Issue 9

 Nima Nakhaei
 Student of philosphy and political science

Before you read the following lines let me write a sentence or two about our editorial board's decision to dedicate a column of this issue to Michael Moore's latest documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. As you are surely aware, Fahrenheit 9/11 had received enormous publicity and attention from the not-truely-independent media, even before its screening. Media had divided themselves into two opposing camps of anti-Fahrenheit 9/11 and pro-Fahrenheit 9/11. Not surprisingly the competing camps made radical judgments about the not-yet-seen documentary. While these battles were being fought, we in our little student magazine spent no more than two minutes of our precious time discussing a watch-bomb that had prematurely exploded at the heart of North American entertainment and political industries. Allow me to make you wonder even more by adding that we are an Iranian student magazine that does not hesitate to discuss politics in its different sections. Logically a student medium of this sort should be particularly sensative to a controversial documentary that sheds light on America's war with our next door neighbor.

We were deaf to Fahrenheit 9/11 not because we thought of it as a conventional type of documentary that paints its characters as either perfectly good or terribly bad. On the contrary, and if you allow me to go into details, we are of the opinion that Moore's recent documentary is a strong and unique one. The most important aspect of Fahrenheit 9/11 is the way it understands human beings. By distancing himself from Hollywood's philosophy of good and evil, Moore has allowed his camera lens to criticize American politicians while recognizing the complexity and sophistication of human psyche. Fahrenheit 9/11's depiction of Bush for instance, was a clever and interesting human analysis in the context of American movie industry. Fahrenheit 9/11's Bush was neither the shallow-minded oil-thirsty monster of anti-war protests nor Britney Spears' freedom-loving leader. Perhaps he was both of them, none of them and something fundamentally different. When the theater lights are turned on and while your eyes are getting adjusted to the shining environment of a typical North American theater, you leave your seat thinking about a prudent Bush who knows how to satisfy his ambitious interests. How can you not have this image in your mind when the documentary constantly reminds of Bush's brilliant business agenda and his extraordinary connections with Saudi's and Bin Laden's? This is not the end of story. You are back from Baghdad, walking in the magnificent streets of a North American city where every thing is predictable. Stuck with a tragically stupid image of Bush in your mind, you look back at the theater and say to yourself: when they whispered to his ear "America is under attack" Bush chose to keep the company of America's youngest political experts, six-years olds. Moore's view of the occupying army enjoyed the same methodology. The American soldier was depicted as ignorant and inhuman yet, bewildered, shameful scared and after all a victim of war and conditions himself.

Moore's presentation of his information regarding the U.S, Saudi, and Bin Laden triangle was another praiseworthy dimension of Fahrenheit 9/11. If you are in the political science business, chances are that you were already aware of this circle. However, you have to remind yourself that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a well-designed campaign that intends to make the average Joe think twice about liberation, freedom and justice.

I urge all honorable social scientists to accept that a documentary with such intended audience can not have the depth and complexity of Plato's Republic, for it would only make the general public more distant from politics. If you are a social scientist I point your attention to the title of the documentary which reminds one of the philosophical movie Fahrenheit 4/11. After all don't you think that Moore's choice of title was more than a simple imitation?

There remains a lot to be said about Fahrenheit 9/11. But allow me to return to my original discussion. As I mentioned our unwillingness towards discussing Fahrenheit 9/11 was not because we perceived it as a weak documentary. The roots of this ignorance go deep in the very structure of the North American society. Human life in this part of the world has become so robotic that nothing can alter the status quo of our minds; not even a graphic and moving documentary like Fahrenheit 9/11. Fahrenheit 9/11 and similar documentaries will remain as a Tuesday-night event, with minor effects on North American individuals' mentality at the ballot box. We, the editors of this magazine, have the same disease. We have become a part of this routine life which makes your faith believe so strongly that "man can predict". We will continue to have this mentality untill some sort of economic, political or natural disaster pulls us out of this state of trust in human knowledge, then we can wonder about human fate like many other wonderers.

I want to end these unorganized thoughts by a little note. We, not only the editors, but most human beings can see our improvements in the world of technology and science but when it comes to improvements in human thought; our sight just does not help us any more. Wars and world empires have been living with us for a long period of time, but have we ever had such strong objections to an empire's war?