The Pancreatitis Chronicles

Take a moment and refresh your memory by reading this post, specifically the update to it.  I just received a follow-up email from the author of that update, and I’d like to post it here.

Lee I am the guy that had the Pancreatitis that you featured in your post on right-thinking and morewatch.

I just wanted to let you know how the billing for this went. After spending 3 days in the hospital - in a private room none the less. After getting infused with bag after bag of drugs to get my body back on track and getting more morphine than an addict on the street for the pain I got the bill for the treatment.

$12,625.35

A hell of alot more than I can pay thats for sure. Hey your co-admin has Michael Moore to thank, I have the City and County of Denver and it’s taxpayers. I was told to go to the finacial aid office and after all is said and done guess how much I owe?

$100.10 Thats it $12,525.25 paid for by some unknown persons somewhere. I did not ask where they get the funding for this program. But thats not the case. The 100.10 that I am paying are proccessing fees! Fees that cannot be waived and that I must pay. So actually this financial assistance paid the ENTIRE BILL!

Who the hell says we don’t have free health care when it is required? And as I said before my care was top notch (allthough I was asleep most the time) in a state of the art hospital KNOWING I COULD NOT PAY THE BILL!

I can send you copies of the bills if you need them.

No, that won’t be necessary.  I’ve had the same thing happen to me.  When my father was admitted to the hospital in in severe cardiac failure, one of the first things my mother said was that we didn’t have insurance.  The head doctor, a world-renowned cardio-thoracic surgeon, said to my mom, “Don’t worry about the bill.  Your husband will get all the treatment he needs.  We’ll worry about the bill later.”

Not exactly the “dumped at Skid Row” scenario that Moore paints, is it?  Now, the Skid Row dumping in Los Angeles absolutely happened, and it was disgusting.  But he painted at as the norm, when it is clearly the exception, and the public was outraged about it when it came to light.  (Oddly, that aspect of the case didn’t make it into the movie.  What a strange coincidence.)

Someone Who Gets It

After the weeks of never-ending hate mail we have been receiving from Moore fans, it was an absolute delight to receive this one from C. Chrisp of Alberta, Canada.

Dear Jim and Lee;

I just watched ‘Sicko’ this weekend and I enjoyed it. Before you delete this email and thereby execute ties with a new supporter of yours, please note that I feel the need to explain why I enjoy Moore’s films before I start my tirade (which is surprisingly not directed at either of you, but rather toward the hate-filled rageaholics who festively decorate your inbox with colourful language and inventive grammar).

Let me begin by saying that I am a 26 year-old Canadian woman, and I don’t agree with everything Moore said about our healthcare system. Everyone I know has endured sickeningly long waits, and I myself have camped in hospital waiting rooms for hours at a time. The shortest I have ever spent in an ER waiting room is an hour and a half. I’ve never been sent away or denied treatment, but our system is by no means perfect. People are misdiagnosed here, too. Doctors are overworked and underpaid, and it’s not uncommon for me to have to remind my family doctor which member of my family I am, because a sixteen-hour shift can make his brain a mite fuzzy.

Michael Moore has presented his version of the facts in a few films now, popularizing a new style of documentary. For that, I curtsy in his general direction.

I have always been a fan of the documentary in its many forms, but find that a poorly executed documentary can be a bit of a snoozefest. Thus, it was with a sense of amused relief that I watched ‘Bowling for Columbine’ in 2002, because it was the first entertaining documentary I had ever seen. Others have followed, including “Supersize Me,” which was another entertaining, alternative view of the ‘facts’ we are more commonly fed by the mass media.

So yes. I like being entertained while I watch my documentaries, and Moore does that in spades. I fully agree that he has dumbed his shamelessly biased central messages down to a digestable pablum for the masses, but I don’t agree that I am a moron for watching his films. My opinion is simply that he feels passionate enough about certain issues to create these films, and he goes about convincing us in the same way the media does - using any angle or technique that will wrangle the populace over to his side. Moore’s need to take his interviewees on a wee fieldtrip in every film he makes is becoming insulting to my intelligence, though (try the zoo, next time, Mikey - it’s less likely to get your friends shot at).

I joined the lineup to your site after seeing ‘Sicko,’ because I wanted to see what you were all about before I decided to hate you. After reading a few pages on your site, I sensed a certain democracy in your intentions, and that is where you’ve earned my support. You are simply holding Moore’s feet to the fire, making him aware that he is and ever will be questioned on his facts. This is what democracy is all about! Free speech is great, but so is the freedom to question what is being said. All you’re asking for is some balance, and while your site may not be suitable for the kiddies, at least you’re honest and referenced!

To address the less-objective of my fellow Moore fans out there, I can only apologize to you as a person would for the drunken uncle at Thanksgiving. I’m sorry that so many of us are of the “shoot first and ask questions later” variety. I wish we read enough to know that Moore called before his film was released to identify himself as the source of the “anonymous” donation, and that Jim was respectful enough to thank him SEVERAL times for his help. I wish we would understand that the money was not a bribe to be silent forever more, and that taking the money is what ANYONE in Jim’s situation would do, source be damned. These “how could you!?” responses you’ve been getting on your site are a pathetic joke. How could he NOT? is the question I would ask these people.

I laughed wholehearteldly at that crazy ALL CAPS, APESHIT-CRAZY RANT from the loopy Mia Jones, and the response about Hippocrates had me giggling for at least a few seconds longer. She had to use the death of her child to try and guilt you into some sort of...what? Fear of her and her craziness? At least you are asking important questions instead of just sitting back and nodding your head! You actually source your information, and so it’s clear to this little Liberal that you two are not talking out of your backsides. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for Mrs. Jones and her violent husband.

That said, I wanted to write to support you because I think that what you’re doing is important. I think that Moore’s work is important in that it reveals another side of a given issue. His arguments are by no means all-inclusive, but humans being what they are, it can be difficult to remain objective on issues one feels strongly about. Also, notoriety sells. Make the grass look as green as possible on the other side, and people will begin to crap on their own lawns, so to speak.

The beauty of freedom is that we can say our piece and other people can disagree with us. One problem with Moore dumbing down the facts is that people like you will get hate mail from god-fearin’, gun-totin’ HIPPOCRATES who want to unleash unholy hell on you for asking important questions.

I suppose the point of this small novel I’ve written is to express my heartfelt sympathy that your cause has to contend with people who are too stupid to realize that important issues are more like a die than a coin, and that condemning you to a hell you don’t even believe in with craploads of profanity only serves to fortify your point in all of this, as well as your opinion that Moore fans are at least partially retarded.

We need you two to round out the argument and debate, and hell - you’re at least as entertaining as Michael Moore.

Kind regards;
C. Chrisp

Allow me to make one point explicitly clear.  People are not inherently morons for watching Moore’s films.  They’re not morons for agreeing with what he says.  What qualifies them as “Moore-ons” is when they passionately, utterly accept what he says as being the gospel truth, yet have no ability to defend their own beliefs other than to say that Michael Moore told them it was true.  Disagree with Jim and I all you like, that’s the pure essence of free speech.  But be able to do so intelligently, with the facts on your side, rather than simply accepting the word of a portly propagandist. 

People who implicitly trust and believe everything Michael Moore says are just as bad, if not worse, than people who implicitly trust and believe George W. Bush.  At least Bush has the degree of trust implied by the office he holds, where as Moore has, what, a known track record of gross lies and distortions throughout his entire career, beginning with the Flint Voice and his brief stint at Mother Jones, then culminating in his stream of Leni Reifenstahl-like propaganda movies promoting the all-seeing, all-powerful benevolence of government.  (Unless it’s in matters like war and defense, which have been regarded since the beginning of time as legitimate functions of government.)

As I’ve said a million times, people who write us calm, intelligent letters will be responded to with calm, intelligent responses. (As much as possible, anyway—answering every email we receive, good or bad, would be a full-time job.) People who send us hate-fill diatribes, especially those filled with errors in grammar, spelling, and fundamental sentence structure, will be posted with names and emails to be publicly ridiculed.

On a personal note, thank you to C. Chrisp for “getting” what is it Jim and I are trying to do here.  It’s a rare pleasure.

Update As if right on queue, here’s another email from another Canadian, named Tim.

A Canuck Responds

A reader from Canada named David Crosby sends in the following.

Just read your post about Toronto,

Let me first start off by saying, I’m Canadian, and I live at Younge & Elm (That’s where the shooting happened). I wasn’t there when it happened.

Ok so, I agree blaming the US is not going to make anything better or solve this problem.  But saying that guns are not the problem, not sure if I can agree with that. Because it would be nice to have a gun to defend yourself when you can defend yourself, but there is NO WAY that girl could have defended herself even if she had a gun. This was a drive by shooting, between two gangs, she died in a hail of gun fire. This happened all in a matter of seconds, she probably didn’t even see who shot her.  Even if someone on the street had a gun they wouldn’t be able to react to a 5 second drive by shooting. This isn’t a Hollywood movie, this is not Die Hard or Terminator this is real life!!  The hero doesn’t just come out a blow away all the bad guys.  It would be nice if that happened but it simply doesn’t.

Promoting guns as a solution to deal with your problems only gives these kids more reason to buy more guns and live the life style they do.

Toronto has had a terrible year for murders, but it does not even come close to Baltimore, Detroit or NYC not just in terms of total murders but in ratio of population size to murders, Toronto is still miles away from reaching that extreme.

And again I will agree, that our social system and communities are not perfect. I’m not sure if there is a perfect social system. I think Toronto has a good system but still far far from perfect. For most of the 90’s Ontario had a Conservative government in charge. The Premier of Ontario was a man named Mike Harris, from Thunder Bay Ontario*. Thunder Bay is way up in Northern Ontario far from Toronto. If the USA put a bid in to buy Toronto in the 90’s Mike Harris would have sold. Mike did not care about Toronto or its people, even though it is almost half the population of Ontario. Mike Harris cut lots of money out of Toronto; its community programs, social systems and of course welfare. He even went so far to combine Toronto with all surrounding municipalities to create what he called a “mega city.”

The only thing these kids have to look forward to is selling drugs. They think they have no hope of going anywhere, because they grow up in a poor community with poor schools, bad playgrounds, and too many bad influences, far removed from the rich and safe communities.

Michael Moore did not do a good job of showing the real slums of Toronto. Sure Toronto does have them, again not as bad as a lot of American cities, but we could be getting there. We have a liberal government in charge of Ontario now, but they aren’t doing much either to solve the problem. All they are doing is talking about stronger gun control, which I agree with, but it will not happen over night. Gun control is an ! on going battle which will take years, decades maybe even generations.

If these kids did not have guns they would have started a knife or fist fight on the street, which would still be brutal, but would have not taken an innocent girls life. But more importantly if these kids had more hope and something to look forward too they wouldn’t have done this at all.

A couple of points.  Firstly, I have never stated that countries such as Canada or Australia or the UK shouldn’t be perfectly free to set whatever draconian gun control laws they like.  They’re all representative democracies, and if Canadians or Aussies think that banning guns will make them safer, that’s their right as sovereign peoples.  What I take issue with is the logic behind it.  Canada is certainly free to ban guns if they choose, but this does not mean that banning guns will actually end up with the result you desire. 

You’re right, this girl was killed as a result of crossfire between two gangs.  And even if she had had a gun on her, she probably would have been just as dead.  However, look at it a different way.  Canada’s existing gun control laws didn’t stop this crime to begin with, so how can anyone logically argue that even more gun control laws would have produced a different result?  Criminals are criminals, and by definition criminals do not obey the law.  So pass all the laws against guns you choose, but don’t be surprised when criminals still end up shooting each other.

Then there’s the convenient excuse of blaming the problem on the gun-crazed lunatics in the United States.  If only America wasn’t awash in a sea of guns then Canadian criminals wouldn’t have them.  This is absurd.  The reason American guns are coming in to Canada is because there is a demand for them.  If there was no demand, then there would be no guns.  If you want to deny this fundamental fact about economics, try selling a product sometime that nobody wants, and see just how long you stay in business.  It’s not that guns cause people to be criminals, it’s that criminals want to be better criminals, and guns allow them to do so, especially when they know that nobody else in the country is going to be able to defend themselves.

Also, you mention that these murders are taking place in the type of slum areas that Michael Moore insists don’t exist in Canada.  Fair enough.  Can you explain to me how restricting the right of a law-abiding Canadian who lives in a non-slum area is going to reduce gun crime between criminal gangs in a slum?  Again, I’m not disputing Canada’s sovereign right to do just this, I’m simply taking issue with the logic behind this mode of thinking.

Tell me, has banning drugs in Canada prevented drug abuse?

*Update from JimK - Reader Gilbert emailed in that Mike Harris is from Northern Bay, not Thunder Bay.  The two are about 12 hours apart...it’s like saying a guy from D.C. is from New York here in the States.  Thanks for the correction!

Mike’s Priorities II

Michael, the guy who sent me the email last night about Moore’s outrageous attempts to blame Bush for the New Orleans disaster, has sent in a couple more great emails.

Well, Moore has finally put some stuff on Katrina, including a link to various places you can send money or goods for relief which is the least he can do. And I mean least. Because once again, his obsession is taking hold as virtually every other thing about Katrina is blasting Bush for ‘eating cake” during this (like any human being could have done anything against Mother Nature) and quoting attacks on the federal government for the poor handling of the situtation.

Now yes, things are chaotic and in retrospect, it does seem there has been bungling down there but it’s not all the federal government’s fault. After all, you’d think the city engineers would have been double and triple-checking to make sure the leeves were in good shape before it hit and afterward as well. Not to mention whoever ordered the helicopters to concentrate more on evacuation than dropping sandbags which could have slowed the flooding. And the fact that despite the “mandatory evacuation” orders, the city did a poor job making sure everyone was out. I’m not saying the feds are blameless (FEMA, for example, isn’t exactly taking charge as you’d expect them to) but once again, this is not something that can be lain directly on the head of Bush anymore than you could blame his father for Andrew or Clinton for the 94 [Northridge] quake.

He also seems to hint that the US should pull troops out of Iraq to take charge down there, which reminds me of what you were saying of putting himself at odds with Bush. Say there’s more attacks in Iraq and Moore will suddenly say they’re not enough defenses there. Or if the troops are still not able to push order, Moore will claim its proof the army’s not up to any job.

I am almost sure that Moore will make hype about the oil refineries being the prime consideration for Bush. Never mind that the whole damn country is going to be oil-starved (especially Casey’s mom three-bus caravan) and that is a priority for our economy.

What really kills me? Measure the screen size on Moore’s site. The Katarina stuff is pushed to barely more than a third on the right side. The remaining two thirds are on Casey’s mom. If that doesn’t say volumes about Moore’s priorities, I don’t know what will.

And he follows up with this.

Sorry if it sounds like I’m bombarding you today but I think it’s important someone points out what few on either side of the media have regarding the whole “Bush took money from levees for Iraq” argument. What Moore and the like (such as those guys at Downing Street site) are doing are forgetting is that this cut was just last year. They seem to be laboring under the misconception that the city would have INSTANTLY gone to work on the levees. That, however, would probably have not been the case since in every major city in this country, construction on major projects takes a lot of time. And that’s assuming the city would have made the levees a major priority. For years, it’s been a running dark joke in NO that the government spends more time and money getting ready for Mardi Gras than anything else.

This is one time I know what I’m talking about. I’m from Chicago where construction on the Dan Ryan and other expressways has been going on so long it’s no longer funny. My family has a summer home in Michigan so I drive back and forth there several times over the summer and there has been massive construction going on around the Indiana/Illinois border for nearly three years with no end in sight.
However, Mayor Daly managed to push the ‘refurbishment’ of Solider Field so it took little more than a year and a half, in time for the Bears (a medicore team when the stadium deal was made and even worse by the time it was done) could start the 03 season there. 2003, some might remember, was also a year where nearly 20 people died in a nightclub panic, 7 died when a building porch collapsed and about 5 in a fire in a high-rise building when the firefighters failed to make sure they had checked for everyone. And yet the blame went more for the housing and firefighting departments instead of Daly.

Again, I am by no means a huge fan of George W. Bush but the assumption that without Iraq this would never have happened is ridiculous since cities don’t always make the truly important stuff a priority until too late. You think we’d have this bickering if Kerry had won?

And on that, to the people saying this is the perfect exit stragety for Bush and troops are needed here: If Kerry was in office and proposing bringing troops home, the ultra-right would be harping on him for cowardanice and using the tragedy as an excuse to undo a massive mistake. Now, the left are demanding that Bush do it for the good of the nation. I don’t care if it’s from liberals or conseratives, I can’t stand hypocrisy (which is why I dislike Moore so much)

In fact, here’s a note to all sides of the fence: Stop belly-aching about who’s at fault, roll up your sleeves, donate what you can (I’m looking at you, Moore) and help who’s left and try to fix this. Right now, the people of New Orleans don’t care about blame. They care about living. Think on that.

Sorry about this long rant but I had to get it out. Keep up the good work.

One of the most common refrains we hear in the hate mail we receive is that since we dislike Michael Moore and believe he’s a disgusting, anti-American liar, that we must therefore be Bush-worshipping fundamentalist Christians who want to re-enslave black people and force women into pregnancy.  As these emails show, you can be a political opposite of Bush and still think that Michael Moore is a scumbag.

The Story of Cindy

Following up on this post from JimK, a reader named Frankie sends in this interesting tidbit.

Dear Moorewatch people,

I’m not a member, but I try to stop by as much as I can.  I’ve been following the Cindy Sheehan story fairly closely and I cannot get behind how arrogant this woman is.  She’s obviously using the death of a family member for prestige and to espouse her political views.  Like Jeremy Glick.

Hearing her say all the usual leftist talking points, watching her act as if she’s speaking for all the mothers of those who have fallen, listening to her demoralize our troops and their families.  This all pissed me off.  But then I noticed that her son’s name was Casey.  I was reminded of this little item some months back…

“Dear Friends

26 years ago today, Casey was 6 hours and 49 minutes old. What a joyful day that day was. The birth of our firstborn. He was so wanted and his birth was so highly anticipated. A true bundle of joy. ..”

It was a letter, attributed to a woman named Cindy, that appeared on Moore’s site.  JimK’s wife made a very convincing case that it was probably forged, and I showed it to my parents and they thought it was likely a forgery on Mikey’s part.

Okay, it’s too coincidental that there could be two women named Cindy who lost sons named Casey in Iraq and who are both ass-to-face with Michael Moore. These people were real, so Mikey couldn’t have pulled it DIRECTLY out of his ass.

And with this letter, Sheehan’s earlier praising of Bush, her present bleating, and her relationship with Moore, there are three scenarios here.

1) Cindy’s later account of Bush was true, and she only said what she said for the sake of other mothers of dead Iraq troops, but that the typical Mooreon talking points are just how she feels and Michael Moore is just taking advantage of her.  She also simply has a similar writing style to Michael Moore and, if her son was a cop who died on a drug bust that turned out to be a false tip, would talk about the mayor, chief of police, etc. the same way.  This means that she suddenly doesn’t care about the mothers of other dead troops and that she cares more about name calling than grieving.

2) She really did feel, about a year ago, that Bush was right and did the right thing, but somehow Michael Moore took her under his wing, as she believed him to be a kindly, concerned citizen.  Helping her write her letter, he made her go out and say these things.  It is possible.  I mean, there are plenty of people who think Michael Moore is just a saintly elf who only wants to do good on this Earth.

3) She really doesn’t give a swimming shit about her son and when Bush grieved with her, she said all this warm and fuzzy stuff cuz--well--Bush is her celebrity connection.  Later on, Moore either comes to her, or puts the word out that he’s looking for someone like her and they collaborate on said letter (actually, seeing this Sheehan on TV… I believe she could write something like this) and since her celebrity connection to Moore is bound to prove to be so much more fruitful, she dives head first into his pool of Bush bashing and anti-War Mongering.

Incidentally, her original account makes it seem, to me anyway, as if she and her husband were among many families at the gathering… her later statement makes it seem like it was just her, Bush, and if you remember her husband, him too.  It could be significant, but maybe not.

What is significant is this: moorewatch.com was appearantly off in its analysis of the letter.  There really is a Cindy and there really is a Casey.  On the other hand, Cindy either has a similar writing style to Michael Moore and is just as obsessed with name calling and the political aspect of the war as Moore is; or gave Michael Moore permission to write a politically-charged, vitriolic letter on her behalf and is now merrily on her way to a new life as a media darling.

Interesting insight.  I think he makes some excellent points.

The FEC and Mikey

I went around and around on this one trying to find a way to incororate David Hardy’s email to me into a post that made sense.  Nothing worked.  Then I realized..."uhh...Jim?  Post Hardy’s email, dummy.  Then walk away.”

So, yeah.  Here’s David Hardy’s email.  :)

Got a call from a reporter saying the FEC had turned down the Moore complaint. Look at FEC’s webpage, I think he got the recent FEC complaint confused with one I filed in the spring, focusing on fact that McCain-Feingold Act prohibits buying airtime to mention a candidate’s name, and that with focus of F 9/11 it was probable that they would be making promient mention of one G. W. Bush. FEC never sent me notice on that, and I’d long forgotten about it.

But in that inquiry I found that FEC and Moore’s companies had generated a load of paperwork. You can get pdf versions by going to http://eqs.sdrdc.com/eqs/searcheqs and searching for “Michael Moore.”

The company’s lawyers argued that they had voluntarily foregone any mention of Bush or of any other candidate within 60 days of the election (altho curiously they *had* been mentioning Bush at the date of the complaint and why one would make a business decision so nicely coincide with the law is unstated), and the FEC accordingly declined the complaint. It may have spooked the distributors into knocking it off, who knows, but one letter certain generated a ton of paperwork!

What’s hilarious—go to the “ Response from Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., Cablevision Systems Corp., Rainbow Media Holdings LLC, The Independent Film Channel LLC, Fellowship Adventure Group LLC, Harvey Weinstein and Bob Weinstein” and look at what a convoluted chain of corporations and limited liability companies the anti-corporate Moore is using! There must be two dozen of them, owning each other or contracted to each other. Lion’s Gate is owned by another Lion’s Gate, which is owned by a Canadian Lion’s Gate, which is owned by another Canadian Lion’s Gate.

Concurring opinion of two commissioners highlights the interesting legal issues posed. Apparently there was pending a petition for rulemaking to exempt advertising of documentaries. But as they note, how do you do this without creating an exemption that lets anyone use a documentary as an excuse for campaign ads? On the other hand, if the “media exemption” of McCain-Fiengold doesn’t apply here, then the general election law media exemption, phrased in almost the same language, also doesn’t apply:

“Were this case to proceed, a fundamental, substantive legal issue likely to be raised by the respondents would be whether or not the exemption fiom the electioneering communications rovisions for the press applies to movie distributors. See 2 U.S.C. §A7434(f)(3)(B)(l). whether or not the respondents could run advertisements for the film that would otherwise constitute “electioneering communications.” For one thing, if the press exemption does not apply to movies in the electioneering communications context, it almost certainly would not apply in other parts of the Act. Thus, a substantive finding that advertisements for the film are not protected by the press exemption of 2 U.S.C. §A7434(f) would suggest that the film and its advertising and distribution are also not protected by the general press exemption of 2 U.S.C.443 1(9)(B)(i), which uses substantially identical language. In that case, if the film were deemed to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate, its production and distribution would seem to entail numerous violations of the law, including the ban on corporate expenditures, 2 U.S.C. §A7441b, the ban on contributions by foreign nationals, §A7441e, the disclosure provisions o f 2 U.S. 434, and perhaps various organizational and registration requirements, §A7 433.”

They go on to note this might mean that books that advocate one candidate or another would be covered by these general election laws (and treated as contributions, and forbidden to corporations) .... which (they don’t note) would pose some huge First Amendment problems.

A Damn Fine Question

A reader emails in an excellent question.

Will Mike’s next film make as much of Kofi Annan’s 72-hour delay in responding to the South Asia Tsunami Crisis as it did of George Bush’s 7 minute delay in responding to the 9/11 attacks?

I doubt it.  Bush is evil, and Kofi, well, he’s the head of the UN!  (Cue the angelic chorus.)

No facts, just my opinion.

Every time Michael Moore speaks about the military, I get that same feeling you get when some jerk cuts you off in traffic. Sure, I know the guy didn’t cut me off personally, but I still want to see a cop pull him over and put him in jail for a few days so he can get in touch with his feminine side, courtesy of his cell mate “Bubba”. I know Moore doesn’t know me personally, but every time he even says the words “our troops” I have to restrain myself from breaking something. I feel like he is patently unqualified to speak about our military, and his portrayal of our troops in his movie Fahrenheit 9-11, just about makes me crazy. One particular scene in the movie features some Marine Corps recruiters scoping out possible recruits at a shopping center. Moore makes the case that the recruiters almost “prey” on the lower classes of society( especially black kids) to enlist them and ship them off to die in a foreign land. All the while, the affluent white kids are of no regard to the recruiters, as they have “options.”

Now, I have been collecting data on that issue for a few weeks now, and I can tell you that Moore definitely has it all wrong. Despite what Moore may try to tell you, the deaths in the military of white people as a percentage, is exactly the same of the percentage of white people in the US as a population: 75%. That is but one of dozens of statistics I am currently trying to formulate into a readable, understandable story. I hope to post that on Friday.

In the mean time, I wish to tell you a story. 

A message from the boys

OK, a few things about this picture.

1. I checked the IP numbers and emailed the source at a .mil account.  It’s real.

2. It’s not photoshopped.

3. I got permission to post it but not to reveal the names of anyone involved.

4. The submitter’s own words were “It’s a little over the top, but we liked it.” I agree.  It’s a little over the top (the “dead” comment) but still...this is how these guys feel.

Is that enough of a preamble, you think?  ;)

Desperate Democrats adopting Moore style tactics

Well, they didn’t get a bounce from their convention, so in their desperation, the Democrats have decided to “Be like Mike.” No not Jordan,....... Moore.  And no, not by gaining 150 pounds and growing a scruffy beard. They’ve decided to “Expose the lies of President Bush” with wit and video!

And the article reads:

Democrats Roll Out ‘Bush Truth Squad’
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Democrats rolled out a “Bush truth squad” Tuesday to state the facts as they see them and challenge the president’s assertions at every turn of the campaign.  Nearly 20 members of Congress, a retired general supporting John Kerry and other partisans joined in a pledge to “tell the whole truth” when President Bush doesn’t.

This is a page right out of Moore’s playbook. Pretending to tell the “rest of the story”. Yeah, right. With the apparent affect Moore has had on the left wingy base, and the apparent lack of affect Kerry had on the rest of the base it seems to me that the Dems are willing to go down that deceptive road that Moore has been paving for ten years now. Whatever it takes, right??

The facts they brought forward at their launch, however, were selective.

The psychology of Moore

Forum regular, jdmcg just hooked me up with an incredible link showing a very deep anaylsis of F911 and Moore, and his fans by Kelton Rhoads, Ph.D. the creator of WorkingPsychology.com

Rhoads recently published this article on Moore,which isn’t merely a response piece, rather, it’s an application piece, based on his expertise in the field of psychology. It’s TRULY fascinating, however, it’s a 30 page PDF, so give yourself some time to read it.

One of my favorite quotes:

“Fahrenheit’s scorching of the President’s character uses a “death by papercuts” approach: scores of statistics and insinuations are marshalled to support a sprawling indictment of Presidential ineptitude and fraud. As such, it’s validity as documentationrests largely onthe accuracy of it’s many assertions- so the devil is in the details as always.”

Well as we all know , the details are tenuous at best, flat out lies at worst. The author uses many examples specific to the movie, but this isn’t another , “Here are the facts, here is the truth” rebuttal. It looks at the psychology behind every issue.

The article goes on to describe in detail the propaganda techniques specifically used by Moore, as well as to explain how it is that so many people are lulled into believeing his word is the Gospel.

Read it here

Rhoads is the author of the new book on propaganda called E.W.Y.G.Y.S ( Either way you go you’re screwed).

*edit, sorry, that’s the name of a syndrome named in this book, not the actual title. Rhoads doesn’t mention the title.  Mr. Scorekeeper, please deduct 5 points from Para’s score for being stupid.

Hug first, ask questions later.

At the Washington D.C. June 23rd premier of Moore’s Fahrenheit 9-11, the big story was how many Democratic Party politicians showed up and lauded Moore as a hero for their cause. He was greeted by several politicans, and when Moore spotted Sen. Tom Daschle (D- SD) he first extended a hand, and then unexpectedly wrapped his big ‘ol arms around the senior Senator:

“he gave me a hug and said he felt bad and that we were all gonna fight from now on. I thanked him for being a good sport.”

Can you just imagine how validated Moore must have felt as he exchanged this plutonic geature of love and acceptance with the Senate minority Leader? His heart must’ve been in his massive throat as the recipient of an endorsement like that. He couldn’t wait to share his special moment with the rest of us , via his Time magazine interview. Thanks for sharing Michael.

Only one problem with that though.....

Guest Commentary: More about those 7 minutes

Michael Moore would have us believe that on 9/11 George Bush threw away seven minutes reading “My Pet Goat” to school children—seven minutes that, had he acted, could have saved hundreds. He’s wrong. But don’t take my word for it—take the 9/11 bi-partisan commission’s word for it (Unless of course you’re a conspiracy theorist, in which case the report has probably exacerbated your paranoia).

Yeah, but is he popular with anyone who really matters?

Democrats and Republicans finally have found some common ground, an idea that most folks from both parties seem to agree upon:

Michael Moore is political poison.

This phenomenon was first nationally noticed when Moore’s endorsement and stumping for Green Party Candidate Ralph Nader helped him receive 2,882,897 votes in the 2000 presedential election esentially costing Gore an easy win over Bush.

Next came his endorsement of General Wesley Clark in the Democratic primary. Shortly after Moore’s endorsement and appearance at a Clark rally , ABC TV’s Peter Jennings asked Clark how he felt about Moore’s claim that President Bush was a deserter. Clark defended Moore, and within days, Clark dropped nine points in New Hampshire.

This week Moore has been attending events at the DNC convention in Boston,. The effect of his presence is not lost on either party. The Democrats responded to Moore’s recent popularity by not inviting him to speak at the convention. He did get to watch a few speeches Tuesday night, a guest of the Congressional Black Caucus, and even got to sit next to America’s 38th most popular President, Jimmy Carter and his lovely Wife. 

From the Troops

Michael Moore’s film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is making the rounds here at U.S. bases in Kuwait. Some soldiers have received it already and are passing is around. The impact is devastating.

Here we are, soldiers of the 1st Armored Division, just days from finally returning home after over a year serving in Iraq, and Moore’s film is shocking and crushing soldiers, making them feel ashamed. Moore has abused the First Amendment and is hurting us worse than the enemy has.

There are the young and impressionable soldiers, like those who joined the Army right out of high school. They aren’t familiar w/ the college-type political debate environment, and they haven’t been schooled in the full range of issues involved. They are vulnerable to being hurt by a vicious film like Moore’s.

There are others who joined for reasons of money and other benefits, and never gave full thought to the issues. For them, seeing this film has jolted them grievously because they never even knew where some of these countries were that we have been serving in. Imagine the impact this film has on them.

And there are those who are hurting from being away from family and loved ones. They are burnt out, already hurting inside from 15 months of duty out here, and now to be hit w/ this film.. it is devastating.

Lastly, there are those like me, who want to explode in anger and rage at this abuse of the First Amendment and the way Moore has twisted reality so harshly.

Whatever it Takes?

When I was a kid in school, I took the Pledge of Allegiance every day. When I joined the Army, I pledged to protect America with my life. When I got married, I pledged to love, honor, and obey Mrs. Paratrooper until the day I die. I think pledges are important. You take a pledge when you really mean to say something. So, when I was reading Michael Moore’s website the other day and saw that he was asking his loyal supporters to take a pledge, you can imagine my interest as I clicked on the link.

*click*

And the pledge reads.........

Hating the Troops

The “Fahrenheit” boiling point
Since returning home from the war, I’ve begun to worry that anti-war fervor may turn into anger at U.S. troops.
By Andrew Exum

July 14, 2004 | As a veteran who has spent the past few months since I left the army traveling around the country, one refrain I keep hearing is “I don’t think we need to be in Iraq, but I support the troops.” I have heard this in New York City as often as I have in my hometown of Chattanooga, Tenn. No matter what the opinion of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, the admiration and appreciation the public feels for its veterans is widespread and genuine. Not even the horrors of Abu Ghraib seem to have dampened the public’s view of the men and woman fighting abroad.

But as anger builds toward President Bush over the Iraq War, I fear that anger is eventually bound to spill onto the foot soldiers anonymously serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t think it’s an irrational fear: Even those of us born after the Vietnam War read about the “baby killer” epithets that greeted returning veterans as the antiwar sentiment escalated. And so as I began to survey much of the antiwar popular culture for this essay, I found myself increasingly uneasy by what I saw. Not so much in the works themselves, but in the reactions of the people with whom I sat.

I saw the Al-Jazeera documentary “Control Room” during a stop in Atlanta on my recent book tour. The last time I watched a movie with a crowd had been in April, in Afghanistan, with the platoon of Army Rangers I had led for the past year. Quite a different audience from the one in the Little Five Points section of Atlanta. I wondered what my Rangers would have made of the documentary. I could easily guess the opinions of the other people in the theater by the time the opening credits rolled, and I think I would have valued the unpredictable and surprisingly diverse opinions of my Rangers more.

The crowd in Atlanta began by wildly cheering the trailer to Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” and I suspected they were there more to sate their anti-Bush appetites than to watch a study of the burgeoning Arab free press. After all, “Fahrenheit 9/11” would not open for another four days, so I guess they had to do something until then.

The crowd came to see an anti-Bush film, and that’s what they got, though that might come as a surprise to the filmmaker, Jehane Noujaim. The film wasn’t an explicit anti-Bush screed—it was the story of a struggling Arab cable network and its efforts to cover the news as well as CNN, while at the same time keeping some semblance of objectivity in a region infected with overwhelming anti-American sentiment. Granted, the film offered plenty of opportunities to boo and hiss Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush—and the audience cheerfully took up every opportunity. But they did so without pausing, I think, to take in some of the more serious questions the film asked about the media coverage of the war and about Arab-American relations. While the film tackles the pro-Arab bias at Al-Jazeera, the network got a free pass of sorts from the Atlanta audience. 

The Moore Effect

Let’s look at how the Moore Factor has effected the Presidential Race thus far! Here’s a time line, showing F 9/11’s influence on the upcoming election (Couresty of Gallup Poll among registered voters they deemed likely to vote in November):

June 21-23: Presidental Race Survey results

Bush 49%
Kerry 48%
Nader 3%

June 23: Lion’s Gate Films release Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11

June 28: USA Today reports F9/11 grosses over $20 million nationwide, making it the highest grossing opening weekend for a “documentary.”

July 2-4: F9/11 grosses yet another $20 million during 4th of July weekend, eclipsing total earnings of all previous “documentaries.”

(On a side note, July 7th: Kerry shocks the political world and selects John Edwards as his VP running mate. The Democrats declare that there is “electricity in the air!")

July 8: After 2 stellar weeks in theaters nationwide, Gallup releases the latest poll of the Presidential race.

Bush 49%
Kerry 45%
Nader 3%

Magical Mystery Tour

Michael Moore’s mystery message
By G. Stolyarov II
web posted July 5, 2004

Gather round, and I shall teach you a new game, called “Michael Moore’s Mystery Message.” It is a fun game, really; you get to see a film, visit a colorful website, manage a few ironic laughs at someone who seeks to make you laugh at President Bush, and, at the end, receive a grand prize. What is this prize? That is a mystery to be unraveled, much like Michael Moore’s message. Are you ready?

Watching Michael Moore’s film, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” you get to look at pretty pictures of Iraq as a children’s paradise under the benevolent regime of Saddam Hussein. Toddlers laugh and run out of the arms of adoring mothers onto playgrounds that are filled with carefree little ones running about. The sun shines upon the prosperous land of Iraq, as our faithful and infallible guide, Mr. Moore, speaks of a peaceful country that had never attacked the United States.

Then come the missiles, the gigantic explosions, and the big, bad American soldiers who listen to obscene rock music as they shoot those innocent Iraqi children. Mutilated bodies of kids, stacked in the back of pickup trucks, are the horrifying consequences of this unjust occupation. Surely, those kids would have grown up to a far more prosperous future should the terrible Americans not have come! After all, their benevolent regime would have done them the service of… throwing their heads against prison walls, electrocuting the genitalia of their parents, paying midnight visits with the kind, order-maintaining security forces of the loving leader.  But wait… Mr. Moore never speaks of these great rewards that non-occupation would have brought those kids! And what about the Kurdish kids a little to the north? Who could think that the big, bad Americans deprived them of the nerve gas that Uncle Saddam would inevitably have brightened their future with? Could something of Mr. Moore’s mystery message be found in that?

It’s too early to declare victory

“We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons”.Or so Moore told the audience of the Academy Awards last year during his Oscar acceptance speech. Despite the boos from the audience, Moore saw fit to not only stand behind that statement, but to write a book and direct a movie proving it.

I’ve always thought that while we still have a bunch of “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “militiamen” shooting at us over there, we’d probably not get around to really digging through the sand for those WMD’s. I also always guessed that if thet did find some of the bad stuff, they’d probably not announce it to the world until we could get it the hell out of there. Wouldn’t we all look like a bunch of dopes if our troops dug up some cyclosarin ammo heap from behind one of Saddam’s palaces only to have it stolen from us, after announcing it on Al Jazeera TV. I’d think that if I was a terrorist, and I knew where a bunch of Americans were guarding a heap of WMD’s, I’d strap on the ‘ol suicide vest, hump on down there and really earn myself some quality ghostly virgin lovin’.

So it stands to reason that the coalition may not be sharing everything they know about the “search for WMD’s”. Given that opinion, you might point to the few recent instances where some WMD’s have been found ,and folks over at VWRC-TV just can’t show it enough. That might make my thoery seem naive, and I might agree with you if I hadn’t just read this:

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - In a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb, the Energy Department disclosed Tuesday.

The nuclear material was secured from Iraq’s former nuclear research facility and airlifted out of the country to an undisclosed Energy Department laboratory for further analysis, the department said in a statement.
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham described the previously undisclosed operation, which was concluded June 23, as “a major achievement” in an attempt to “keep potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists.”
The haul included a “huge range” of radioactive items used for medical and industrial purposes, said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration.
Much of the material “was in powdered form, which is easily dispersed,” said Wilkes.
The statement provided only scant details about the material taken from Iraq, but said it included “roughly 1,000 highly radioactive sources” that “could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device,” or dirty bomb.
Also ferried out of Iraq was 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium, the department said.
Wilkes said “a huge range of different isotopes” were secured in the joint Energy Department and Defense Department operation. They had been used in Iraq for a range of medical and industrial purposes, such as testing oil wells and pipelines.
Uranium is not suitable for making a dirty bomb. But some of the other radioactive material — including cesium-137, colbalt-60 and strontium — could have been valuable to a terrorist seeking to fashion a terror weapon.
Such a device would not trigger a nuclear explosion, but would use conventional explosives to spread radioactive debris. While few people would probably be killed or seriously affected by the radiation, such an explosion could cause panic, make a section of a city uninhabitable for some time and require cumbersome and expensive cleanup.
Nuclear nonproliferation advocates said securing radioactive material is important all over the world.
A recent study by researchers at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies concluded it is “all but certain” that some kind of dirty bomb will be set off by a terrorist group in the years ahead. There are just too many radioactive sources available across the globe, the report said.
“This is something we should be doing not just in Iraq,” Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, said when asked to comment on the Energy Department announcement.
Oelrich hesitated to characterize the threat posed by the uranium and other radioactive material secured in the secret U.S. operation because few details were provided about the material. The Energy Department refused to say where the material was shipped.
But Oelrich said it is widely believed that medical and industrial isotopes can be used in a dirty bomb.
The low-enriched uranium taken from Iraq, if it is of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, could have been of value to a country developing enrichment technology.
“It speeds up the process,” Oelrich said, adding that 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

Read the rest

Now, before you scream at your computer screen ( I can’t hear you anyway) I’m not trying to say that this is supposed to be the smoking gun or anything like that.

What I do contend is that this is irrefutable proof that there is a lot of stuff happening over there in the hunt for WMD’s that we know nothing about. If indeed the coalition is securing WMD’s from Iraq, we might not even know it. That smug look on GW’s face might not be arrogance, it just might be confidence. We might be in for a big surprise in the end.

Who knows? Certainly not Michael Moore. He couldn’t know. You couldn’t know. Nobody here knows.

And that’s my point. 1.95 tons of powdered Uranium was recovered from Iraq and NONE OF US KNEW. Given that reality , don’t ya think making Oscar speeches, and book and movies supposedly based on facts is a little ......well............. premature?  Moore certiainly has declared victory at the box office. We’ve made him filthy rich.
Yet, in the liberal war to unseat the President for “lying” to us, I’d say it’s too early to declare victory.