July 09, 2004


Hereís Michael Moore back in May, just before Fahrenheit 9/11ís premier screening:

"When you see the movie you will see things you have never seen before, you will learn things you have never known before. Half the movie is about Iraq - we were able to get film crews embedded with American troops without them knowing that it was Michael Moore. They are totally fucked."

Add this to Mooreís bulging collection of accurate predictions. Why do I write these unpleasant things about Mike? It's because, as reader Jen Clark correctly identifies, he "threatens my way of life":

I have to say this - I pulled up your article to give me someone else's perspective on Michael Moore, and found myself only disgusted by your "reporting". What a load of crap on paper. Easy to say, and not very imaginative on my part, but I have to say that it is clear that Moore threatens you and your way of life, not only by the way you write, but by the way you try to manipulate genuine responses to direct questions.

Ridiculous, misleading - I am left feeling like you have tried to convince me of something that is not there. You are upset, and being revealed, as another
actor playing a writer/reporter in this (Moore) "fiction" based society. Shame, shame, shame. You insult anyone with any intelligence and ...

Silence, crazy woman! Back in the realm of the unspazzed, James Lileks posts a review of Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man:

It unpacks the assertions made by his books and movies. Itís not a flame-throwing rant. Itís the brief for the defense - the client in the dock being America.

UPDATE. Jonah Goldberg presents a statement for discussion:

If the new Moore-standard says you can be a force for good even if you argue through half-truths, guilt-by-association and innuendo, then the case against Joe McCarthy evaporates entirely. He did, after all, have the larger truths on his side.

UPDATE II. Jim Treacher: "If Michael Moore were capable of shame, his toes would be curling up into his shins right now." Contains news of Mooreís bizarre The Daily Show smugfest.

Posted by Tim Blair at July 9, 2004 02:11 AM

The guy is nihilism writ large, and I mean very large.

Posted by: Tommy Shanks at July 9, 2004 at 02:51 AM

I am left feeling like you have tried to convince me of something that is not there.

It's funny how she didn't take away the same impression from F9/11. I guess all the false emotion in the movie managed to turn off her neural network for the time being. And that line about the "'fiction' based society" is gold...don't like the facts? Just proclaim them to not be real. (Much like a 5-year old would do. I can't heeeaaaar you!) I wonder if she'll ever realize how much that makes her sound like a crackpot. Well, perhaps after November 2nd.

Hmm, any relation between Jen Clark and Wesley Clark, by any chance? He was tight with Mikey, after all.

Posted by: PW at July 9, 2004 at 02:53 AM

Michael The Moor is telling Jen "Crazy" Clark what she wants to hear. Therefore, she doesn't want to hear anything to the contrary. Much like most of the left wing.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at July 9, 2004 at 03:10 AM

Tim is too humble.. here is the rest of that sentence from Lileks..

Plus, it has an essay by Tim Blair, who is crueler and funnier than Moore can ever hope to be. If Moore had Blairís talent, Ralph Nader would not only be elected president but elevated to Global Pope-Emperor by a deafening national voice-vote.

Anyway, love your stuff Tim.

Posted by: Steve at July 9, 2004 at 03:18 AM

Hey, I love that stuff where people write in about how you're all deceived by the Right, especially the women... it is a ritual to see how many letters to the editor I can count by women whinging about John Howard in the paper.

What were the benefits of giving women suffrage again? Oh, that's right, to keep the Labor Party in contention...

Yes, for any males who vote Labor, you do have many biological traits in your brain consistent with the majority of women. Enjoy.

Posted by: Jamie at July 9, 2004 at 03:31 AM

Tim, thanks for linking to the Lileks piece, it's superb.

Posted by: J F Beck at July 9, 2004 at 03:36 AM

Michael Moore reminds me of nothing so much as those post-adolescent guys who live in Mom's basement until their thirties and spend all their time on a computer trolling and trashing other people's websites. He's just a big, fat nerd who's mad at the world.

Posted by: Rebecca at July 9, 2004 at 03:50 AM

I love how the loony left is trying so hard to ignore the turd in their punchbowl, all the while reccomending the flavor.


Posted by: mojo at July 9, 2004 at 04:15 AM

The Artful Dodger of Facts and Salads

Posted by: bd at July 9, 2004 at 04:19 AM

Yeah, he threatens our way of life. How about leaving some food for the rest of us, Mike?

Posted by: Jim Treacher at July 9, 2004 at 04:31 AM

If Moore's new standard is that half-truths, innuendo, and guilt-by-association is justified as long as you are a force for good, then doesn't his criticism of Bush's justification for the Iraq War dissolve? Assuming Moore's allegations to be true, that Bush misled about WMD's (half-truth), that Saddam's ties to AL Qaeda were exaggerated (guilt-by-association), and that Saddam was not an imminent threat as "claimed" by Bush (innuendo). But as long as the greater good is served (the removal of a genocidal dictator), shouldn't Moore be happy with Bush's decision making process? If not, would that make Moore, even under his own somewhat arbitrary standard, a (gasp) hypocrite?

Sarcasm, mostly, but I would still like to see Moore's argument rebutted this way.

Posted by: CW at July 9, 2004 at 05:29 AM

Of course, Joe McCarthy was right and there were in fact reds under the bed. His methods were nasty and his aim poor, but he was right.

Michael Moore is even nastier than McCarthy, and his aim is worse, and he's also wrong.

CW: No, it doesn't work that way. Only the Left gets to lie in the cause of Truth. The Right, of course, is telling lies even when what they are saying is true in both letter and spirit.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at July 9, 2004 at 07:10 AM

I noticed in an interview with the bulging crackpot a few days ago to coincide with the Australian release of his latest Al-Qeada promotional movie, F9/11, Moore said his movie was based on opinion only.
He said "it's all my opinion" but urges people to see it to make up their own minds. He stated that "the truth is what people perceive it to be". That's true for the leftist wankers who fall for this bullshit..

Moore's only reasoning behind this tripe is for financial gain only. If he was trully serious about world injustices based on government policy then he'd have a field day in Indonseia.

Moore is typical of the leftist view, "It's all the fault of the US, UK and Australia". Never let the truth get in the way of a good story, just ask the SMH...

Posted by: scott at July 9, 2004 at 10:41 AM

Pixy Misa - why were McCarthy's methods "nasty"? And where is the evidence that his aim was poor?

Posted by: George at July 9, 2004 at 11:04 AM

Ha ha, get it? George Bush is asking what Joseph McCarthy did wrong! WIT.

Posted by: Angus Jung at July 9, 2004 at 11:17 AM

McCarthy was nasty because he caused many actors and other artistic types to flee to France, a sad fate no one deserves.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 9, 2004 at 12:11 PM

Who has seen the picture of Moore on the current cover of Time? Apart from the artful trimming of his scary girth, what about the fake-sensitive puppy-dog eyes? And as for holding the folded stars and stripes (ooohh, dead soldiers - like Mike cares): it's not even my flag, dammit, but it sickens me.

Posted by: cuckoo at July 9, 2004 at 12:16 PM

Jen Clark is basically right: Moore's lies and propaganda are definitely a threat to our way of life.

Posted by: Jim C. at July 9, 2004 at 01:30 PM

I am goint to go out and buy Michael Moores books and DVD's, when they are 2 cents for everything at a garage sale in 5 years.

Posted by: JBB at July 9, 2004 at 03:03 PM