I don't want to take away from anyone their idea of what is right, true, important, or patriotic. But I think it is a true loss if you get discouraged and opt out of the process.

Maybe its my "conservative" tendency to see things black and white but make a decision based on what issues are important to you, who is closest to your position and make your decision. But don't say that both sides are equally bad and just the same. They are not. They may make too many compromises and play stupid political games but they seem very different to me as to their visions of our country and its future.

I'm sure F 9/11 is very entertaining and well made. My problem is that he does not seem to want to be responsible for what he says, just profit from it. Just making people think is not a virtue in and of itself. The cliche, ideas have consequnces is true. Criticizing, castigating, and (at the very least) mischaracterizing should not be the whole sum of one's political argument but that's Moore's business methods and its embraced by the Dems.

I'm not entirely happy with the GOP but I see that some of them are trying to do what is right and are serious about the problems before us.

I never said I was opting out. I'm just not a republican or a democrat. I'll either register as an independent or libertarian before the year is through, and I do plan on voting.

I also see a great deal of good in the GOP. Is there anything wrong with me criticizing it or its leadership? Is there anything wrong with me trying to find good examples among Democrats? (It's extremely difficult).

If you think that "criticizing, castigating, and (at the very least) mischaracterizing should not be the whole sum of one's political argument," you must be just as hard on Limbaugh as you are on Moore (it's unfair to sum up Moore's arguments that way, just as it'd be unfair so sum up Limbaugh's). It's the same vitriol, and Limbaugh profits from it as Moore does. And Republicans embrace it just as much as Democrats do; why else would a doctored image of Kerry with Jane Fonda have circulated the internet so quickly? I don't want to point fingers, pundits from both sides could (and probably will) point out each side's hypocrisy and faults for as long as we live. It's a fruitless and unfulfilling discussion that will waste our time and energy.

I believe that making people think is a virtue in and of itself. Ideas do have consequences. Our country wouldn't exist if our founding fathers didn't have the wherewithal to think for themselves and seek for solutions to the injustices they saw in the world.

My sympathies remain with the GOP, but its leaders are letting it down. I'd vote for McCain if I could, but our President does not represent the Grand Old Party as I learned of it.

Fair enough. More over pho.

Jed-

I have yet to see F 9/11 but I felt similarly about Bowling. It was an engaging piece which I felt was ininitely worthwhile to see, but I find Moore to be a demogogue; a fact which undermines the credibility of his films.

I couldn't agree more about your thoughts on the political process. I think that the issues you highlight about the dems and reps are problems inherent in the political structure that we have organized in this country. I think of it as a problem inherent in representational democracy.

I can't imagine a political party coming about that embraced all the values, beliefs and morals that I adhere to, and if one did come about I would wager that I would be the only member. That is why I find it fascinating that so many people identify so completely with one party or the other. How can two people as unique in outlook, perspective and personal experience as Dick Cheney and John McCain keep up the charade that they adhere to the same group of political beliefs? It is simply a lie that they both tell in order to be part of the political structure of this country, a structure that requires someone to choose between one of two "dominant" political belief systems.

To me the idea of political parties seems anathema to democracy. Instead of each voice being as important as every other voice, one is forced to join sides with one of the two major parties or one's voice is meaningless. I would like, in this age of fantastic technology, to move towards more of a pure demoracy, an idea that frightens politicians to no end. Look how quickly the cry to eliminate the electoral college died after the last election.

In summary I feel that the current political structure of this country is a hindrance to democracy and I see little in the current batch of politicians that gives me hope for significant change in the future.

Hi Jed.

It's Matt Thomas.

I think I'm just as leary to call Michael Moore a real truth-teller as much as anybody, although in the interest of full disclosure I should mention that the Values of trickery and radical dissent lie close to my heart, and I'm pretty forgiving to the pie-throwers and wielders of rubber chickens.

That being said, I think everyone should go back through both Fahrenheit and Bowling for Columbine and very carefully parse the actual arguments made in those films. I don't know if it's me that's crazy, or if people are distracted by Moore's sensationalism, or possibly the fact that these discussions are largely configured by people who haven't seen the movies (I know you have, but the major media outlets regularly feature "critics" who haven't), but I rarely hear anyone actually addressing Moore's major points.

In F9/11 (who can rememember how to spell Fahrenheit this many times in a row??), there is actually never the accusation of "conspiracy" so far as I can tell, but rather an open-ended rumination on the general notions of economic, social, and political power on the current global stage. For example, he never asserts that anyone started this or that war for profit, but he does scream in protest that the very people who start a war should profit from rampant death and destruction both economically and politically--but no "causal" relationship is implied. Similarly, he never asserts that the bin Ladens and the Bushes we co-conspirators in the 9/11 attacks, but he does raise the fascinating question of why, in such a large and diverse world, the same handful of people should be pulling such powerful strings. Why should the leader of the most powerful (and benevolent)nation in the world have such close personal and economic connections (indirect, but close) to the most malicious enemies of that country? If you're not really watching the movie, but just listening to the Phillip Glass ripoff score every time the "conspiracy" stuff is on screen, I admit that you might feel subconsciously drawn to the notion of interlocking circuits, of plots within plots. I guess we should blame Michael Moore for this subliminal effect every bit as much as we blame Bush for incessantly mentioning Osama and Sadam in the same sentence, but critical thinkers need not fear these tricks.

Everybody says not to call this a documentary (and I agree), but why shouldn't we, exactly? I think that word "rumination" is the key. Both Bowling and F9/11 fail to propose or even suggest "action." The gun control debate in Bowling is blasted open, as Moore knocks down one assumption after another. I went into that movie a fairly dedicated, New York City-residing, gun-control advocate. After seeing it a couple of times, I'm pretty convinced that we should just leave the issue up to people in the regions where they live and let them suffer (or enjoy, I guess) the consequences. I've hardly been "activated" one way or the other.

I feel the same way now about F9/11. I think it's bizarre that the titans of the world have organized themselves and consolidated power in such malicious ways for us regular folk. I also think it's bizarre for some of those titans to pretend that they're just simple dirt farmers from Midland, Texas. If anything, that hoax, and its attending lie that the "titans" care as much about us as they do themselves, is the lie exposed in the film. But once again, what action is proposed? Vote Kerry? Hardly. He's eliminated by Moore's premise just as much as anybody. The only thing I was really newly convinced of by the end of the film was that a universal draft (like those of the majority of nations in the civilized world) would do more for making America a truly responsible, peace-loving nation than anything. Of course, I'm 28 now, so I can hardly push that issue with any force of character.

My point is, you could have pieced all of the facts of F9/11 together from watching Frontline on PBS and reading the Washington Post regularly (and carefully, I might add, making sure to always look at the back few pages of the A-section). Michael Moore uses juxtaposition to frame the issue and ask a much larger question. He also uses juxtaposition to make fun of people, which you may or may not like. I honestly think that only blind devotees of Bushco need be offended by this movie, and the trickster in me is delighted that they are. But I would think that thoughtful liberals, traditional conservatives, open-minded Dems and Repubs alike should be able to contemplate this big picture and at least be able to ask some remarkably similar questions about the consolidation of economic and political power in the world today. I think that coming together and asking the same questions is the best way to start rational, courteous discourse between adherents of "rival" ideologies.

Anyway, sorry to jam up your blog. I think your top line summed it up for all of us: Green finches are the true patriots. Let us honor them.

Matt et al

Thank you for your comments. Matt, it seems to me that we've come to the same conclusion. The movie is provocative. It provokes thought. I'll disagree with you on your point about how how Moore refrains from positing a conspiracy. Queue the minimalist soundtrack as Moore asks "this doesn't seem right, does it?" The audience scratches its collective head. It's the way filmmaking works, there's no need to identify the conspiracy theory as such, but it's pretty obvious when one's being crafted. You're right though to cite our President's imaginative connection between Sadaam and Osama, but there's no reason why Bush's fallacious reasoning would justify Moore's.

But here's the thing. I told my brother in my first comment on here that I believe that getting people to think is a virtue in and of itself. I'm not sure if I should stand by my statement. I know several people who have left the movie "not knowing what to think." Perhaps it's because Moore fails to offer a cohesive argument. I'm glad that Matt and I were able to leave the theater inspired to dwell upon "the big picture," but it seems to me that we might be the types that would do that anyway, and I imagine that Matt brought his questions about the consolidation of economic and political power into the theater rather than finding them there. Moore does a great disservice to anyone looking for a passable analysis of the state of the world.

As I said, I think it's a great film, but that's it. It's simply not a documentary, and it's useless as a manifesto. I left the theater thinking, but as I reflect upon it, I'm not really thinking about any of the things Moore seemed to want me to think about. But now that I think about it, I don't know if he even knows what he wants his viewers to think about. I'm beginning to think he just wants to entertain. And if that's the case, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Oh, I also believe that Moore is really good at capitalizing on European anti-Americanism, and his fawning over his European fans informed much of F 9/11. I've tried to refrain from taking any potshots at Moore's character (or figure), but my brother pointed me to this quote that's so great I had to post it: regarding the Europeans that love Moore, Christopher Hitchens—who is English—said, "it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own, as their representative American someone who actually embodies all of those qualities."

Whoa!

For a remarkably scathing review of F 9/11, Hitchens's can be found here at slate. I think I'm going to have to find out more about Hitchens.

Have fun looking into the Hitchens moral and spritual abyss. He's a real nutcase, but actually incredibly smart and really provocative. As a person, he's pretty disgusting. He's actually a pretty perfect (extremely) British analogue to Michael Moore, in some ways.

Alright, so I'm going to see the movie again when it comes to Netflix to be sure, but I'm still going to hold steadfast to my conviction that no argument for the existence of conspiracy theories is made in the film. (I mean real CONSPIRACY--ten fat white guys and a couple Arabs in a smoky backroom marking up maps with new borders, etc etc.) I think Jed's assuming a less-critically-thinking audience, and assuming that Moore is too. So I guess the idea is that, like Bush and Cheney do with Osama and binLaden, the mere mention of Haliburton and Iraq in the same sentence is intended to prove the existence of all sorts of wild plots in the minds of hapless Dem-oriented sponges.

Well, now that I put it that way, I have to admit that some such sponges exist on both sides of the aisle, and I have to admit that I cannot prove that Moore did not intend that effect, but I guess there's no way to know.

I'll just say again, when trying to derive actual meaning from known propaganda in the future, let's all put on our little thinking caps and try to parse the ACTUAL arguments being made, trying as hard as we can to ignore the entertaining and irresponsibly vague elements all around the edges. My whole argument is that both Bowling and F9/11, when treated in this way, frame their respective issues, in many cases introducing (for me) new terms and approaches for thought and discussion. They spend their time trying to get people to the beginning of the argument, not the conclusion.

I think you could prove pretty conclusively that Michael Moore doesn't have ironclad editorial control over what he says in his films--not that someone else does, but rather that his own sense of bitter, juvenalian sarcasm trumps his need to make a serious point. Fascinating stuff, but I can see why some people who don't like what he's saying cry foul (and call him irresponsible) at the juxtaposition of bitter irony against earnest discussion of important ideas.

A good example of more palatable, genteel, Horatian satire, would be something like the Daily Show. Their "joking" discussion last night about how the terrorists may seek to influence the upcoming election said literally everything there is to say about that issue. It's a perfect example of truth-telling through genle Horatian satire. Much smarter than Moore ever was.

Ta.

Whatever Jed. Modest Mouse is all over the radio, thereby making them sellouts. And you like Modest Mouse, thereby making you a sellout too. Sorry.
Matt