QUOTE
1. Does the statement "filled with factual inaccuracies" (proceeding from an invalid critical basis) condescendingly imply that the film actually contains no "factual accuracies" or that supposed "factual inaccuracies" should be accepted on faith? Are not faith and fact like oil and water (i.e they don't mix)?
Faith and fact can mix. For example, it is fact that we have not found WMD in Iraq yet, but some have faith that we will. Others had little faith that the Bush administration was telling us the truth about WMD in the first place, and fact has shown this to be at least partially accurate (African yellow cake).
However, what we are witnessing is not faith versus fact but deliberate attempts to ignore established fact. Certainly Moore has constructed a presentation of fact with the intent of impacting his audience in certain ways. The individual facts presented can't be questioned because they come from the horses' mouths. The presentation can be questioned, but in order to do this convincingly (and not be preaching to the choir), one needs to examine the presentation. In other words, see the flick.
Criticizing an unviewed flick is never valid criticism.
QUOTE
2. I have heard it said that Moore's presentation is "unfair" to the current administration. Is the implementation of the Patriot Act fair (a major theme of the film)? Is it fair to fight unfairness with unfairness?
The implementation of the Patriot Act, where nobody in Congress read the thing, is grossly unfair and a derelection of duty. That this is commonly accepted behavior of Congresspeople is a shame on our democracy/republic. Moore simply illustrated how innane Congresspeople are and attempted to shame them by reading the Patriot Act through the loudspeaker of an ice cream/treats truck.
Personally, I thought this was quite a hoot.
The current administration can't really be blamed for Congress' lack of exercising its checks and balances. So this particular example isn't unfair to the administration. Nor is it unfair to Congress. We need a Congress that will work to keep the Executive from stepping out of line. Conversely, we could get an Executive that is careful to not step out of line. Ideally, we will get both.
So it's unfair that Congress hasn't been doing its job, and this is unfair to the electorate.
QUOTE
3. Hypothetical: If admission were free to the film and you had the time, would you see it?
Irrelevant. I've already paid to see it. Another viewing for free would be welcomed.
I do understand that some people will never view this flick -- even if paid to do so -- yet will use their media slots to criticize it. They aren't criticizing the flick, as pointed out, but Moore personally and those who might agree with him. Of those who attempt to criticize without viewing, the terms "credibility gap" come to mind. Although this might be satisfying for the critic with no experience, it also reinforces the lack of credibility in the Bush administration. Because even its supporters can't come up with anything other than hard-headed, strident stances on flimsy evidence, if any.