Yoshie writes:
> Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is so popular, and
anyone who criticizes it in any way is simply a loser.
No, the question is what is the goal that one is trying to attained by making the criticism. To criticize just to criticize is useless. It is merely the creation of opinion to reinforce a sense of self.
> Ralph Nader is so unpopular, and anyone who supports him
is simply a loser.
No, anyone who supports him is supporting a homophobe and a racist. Criticizing Nader reveals the truth about the man that some leftists seek to gloss over.
> That said, I, too, believe that Fahrenheit 9/11 will have an impact,
but the main impact will be probably to do its share to help elect
John Kerry.
And this would be a bad thing?
> Since the film is overwhelmingly focused on the George W. Bush
administration, the film's shelf life -- as far as uses by anti-war
activists are concerned -- will be shorter than Michael Moore's
previous works.
Again, you put your fetish first. Because certain anti-war activists believe the film to have a short shelf life is no reason to criticize it. You would first have to posit that Moore made the film as a tool for anti-war activists and that, as such, he crafted a poor tool.
Moore made the film for many reasons. People who want to waste time plumbing people's intentions are free to do so. People who want to effect change look at the tools at hand and use them in appropriate and effective ways.
> After the election day, it may be used by Democratic Party operatives
against us, as a propaganda tool to tell us never to do anything that will
help elect another Republican, for he may be the second coming of George
W. Bush, even though that's not Moore's intention.
And never again electing a George Bush-type would be a very good thing.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister
P.S.
Frustrated by F911? Are your critiques going begging for accolades?
Take a minute and play our game.
http://www.mousebreaker.com/game53.shtml