It makes me happy to be reminded that there are people out there who are not right wing or left wing to the exclusion of rational thought. Those two sides have been so vocal that I'd begun to think that the vast middle area was becoming underoccupied.

While it's true that both Bush and Moore are both political propagandists, the question is: do they have a choice? (of course they have some choice "The world needs ditch diggers too.") But if they actutally want to influence the teeming masses, concepts like logic and standards like intellectual honesty have very little cache.

How many people can you think of that use logic and reason to illustrate their point who have the kind of influence these two fellow have? If you were an intelligent and logical person, and you wanted to influence a lot of people to do "the right thing", would you do the stupid thing and try and use logic to achieve your goals? Or would you do the smart thing and use propoganda?

Regardless of how you slice it, there is almost no room for intelligent discussion in politics, and there never will be. The audience doesn't have the time and/or the intellectual capacity to make it worthwhile.

First, I'll set aside the question of whether propaganda is or is-not ethical. I think strong cases can be made on both sides.

In a kill-or-be-killed world, the premium on taking the ethical stance of not-killing is rather high.

That's a pretty odd analogy. What does "My Two Dads" have to do with Southern Baptists? Do they hate Paul Reiser because he's Jewish?

I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 and I'm not sure I will because I dislike Moore. At the same time, I feel like the article is attacking simplicity out of a similar dogma. While it is rare, I think every now and then events/motivations/people really are that simple and straightforward.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is an important movie that tries to speak truth to power at a time when there have been too few attempts at that. But I wish someone other than Michael Moore had made it.