A few days ago I linked to that article in The Australian about Michael Moore, and have since copped some flak for it - flak which, now that I think about it, is deserved. See, truth be told, I felt like I should blog something, so it was after a hasty read-over that I linked it. What I agreed with was the assertion that Moore, in drawing broad connections between disparate political and cultural phenomena, sometimes gets his facts wrong -like implying that because there was a Boeing plant (which actually made weather balloons) near Columbine, arms manufacture was somehow implicated in creating the culture that made the shootings possible (which it may well have been, but its a hard thing to prove). I think Moore veers towards the symbolic, and the facts sometimes come second. But on reflection, this isn't necessarily the worst thing in the world. Like Ruth suggested in the comments section, really, Moore's written books and movies that are supposed to push a broad political message through observation and humour - whatever the facts, at least he's making people question the nature of modern America. And if the agenda is to boot out Bush, then whatever way he's gonna help get that done almost justifies itself. So I guess the whole thrust of the article, in trying to undermine Moore by pointing to factual errors, kinda misses the point. I also failed to notice the strong racist undertones ("medieval reactionary force") tucked in there. So anyway, this is totally self-important, but just letting people know that I haven't yet been seduced by The Australian, which is, of course, the home of my good friend, Janet Albrechtsen...