Fahrenheit 9/11

I saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" on Saturday, and I've spent some time since then reading the various attacks on it. Here are a couple of the better ones I've seen:

• Fahrenheit 9/11: The temperature at which Michael Moore's pants burn
• Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 (which, it seems, used to be only 56, so maybe it'll be more when you read this)

I haven't read every word in either of those.

I did read "Michael Moore Makes the Same Movie Again," which is a broader analysis of Michael Moore's work with "Fahrenheit 9/11" in mind. It contains a synopsis of the arguments made in the movie, and it makes a couple of points that I agree with.

One is that people arguing over the "facts" in Moore's film often are as biased as Moore is. It's been shown that Moore implies a lot that he doesn't say and defends it by pointing out the veracity of what he said. There's certainly a dishonesty there. On the other hand, one of the deceits listed in the above article is that Moore has said in the past that we should not have sent any troops to Afghanistan, but in the movie he says we should have sent more. If Moore has changed his mind, or even if he's not sincere, that doesn't make the idea in the movie "false." Saying that this is a deceit within the movie is stretching.

The other point I agree with is that it doesn't matter if some of the implications in the movie are not true. Moore presents lots of things that would make me dislike the current administration. Even if only a quarter of them really are as they are made to appear, that's enough.

Ultimately what I like about the movie is that it has people talking. Folks come out of the theater discussing politics. They're thinking more about the presidential election than they would have with the usual campaigning from the candidates. That's a good thing.