I wrote to the paper.

I just finished a letter I'm planning to send into the local paper. I was inspired by something published today in the Opinion section. Here's what it said:

In the 1860s, a president was assassinated in the Ford Theater by an actor who was upset by the policies of the president.
The people in the audience saw it happen, they knew the truth. No movie could counterfeit or twist the facts.
Today, a president is suffering character assassination again by actors, Hollywood "celebs" who are upset by his policies, by foul-mouthed comics and a cleverly spliced and edited so-called "documentary." (Look it up in the dictionary. Mine says "drama that analyzes news with little or no fictionalization.")
This movie is calculated to fool the gullible who believe that because they read it in a book or see it in a movie, especially one labeled "documentary," that it is absolute truth.
All this under the banner of "freedom of speech." That freedom, however, doesn't allow one to yell "Fire" in a crowded auditorium or to step in front of an oncoming truth and yell "Stop!" That freedom must go hand in hand with responsibility and discretion.
Whether you like the man or not, the office of the president must command respect not subject to concocted half-truths or outright lies. Otherwise, anyone with a personal agenda has "freedom" to do whatever pleases him and that's anarchy.

I could've gone on for pages with my response, but my paper isn't big enough for that. So, I had to whittle it down. Let me know what you think:

I am writing in response to the August 10th letter entitled "With our freedom comes responsibility." The writer says celebrities are slandering the President, yet she decides to ignore the obvious questions.
Where are the weapons of mass destruction we were told existed? Why has Osama bin Laden, who was declared public enemy number one, been forgotten? What about the forged documents presented as truth to the United Nations by the Bush administration? What about the claims that Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaeda, which were debunked by the 9/11 commission?
Yes, it seems there are many lies circulating today that some would rather not face. Freedom of speech is not just for convenience sake; it applies to all viewpoints in the political spectrum, whether or not you agree with them.
As Harry Truman once said, "We need not fear the expression of ideas- we do need fear their suppression." If the American people do not question those in authority, who will?

murderers. I'd bet good money she had no problem with that kind of freedom of speech.

I hope they put your letter in the paper.

doc·u·men·ta·ry P Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

Merriam-Webster defines documentary as:
Main Entry: 1doc·u·men·ta·ry
Pronunciation: "dä-ky&-'men-t&-rE, -'men-trE
Function: adjective
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing <documentary evidence>
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE <a documentary film of the war>



No where is the word "drama" injected into these definition.

Perhaps the writer of that drivel is mistaking the Fox style book (the book which defines how a news organization structures their product--every newsroom's got one, local and national) for a dictionary.

documentaries have little or no fictionalization.

As in, documentaries are not fiction. They're truth, not lies. Even if you dramatize the events that happened, the events did happen.

So the Bush apologist is unwittingly saying that MM's documentary is mostly true, but she doesn't think it's important...

:evilgrin:

I like your letter as is. Plenty of ammo there in a few short paragraphs.

I also note the other writer says:
That freedom, however, doesn't allow one to yell "Fire" in a crowded auditorium

Which of course is WRONG. If the theater is in fact on fire, then yell fire. These fools support their Failure regardless of cost to the nation. The economy is stagnant at best, the war is a mistake/illegal/based on a lie, health care, civil rights, everything is moving in the wrong direction. The nation's vitality is on fire and more people should be yelling.

To include my age. He thinks it's great that the woman got "bitch slapped by an 18 year old."
:evilgrin:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

not really, just wanted to say it before you're gone. FYI, Your president said he didn't really care about Binladen anymore. SEE YA!

back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Continue!