And those resources, once diverted to playing movie deal-maker, reduce the pool of funds available for paying the families of suicide bombers $25K per each mentally retarded teen-age son they convince to blow up a bus in Israel, preferably one with many women and children.

It could be argued the other way, so that it is not clear that Moore is really reducing the supply of suicide bombers. Clearly Hezbollah is making an investment - if enough people see this movie, goes the logic, we may be able to lower the per-suicide bomber family stipend to $20K, without reducing the supply. If the resources invested in movie distribution are less than the aggregate savings brought about by knocking $5K off of the going rate for hastening young teen-age boys to a paradise that will greet them with 70 (count them, 70!) virgins for killing infidels, Hezbollah might get a pretty decent return on its investment. And with interest rates as low as they are these days in the U.S., there may be no better investments available for Hezbollah.

But I doubt this is the case. Hezbollah would be much better off pressuring some mullah to issue a fatwah that ups the number of virgins from 70. My bet is that the supply of suicide bombers is much more sensitive to the "virgin" price offered directly to the bomber than to the American dollar price offered to his family. And surely it wouldn't take much to convince the mullahs.

So let me be the first to thank Michael Moore, the exception to the rule that Europeans hate Americans because we are fat, rude, and obnoxious. His standing ovation at the Cannes film festival gives hope to all fat, rude, and obnoxious Americans that have feared travel to the continent. As long as you are a left-wing nutbag with a propensity to make movies that spell out the c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y that is the Bush administration, you don't even have to speak French while loudly ordering and insisting upon an off-the-menu cheeseburger in a Parisian cafe. Merci monsour, right away!

I'd recommend Moore for the Nobel Peace Prize for the beneficent effect of his movie - diverting Hezbollah from more lucrative investments in terror. But then again, my priorities are not those of the Nobel committee - they might do the same, but for different reasons. If Farenheit 911 has any negative effect on the Bush administration, surely Moore would merit deep consideration from the committe. If Jimmy Carter can win it for criticizing Bush, why not Moore? But if the committe recognizes the unintended consequences of Moore's movie suggested here - that Hezbollah will be distracted - it could work against him. Because a blow against an organization deeply loved by Yassir Arafat, another proud Nobel Winner, cannot be a feather in Moore's cap.

2 Comments:

Blogger Rothy said...

love the way everything relates back to economics...it seems to me that the only economic argument Moore is making is how many $$$ will fit into his size 42-waist pants pockets.....If i see this movie it will only be by purchasing a ticket to Harry Potter and sneaking over to the 911 theater

thought this was a pretty interesting assessment of the movie....a little heavy-handed and lengthy, but interesting

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well now....you can say that Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for criticizing Bush, but I don't think that is quite right. The news media said that Carter won the prize for what presenters cited as decades of work seeking peaceful solutions and promoting social and economic justice. (I saw that on the internet so it must be right.)

If anything, it was the Nobel committee that critized Bush, saying "In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international cooperation based on international law, respect for human rights and economic development." Now maybe Carter criticized W after receiving the award--and many have said that if he were a true patriot, he would have declined the award because of the Committee's clear political intent--but I understand he has been nominated numerous times (including a near-win in 1978 over the Egypt-Israel peace talks) so it's easy to see why he accepted it. Just imagine asking out Nadine many many times and finally having her say yes...do you decline just because she left her underwear at Joe's the weekend before? I don't think so.

1:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Sign up for my Notify List and get email when I update!

email:
powered by
NotifyList.com