A case of poetic justice and an amiable agreement to disagree

Stuart asked me last night if I wanted to watch “Fahrenheit 9/11” with him.

Actually, I did. I think it’s important to know what the enemy’s saying if you’re going to make fun of him … er … I mean dispute his points, using rationale and logic later.

I was nervous about watching it with Stuart, since I knew I had scores of arrogant Bush-hating barbs headed my way. But I thought, “hey, why not?”

When I walked into the room, I was surprised to see not Moore’s “documentary,” but “FahrenHYPE 9/11,” the documentary made to expose some of the twisted truths and blatant lies in "Fahrenheit 9/11," sitting on the TV. Apparently Stuart bought it without paying attention to the title. Talk about poetic justice. Ha!

Laughing, I took a consensus of the room, and eventually Joe (the room’s only other occupant - another Bush supporter) and I agreed not to tell Stuart. We just popped it into the DVD player and sat down.

I was curious to see how long it would take Stuart to catch on. Even after the film’s title appeared on the screen, highlighting the “HYPE” part in white, he didn’t say anything.

Ten minutes. Nothing. This seemed like forever to me. Fifteen minutes. Bingo. He figured it out.

We all laughed for a minute and Stuart moved to eject the movie when I stopped him. We made a deal. If he would watch “FahrenHYPE” with an open mind, we would go out immediately afterward and buy “Fahrenheit” and watch that too. Surprisingly he agreed. What followed revealed him to have more depth than I would have given him credit for.

He watched the movie with interest and seemed to enjoy it, and understand its logic. I did enjoy pointing out, when Stuart said, “It would be better if some Democrats were in this,” that at least three of the main commentators – Ron Silver, Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) and Ed Koch – were active Democrats.

He and I then went to the video store and picked up the other one. On the way back we had the first political discussion in which I’ve been willing to participate (usually I just smile while he regurgitates CNN at me), and it was productive. He conceded almost all of my logical points about John Kerry, agreeing that he probably could not have run the country, and even conceded that George W. Bush is to be respected for standing his ground in the face of national criticism. This is the first inch he’s ever given.

Immediately after starting Moore’s film, Stuart admitted that it was made less professionally than the rebuttal had been. Halfway through, when Moore was portraying Soldiers as murderous trigger-happy morons whose idea of fun was to mow down children and then sing a song about it, Stuart was ready to jump through the TV screen and choke him (assuming he could get his hands around that considerable neck).

By the end, however, he believed at least half of what he had seen. And I have to admit the documentary was compelling. It compelled me, for instance to reach the conclusion that Michael Moore is a fat stupid white man. But seriously, if I hadn’t seen the rebuttal, it would be difficult not to believe a lot of what he said.

Still it only takes a tiny bit of perspective to see Moore for the obnoxious jerk he is.

Stuart was quick to point out that “FahrenHYPE” only addressed some of the issues “Fahrenheit” had brought up, and it should have addressed all of them. Well, as I saw it, the rebuttal film addressed what untruths the makers had solid evidence of. Moore could never have passed off a film to the public that was a lie through and through. We’re mildly smarter than that. The way to make a lie convincing is to salt it liberally with truth here and there – pad the lies with a few actual facts and people will buy the whole package.

All in all though, the attitude remained fairly amiable (which is new to us), although as the evening progressed and Stuart’s Jack Daniel’s bottle emptied, his arguments came louder and faster and his non sequiturs became more frequent. But I think we made significant progress. I was encouraged.

In unrelated news, I also heard Stuart on the phone telling someone that, “you may think she’s treating you bad, but it might be a result of how you’re treating her and you don’t realize it,” or something like that. In a separate conversation he lectured another friend on her superficiality (he actually used that word – and correctly). Apparently she and her friends judged people based on their clothing brands.

So maybe I’ve judged him a little too harshly. I still think he’s not that bright. I still think he thinks far too highly of himself – especially his physical attributes. I still think he’s too easily swayed by what the TV tells him, and doesn’t think objectively or analytically. But he may be a little deeper, a little more open-minded than I thought. Maybe there’s hope for him after all.