This is the Fahrenheit 9/11 post. Fear.#

Christopher Hitchens wrote the first big piece.#

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

"He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer."

"But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of."

Jason Kottke: "One of the charges leveled against Bush -- and probably every other politician in the US -- is that he's constantly putting spin on everything to obscure or manipulate the truth. I can't help but think that Moore is doing exactly the same thing in the opposite direction."#

Tony Pierce calls Moore "his dog": "bitching that you, Michael Moore, aren't 100% accurate in this movie is like complaining that there's no way that scores of storm troopers couldnt pick off Luke, Princess Leia, Chewbacca, Han, C3-PO or R2D2 as they made their way to the Millenium Falcon during that first Star Wars movie."#

AKMA on his POV.#

But Fahrenheit 9/11 is a propaganda piece, no less or more honorable than other modes of propaganda — and if I had to choose among Moore, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly, I suppose I'd choose Moore. I don't have a strong predisposition for or against him. I agree with Moore that Bush is a miserable excuse for a President, and I'm pained by the transparent hypocrisy of the Republicans who hounded Clinton over his petty lying and his infidelity, but who turn a blind eye to Bush's shameless sham leadership. The right-wing media mongrels revolt me, and I've winced at their unchallenged prominence on commercial media. When I watched Bowling For Columbine, though, my satisfaction that finally someone was contesting the ground of media visibility, was mixed with regret that Moore took the low road of meeting spin and lies with, well, distortion and deception. Christopher Hitchens can issue grandiose challenges, but those miss the point as much as do Moore's partisan defenders. While Hitchens daringly brandishes his rhetorical dukes, Bush's aimless, unjust war inflicts casualties on hundreds of Iraqis and dozens of Americans and the Coalition of the Coerced.

William Norman Grigg comments on the sold-out show he went to: "There were no screaming Bolsheviks (one viewer had an anti-animal rights T-shirt) or marijuana-scented bohemians in the crowd. This wasn't the sort of crowd you'd see at a Phish concert, or storming McDonald's at an anti-WTO rally. There were Wal-Mart customers, people who probably listen to country music (even Toby Keith), and even vote Republican. And they were PISSED — quietly, but palpably. A would-be political prisoner Martha Stewart would say, that's a good thing. And well overdue."#

The Movie Blog comments on the box-office performance.#

Variety has just released their projected box office figures for this weekend and Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 has come out on top with an estimated gross of $21.8 million. In just one weekend this film has surpassed the total domestic take of Moore's Bowling For Columbine, which was the highest grossing documentary of all time until now.

J. H. Hubert says, "Michael Moore is still a jerk."#

Keep in mind that this movie's success will give Moore more influence over the minds of the American people. When he wants to speak again, through another film, he will have the country's full attention.

And when, perhaps thanks in part to this film, John Kerry is elected president, what will that film be about? A devastating critique of welfare statism? Of course not. In all likelihood, it will be something like an attack on the alleged evils of Wal-Mart. And given Moore's undeniable talent as a propagandist, to the mass-man who does not understand economics, that film will look every bit as credible and persuasive as Fahrenheit 9/11.

John Haber: "Finally, audiences who end up seeing his picture are sure to get the same thing he provided in Columbine, a jagged, pseudo-documentary that may amuse, but could never convince anyone who did not enter the theater sharing the director's conspiratorial view of the world. Rather than admit that the film is little more than another work from a humorous, but low-talented hack, Moore's fans must continue to inflate the importance of his unimportant movies, if only to avoid being judged as an army of suckers."#

Moxie's breaking news: "despite the fact that a couple million people went to see the {Michael Moore Bowel movement} movie doesn't change it from ignorant propaganda to a legitimate documentary."#

Aaron Swartz posted a transcript if you are curious about the movie's epileptic qualities.#

Tony Pierce collected many reviews. Later in his review, "Faherinheight 9/11 receives five stars, the busblog's highest rating."#

Oh my god. I am perfectly comfortable with adoring the female body.#

Gina Smith links to a 1998 interview between John Miller and Osama Bin Laden.#

JOHN MILLER The American People by the large do not know the name Osama bin Laden, but they soon will. Do you have a message to the American people?

OSAMA BIN LADEN I say that the American people gave leadership to a traitorous leadership. This became very clear and especially in Clinton's government. The American government, we think, is an agent that represents the Israel inside America. If we look at sensitive departments in the present government like the Department of Defense or the State Department, or sensitive security departments like the CIA and others, we find that Jews have the first word in the American government, which is how they use America to carry out their plans in the world and especially the Muslim world.

The presence of Americans in the Holy Land supports the Jews and gives them a safe back. The American government, in a time where there are millions of Americans living on the street and those living below the standard of living and below the poverty line, we find the American government turning toward helping Israel in occupying our land and building settlements in the Holy Land.

Iain Murray links to Scott Burgess on environmental "truths."#

Another environmental 'truth' is born.

The Netherlands is an amazing place.#

Bella#

Silke's first conversation. Having children must be amazing.#

Haha, Julie! Maybe I'll start making some T-shirts. I imagine they would say something like "Let's MAKE OUT" on the front and, "at MAKEOUTCITY.COM" on the back. Good? I like sharing book shelves too. There's too many books, like blogs, to filter yourself.#

By way of Ian at Truck & Barter, I have found Robert Nozick, of the Cato Institute, on why intellectuals seem to disproportionately oppose capitalism.#

Why do wordsmith intellectuals think they are most valuable, and why do they think distribution should be in accordance with value? Note that this latter principle is not a necessary one. Other distributional patterns have been proposed, including equal distribution, distribution according to moral merit, distribution according to need. Indeed, there need not be any pattern of distribution a society is aiming to achieve, even a society concerned with justice. The justice of a distribution may reside in its arising from a just process of voluntary exchange of justly acquired property and services. Whatever outcome is produced by that process will be just, but there is no particular pattern the outcome must fit. Why, then, do wordsmiths view themselves as most valuable and accept the principle of distribution in accordance with value?

From the beginnings of recorded thought, intellectuals have told us their activity is most valuable. Plato valued the rational faculty above courage and the appetites and deemed that philosophers should rule; Aristotle held that intellectual contemplation was the highest activity. It is not surprising that surviving texts record this high evaluation of intellectual activity. The people who formulated evaluations, who wrote them down with reasons to back them up, were intellectuals, after all. They were praising themselves. Those who valued other things more than thinking things through with words, whether hunting or power or uninterrupted sensual pleasure, did not bother to leave enduring written records. Only the intellectual worked out a theory of who was best.

Ian offers his thoughts:

I think the reason public intellectuals oppose capitalism is much more simply stated:

Contrarianism.

Let's face it: the work that gets the most attention not only in academia, but also in popular press and discussion, are those things that appear contrary to our suppositions. Why do some people find economics so boring? Could it be because it often looks like a lot of convoluted chatter devoted to explaining the numbingly obvious? When prices go up, people buy less. We need 225+ years of economic debate to tell us that? (No, that isn't my take on economics -- I'm suggesting it's a popular view of the study of economics.)

What gets our attention, garners public notoriety and generates lot of interest from academics are those things that are contrary. In this case, finding fault with a system that, while imperfect, has yet to see any competing system that isn't more flawed by orders of magnitude.

Ludwig von Mises on a similar subject:

No less absurd is the second reproach thrown upon capitalism, namely, that technological and therapeutical innovations do not benefit all people. Changes in human conditions are brought about by the pioneering of the cleverest and most energetic men. They take the lead and the rest of mankind follows them little by little. The innovation is first a luxury of only a few people, until by degrees it comes into the reach of the many. It is not a sensible objection to the use of shoes or of forks that they spread only slowly and that even today millions do without them.