June 19, 2003


Richard Schickel on Michael Moore:

I despise our gun laws in the States, too. But Moores tactics, I think, give aid and comfort to the enemy. In short, hes careless with his facts, hysterical in debate and, most basically, a guy trying to make a star out of himself. Hes a self-aggrandiser and, perhaps, the very definition of the current literary term, the unreliable narrator. This guy either cant or wont stick to the point, build a logical case for his arguments. Its all hysteria but, I think, calculated hysteria.

And from the same Times article, these comments from Moores former manager:

Hes the only client I ever fired in writing. He was the most difficult human being Ive ever met. There was no one who even came close. Michael Moore would never withstand the scrutiny he lays on other people. You would think that hes the ultimate common man. But hes money-obsessed.

(Via Damian Penny)

Posted by Tim Blair at June 19, 2003 12:21 PM

Blimme, the article opened the old peepers: never occurred to one a type like Moore could be an advantage in opposing communards.
Principle , however intercedes, unlike communards, one cannot resort to: an enemy who is also an enemy to my enemies is my ally.Yuk.

Posted by: d at June 19, 2003 at 01:14 PM

It was a great article - the great unintended humour was the thought of Douglas Urbanski (the ex-manager) also representing the rather conservative Garry Oldman. Sucker for punishment...

Posted by: Craig Ranapia at June 19, 2003 at 04:34 PM

He may still be popular among the Hollywood left, but I think quite a few people had him pegged as a phoney from the start.

His little temper tantrum in London, where he abused the stagehands should have put an end to the "common man" nonsense when it was reported.

Posted by: puggs at June 19, 2003 at 05:14 PM

[quote]"I despise our gun laws in the States, too."[/quote]

Blew the entire article for me in the first sentence; there is no homogenous "set' of gun laws in the US -- some states are easier, some are harder, and some are downright demonic.

Posted by: Bruce T at June 19, 2003 at 05:26 PM

"I despise our gun laws in the States, too."

I wholeheartedly agree, we have far too may gun laws in the States. Heh.

Posted by: D2D at June 19, 2003 at 05:55 PM

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

Posted by: Tongue Boy aka Gomer Pyle at June 20, 2003 at 12:07 AM

Or maybe Richard remembers "Bowling for Columbine" in which Michael claims that Canada is just as well-armed in some respects but doesn't have the same level of problems.

Posted by: Andjam at June 20, 2003 at 12:34 AM

Isn't amazing that people like Phat Phuc Phil and Moore don't look like they've ever missed a meal due to the injustices of the system which they hate so much.

Posted by: AndyM at June 20, 2003 at 01:39 AM

If leftist buffoons like Moore (and Adams) ever get control of government all who don't see it his way will get a bullet in the brain. No wonder he doesn't want citizens to be armed, they could resist.

Posted by: ZsaZsa at June 20, 2003 at 02:30 AM

How come no one else's jumping on his tautology ""The facts in the movie are correct."

Is anything between the title and the closing credits, though, included in those true facts?

And wasn't True Facts! a feature in National Lampoon?

Posted by: Brian J. at June 20, 2003 at 04:13 AM

In classic logic, a fact is something that can be proven true or false. So "correct fact" or "true fact" actually has meaning. A fact is distinguished from, say, an opinion, in that it could be demonstrated true or not, whereas an opinion can merely be argued.

Also, fact is use ambiguously in a legal sense. It is used in the sense of allegation of fact until a fact has been "found"... I'm not a lawyer, but that should be close enough.

Posted by: Jason T. at June 20, 2003 at 08:22 AM

schyeah, like that manager wouldn't be money-obsessed himself, what a hypocrite.

Posted by: Gianna at June 20, 2003 at 02:13 PM

I finally rented "Blowing For Columbine" to see what all the fuss was about and it was nothing more than a gay porno movie...

Posted by: JDB at June 20, 2003 at 02:22 PM

"How come no one else's jumping on his tautology "The facts in the movie are correct."

The facts in the movie are correct. He correctly located Columbine HS as being in Colorado, and I think he got the kids' names right. Everything else in the movie is buffoonish fabrication, but he did get all three of the facts correct.

Posted by: David Thompson at June 20, 2003 at 02:26 PM