Moore takes a big hit from the Irish

This is, by far, the harshest critique of Moore and “Captain Mike Across America” I’ve seen. To do it justice, I’m republishing it here in it’s entirety.

The great divide begins around “Captain Mike”

I had been reserving judgment about how “Captain Mike Across America” would be well and truly received until it had its public screenings. So far the only people to see the film were critics and reviewers, who, as I have discussed in previous articles, have unanimously and harshly panned Moore’s newest opus. What I wanted to know is if Moore’s diehard fans would see the same flaws and problems in “Captain Mike” that the critics did - even the critics that were self-proclaimed big fans of Michael Moore and his work. The question I wanted answered was would Moore’s fans still like and appreciate “Captain Mike” despite the critical backlash?

Today we had our first answer to that question. Doc Blog, one of the TIFF 2007 blogs, describes in detail the events that occurred at the first public screening of “Captain Mike Across America”. It was, to put it mildly, a huge and unbridled success with the fans in attendance:

Ryerson theatre was filled to capacity tonight for the premiere of Michael Moore’s latest documentary Captain Mike Across America.  The crowd received Moore with the utmost admiration, as reflected by the loud applause when he entered the theatre…

Throughout the screening, the audience burst into applause and at times even motional reactions.  A woman a few seats from me cried during one of Moore’s speeches about the war and the lives lost because of it.  The energy in the theatre was palpable to say the least.  The screening felt like an instant part of Festival lore as Harvey Weinstein was in the audience watching for the first time. This continued to the end, where Moore received a standing ovation for about 2-3 minutes. His reaction was that of the greatest appreciation. He said, “This is way above and beyond what I expected.  Thank you for that very generous response.” Moore said the ovation was even longer than when he showed Bowling for Columbine here.

When asked if he would do this journey again for a future election, Moore simply answered, “I hope I don’t have to.” He went on to share how the tour was tiring but also physically dangerous.  On more than one occasion, Moore’s life was endangered.  His efforts will not go unnoticed when the film gets a theatrical release.  You can certainly see why his actions are appreciated by many, many people not just in the US but in other countries as well. This film will have you and others in discussion for some time after you see it. 

Judging from this first account, Moore’s fans are responding with great fervor to “Captain Mike Across America”. This fan reaction is a complete 180 turn from the critical reaction, which was resoundingly negative. Several questions emerge now. Is this an isolated report or will more positive fan reactions to “Captain Mike” start popping up? If Moore’s fans do indeed love this new film, why did critics have such a different reaction? What are the critics seeing that Moore’s fans are not? And, perhaps most intriguingly, whose opinion will Moore dwell on the most - the fans or the critics?

Only time will tell, and I will be very curious to see how this continues to play out.

**UPDATE UNDER THE CUT**

“Captain Mike” continues to get panned by critics

Yet more bad reviews for “Captain Mike Across America” rolled in this morning. I can honestly say I haven’t seen a single good - or even a relatively neutral - review of this movie yet. Here are two more excepts from reviews for your perusal below the cut, with the second one being particularly lengthy and scathing.

John Stossel gets at Mikey on 20/20

Wow.  Moore is....delusional.  He’s a terrible actor, we all saw Canadian Bacon.  He actually believes that regular Cubans get that exact level of health care, regardless of the thousands of Cuban-Americans that tell the world otherwise, regardless of the fact that there are mountains of evidence that he’s wrong.  Weirder than that, though, is this: “Cuba’s the red herring.  Let’s stick to Canada and Britain and this stuff...” What the hell?  Why is it so heavily featured in his movie if it doesn’t matter?

Can any Moore fan explain that crazy shit?

The reviews pile in for “Captain Mike”

Well, the reviews have started pouring in for Moore’s latest opus “Captain Mike Across America”, and so far the tone has been unanimous in nature. Unanimously harsh, anyway.

Photos from “Captain Mike Across America” released

A set of seven new photos from Michael Moore’s new movie “Captain Mike Across America” have been released. Upon looking at the stills, nothing seemed remarkable to me about them. However, this small caption from the article suddenly caught my eye:

The photos look like the film will surprise many people who were expecting something completely different. The film seems like it was aimed at the Bush supporters who crashed the 2004 tour.

This of course made me take a second look at the batch of photos and, sure enough, almost all of them were focused on the Bush supporters outside the rallies rather than Moore and the rally attendees themselves. Ummm… why? I cannot imagine what message Moore is trying to send with this movie or what goal he is hoping to accomplish. I for one will be interested to see how this plays out when the movie finally sees a release.

Hate mail, and Moore breaks the law

It’s been awhile since I got a funny hate mail.  I think this one qualifies, mainly due to the atrocious grammar and child-like rage.

From: “Scott Harding” [email protected]
To: jimk
Subject: jackass
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:44:17 -0500

How the hell can you say these things you pig, he payed for your wifes
health care!
Do you not have anything better to do?
And the canadien system of healthcare is far better than your shitty
way.
FU

Let’s break it down.  I shouldn’t say anything about the quality and veracity of Moore’s work, but this semi-human can call me a pig, get the facts of the events in Sicko wrong, and then tell me “FU.” Kung fu?  Fu Manchu?  What exactly am I supposed to fu?  Is his fu more powerful than my fu?  We must fight!  Only one may reign!  Let the fu fight begin!  Hey, that sounds like a great band name.  Fu Fight.  I should write that down.  ;)

Moving on:  This is an interesting peek into the way Mr. Moore does business on the web.

First, the simple facts: NewWest.Net had a story, with photos, about a protest outside the Jackson, Wyoming home of Vice President Dick Cheney. We soon became aware that the photo and the story were the lead feature story on MichaelMoore.com, but rather than follow the well-established protocol of publishing a short excerpt of the story and a thumbnail picture with a link back to our site, Moore’s site simply took the whole story as well as a full-size image. They did include attribution and a link, but still.

As we normally do in such cases, we sent a several e-mails to the site and to Moore asking that they remove the piece, or follow the proper protocol (and the law) by publishing just a snippet and a link. No response, and no action.

We have a policy here at MW...we quote and link as discussed above, unless the articles is A) very valuable information and B) is from a site that recycles links or destroys archives after a period of time.  If that policy is violated, it is a mistake, and not a matter of habit.  The other instance in which we may reproduce an entire article is with permission.  If someone asks, we take their work down, immediately.

I have no doubt that Moore’s Canadian web team (outsourcing rules!) did this without checking with him first, but the moment it is brought to someone’s attention, you should take care of it.  You know that he knows about it by now, as it seems to have been removed from his front page.

Neither Mike nor I are fond of copyright laws.  This is more than that, though.  When you take someone else’s news or blog items whole and put them on your site, you are simply robbing that writer of eyeballs and traffic, and it’s just rude if nothing else.  It is literally like me stealing the content of Sicko and putting it out under my name, taking away all the impetus to go see the real film.  Moore makes his money, to be sure, but he says that you seeing his films is more important than anything else.  He just wants you to see it.  So why is he (or his team) intentionally depriving someone else of that?  Note his lack of apology and any admittance of screwing up.  No matter how tiny the offense, Michael Moore will never, ever admit he did something wrong.  No wonder he hates Bush so much.  They’re exactly alike.  Half-wits, in way over their heads and unable to admit mistakes.

CNN’s response to Michael Moore, plus Manufacturing Dissent

CNN has responded to Moore’s response and it’s a doozy.  Way too much data to excerpt anything.  Just read the whole thing.  It’s a hell of a fisking.

While we’re here, check out this article about Manufacturing Dissent.  It’s interesting to note that the centerpiece of the film is a barrel full of evidence that Moore talked to Roger Smith (and not just that couple of minutes at a tax abatement meeting), which is of course something Moorewatchers have known for awhile based off my old appearance on The Larry Elder Show.

Irony, they name is Moore

This is precious.  It’s Moore’s latest screed sent to his mailing list and posted to his site. It’s about the verbal beatings Dr. Sanjay Gupta gave him on CNN and Larry King, and of course Mike’s apoplectic blowup with Wolf Blitzer.  I’d like you to note the following while you read:

1. Note that Moore openly admits that anyone who gives him money would get favorable treatment.  Now that’s funny right there.  It makes me think he really was trying to buy me off.  If money buys his silence and loyalty, he assumes it buys everyone else?
2. Note that he refuses to acknowledge Gupta’s knockout punch: that Moore cherry-picked numbers from two different locations, one completely unverified, and compared them in the film.  It’s just one of many perfectly valid criticisms levied by Dr. Gupta that Moore simply refuses to discuss.
3. Note his discussion of truth at the end.  Ultimate irony or just a sociopath who believes his own BS?
4. Note the use, again, of the world journalism, as if this guy has the first clue what journalism is.
5. Note the use of the old MMFlint@aol email address.  A) Not from Flint (he’s from Davison), and B) what happened to using his domain name?  Is he trying to reconnect with that “man of the people” thing after so many years of being Super Rich NYC Park Avenue Man?

Mike’s nonsense rant at CNN after the jump…

Gupta and Moore on Larry King

Thanks to swagger for this.

Notice how Moore never actually answers any questions?  Note the total stall technique in the middle, where he snickers to himself and bumbles around trying to think of something, anything to avoid the accusation of cherry-picking.  Note the number of times he just changed the subject.  It’s so amazingly transparent.  Moore - on a personal level - cannot tolerate being challenged in any way.  Why?  Because he’s fudging the facts, and he can’t deal with people who are armed with the truth.  His narrative is sacred, and God help you if you try to inject a little reality.

Moore acting very unhinged on CNN

This is pretty astounding.  This unhinged kind of behavior only serves to hide the fact that he can’t actually discuss the merits of his positions.  On top of that, he mocks Dr. Gupta’s name.  Real classy.

Thanks to all who emailed this in, and to Sam7 who posted it in comments.

Update from Lee: (two updates below!)

More profits for Moore

The Hollywood Wiretap recently recapped and expanded on a story that initially appeared in the Los Angles Times. It seems that with his new movie Sicko Michael Moore has landed himself one of the most lucrative money deals in Hollywood history:

In arguably one of the most lucrative deals on Hollywood’s books, says today’s Los Angeles Times, Michael Moore stands to make 50% of the gross profits from his latest treatise, “Sicko,” which opens wide today. The deal, negotiated by Endeavor’s Ari Emanuel with the Weinstein Co., is “richer even than those enjoyed by the likes of Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts and director Peter Jackson.”

But that’s not all, Moore’s deal eclipses almost all other movie deals, says the LAT.

While most actors and directors get a cut calculated on 20% of a film’s DVD revenue, Moore’s cut of those earnings is calculated based on all of the DVD proceeds. Of course, since Moore’s documentaries take in far less than most big-studio movies, his bigger slice is of a much smaller pie.

It seems that Mr. Moore stands to make a sizeable profit from Sicko regardless of how it does solely at the box office. In an interesting statement to the Los Angeles Times, Moore himself speaks about the social responsibility he feels due to his good fortune and good business sense:

“What it should do to me is remind me every single day that I have an even greater responsibility to do good with the success that I have been blessed with,” Moore says.

I personally wish Mr. Moore good luck in whatever personal or social endeavors in which he chooses to participate.

Jon Stewart falls all over himself loving Moore

Wow.  I mean...wow.  Not once did Jon even consider asking him anything like a question.  By the way, I could not get Comedy Central’s Motherload player to work with Firefox, so you may need another browser to view it.

Three things:

1. Moore’s right that it’s crazy and dangerous that barely-trained “medical professionals” make decisions in a cubicle a thousand miles from your doctor.  Moore is wrong, however, because single-payer is a complete mistake.  Summary: Problem?  Yes.  Solution?  Not yet.  We’re working on it.

2. “They’ve done a good job of scaring people into thinking that the federal government is bad...” Hey Mike; THAT WAS YOU.  You spent your entire career up to this point telling us that the government is bad.  Now you want us to trust them so you can move one step closer to the socialist utopia you so desperately want to create?  Or rather, the socialist utopia you pretend you want to create in order to make money by the bucketful in the capitalist system you use to full advantage while at the same time disparaging and denouncing it?

3. He’s gaining the weight back, and quickly.  This is not an insult or a fat joke, it is purely an observation - one designed to give you pause the next time you read about his “successful” battle with weight and his advice on what you should do.

You Can’t Spell “Moore” Without “Moo”

Via Perez Hilton, of all places.  (Tip of the hat to my girlfriend, who reads that site like the Pope reads the Bible.)

Dear Mike,

Congratulations from PETA on the reviews for SiCKO. Although we think that your film could actually help reform America’s sorely inadequate health care system, there’s an elephant in the room, and it is you. With all due respect, no one can help but notice that a weighty health issue is affecting you personally. We’d like to help you fix that. Going vegetarian is an easy and life-saving step that people of all economic backgrounds can take in order to become less reliant on the government’s shoddy healthcare system, and it’s something that you and all Americans can benefit from personally. Vegetarians weigh, on average, up to 20 percent less than their meat-eating counterparts—meaning less weight-related problems like heart attacks and strokes—and live about eight years longer. I’m sure that your fans would appreciate having you around longer! By going vegetarian, you would also provide a powerful message of personal responsibility for one’s health, allowing others to become less reliant on a system that doesn’t care about them. As they say at Nike (sorry!): “Just do it.” We can help, but first, here are some facts:

• Vegetarians suffer far fewer heart attacks than meat-eaters. Cholesterol, the principal culprit in clotted arteries, is found only in animal products. Thus, those of us who forgo the flesh, milk, and eggs of animals have a heart disease mortality rate one-tenth the rate of our flesh-eating counterparts. In fact, a healthy vegan diet has been shown to reverse heart disease.

• Vegetarians have far lower rates of cancer than meat-eaters. Ninety-five percent of the toxic chemicals that humans are exposed to come from meat. Thus, women who eat meat daily have 3.8 times the breast cancer rate of women who don’t. Men who eat meat daily get fatal prostate cancer at 3.6 times the rate of vegetarian men.

• Vegetarians are not as likely to be obese as meat-eaters. Obesity kills about 112,000 people per year in the U.S., according to The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and makes many more people sick. It can also lead to serious diseases like diabetes. The CDC also reported that overweight and obesity accounted for nearly 10 percent of all American medical expenses in a recent year. On average, vegetarians weigh up to 20 percent less than meat-eaters.

• Vegetarians don’t run the risk of getting sick from contaminated meat. Sure, they may get sick when animal waste is sprayed on vegetables and fruit, but meat is the big hazard. Just as dead humans rot and attract maggots and bacteria, so do other dead animals. Millions of people in the U.S. get sick—and thousands die—each year from eating meat contaminated with salmonella, campylobacter, E. coli, or one of the many other bacterium found on animal flesh—even after it’s been cooked.

Yes, America’s health care system needs to be fixed, but personal responsibility is a big part of why people look and feel as ill as they do. We hope that you will focus your personal lens on the benefits of vegetarianism—which can satisfy you easily—stop turning a blind eye to meat’s impact on America’s health, and lead the charge for a healthier America by taking our 30-Day Veg Pledge. You can find tips on going vegetarian and recipes for meatless meals like faux fried chicken at GoVeg.com.

Very truly yours,

Ingrid E. Newkirk President and Founder

There you go, you fat bastard.  Think of it as the “Cuban Starvation Diet.” Rather than spend tens of thousands of dollars at some swanky fat farm the next time you decide to drop a couple of pounds, why not go work in Castro’s sugarcane fields?  You’ll be down to a svelte Auschwitz size in no time.  And if there’s any medical problems, you’re in a tropical hospital paradise!  It’s win-win!

The nature of deception

The tagline of Moorewatch.com has always been “Watching Michael Moore’s every move”. As of late more people, perhaps more than ever before in this site’s history, have stepped forward and demanded to know why we all feel Michael Moore should be watched. What is it about Michael Moore that needs to be watched, observed, critiqued and analyzed for errors and mistakes? It’s simple, really. Michael Moore’s work is designed to provoke a reaction and stimulate discussion about particular topics. In order to enjoin you to his cause de jour, Moore employs the medium of the documentary to deliver information and reasons why you should think and believe as he does, or, at the very least, consider the topics at hand in the light he creates by his work.

The problem lies in Moore’s delivery of said information. A journalistic endeavor built on half-truths and deceptions is as stable as a castle built on sand. It has no real foundation upon which to stand and its sturdiness is illusory at best, disastrous at worst. Counteracting Moore’s falsehoods with honestly gotten facts creates a stable platform for the issues upon which Moore expounds. And given that, more often than not, the issues Moore raises are ones that could use good, honest debate and discussion, injecting as much honesty as possible into the discourse can only serve to help the problems Moore raises. Given all that, one must wonder why Michael Moore would be dishonest at all? Many, of course, think that Moore does not employ falsehoods in his arsenal, but I believe that the track record of Moorewatch of ferreting out and displaying the fabrications in Moore’s work speaks for itself.

Once more, in promoting his newest work Sicko, Moore’s dishonesty rears its ugly head. In a NewsBusters article about Sicko, Moore is shown to have been less than honest about his trip to Cuba:

The most significant untruth in this article was Moore’s carefully vague and misleading claim that he didn’t intend to go to Cuba “in the first place,” and only after being turned away from his real destination, the Guantanamo Bay detention center, by that heartless US military, did he go to communist Cuba (bold mine throughout):

Moore dismissed the controversy surround his visit to Cuba with a group of 9/11 responders seeking medical treatment, documented in his new film. He said he had not intended to go to Cuba in the first place. “I didn’t go to Cuba. We left Miami to go to Guantanamo Bay — to American soil.” Only after being ignored at the mouth of Guantanamo Bay did he instead dock and disembark on Cuban soil. Since then, he says, he has been harassed by the U.S. government. “The Bush Administration sent me a certified letter 10 days before the Cannes Film Festival that I was under investigation for criminal and civil penalties,” Moore said.

That’s just fantasy. Other sources have revealed that Moore planned to go to Cuba from the beginning. The Smoking Gun website obtained a letter to Moore from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) which stated that before filming even began, Goldflat Productions, which included Moore, applied to OFAC on October 12, 2006 for permission to travel to Cuba—not “to American soil” at Gitmo, but Castro’s Cuba.

Also, statements by several 9/11 responders that were made to the New York Post confirmed that this promotional stunt to treat the responders with Cuban healthcare was planned by Moore and his film company before they left the US:

Responders were told Cuban doctors had developed new techniques for treating lung cancer and other respiratory illness, and that health care in the communist country was free, according to those offered the two-week February trip.

Indeed, a quick look at The Smoking Gun and The New York Post bear out NewsBuster’s assertions. Moore indeed lied when he said he never intended to go to Cuba proper. From the documents presented, it is clear that Moore had always intended to travel to Cuba. The fact that Moore lied about this is unquestionable. So the question now becomes why did Michael Moore lie about Cuba? Why not simply admit he planned the trip all along? Why build his house on sand instead of facts?  The only tenable or understandable reason Moore would have to lie about such a fact would be if the deception somehow bolstered his argument or lent his facts some credence. The perplexing thing about this particular falsehood is that lying about intending to travel to Cuba does *not* bolster Michael Moore’s case in the slightest. If anything, this falsehood only serves to damage his credibility, thus tarnishing the issue as a whole. In the end, this lie gains him nothing and does not serve his argument in any reasonable or tenable way.

Given all of this, we wind up back in the same place we began. Why would Michael Moore lie in such a fashion? What does it gain him? And, perhaps most importantly, what do we as an audience and a people have to gain by allowing him to do so unchecked and unanswered?

Lion’s Gate orders YouTube to remove Sicko

Lion’s Gate is maaaaaad!

YouTube has removed clips of Michael Moore’s U.S. health-care expose “Sicko” that appeared on the site during the weekend, two weeks before the film’s June 29 opening.

A 124-minute version of “Sicko” was available on the Google Inc.-owned Web site, posted by at least two users in 14 consecutive video chunks.

But for Moore, even piracy has its limits, especially when it comes to the timing, quality and source of the bootleg.

“Every filmmaker intends for his film to be seen on the big screen,” Moore said. “This wasn’t a guy taking a video camera into a theater. This was an inside job, a copy made from a high-quality master and could potentially impact the opening weekend boxoffice. Who do you think benefits from that?”

You do, Mike.  That’s why the non-watermarked Cannes cut of the film was released “leaked.” ;)

I should make it clear that while I find it amusing that Sicko is so readily available for free, I don’t fault Lion’s Gate for acting to protect their property.  I just think it’s utterly and completely pointless - except as a legal strategy to protect future property - which can’t really be protected, but they have to try because they have to protect their rights for future future properties...and so on and so forth in an infinite loop of battle between pirates and copyright holders.

A Weinstein Co. source said that the company has hired several firms that specialize in dealing with piracy and is taking “a very aggressive approach to protecting the film.”

When asked about accusations that he may have leaked the film himself for publicity purposes, Moore scoffed at the notion:

“Oh no. The (Weinstein) brothers are devastated.”

Oh please.  It will make between 75 and 100 million after DVD regardless of leaks.  I know it, you know it, they know it.  Also, I saw in at least three Moore-friendly areas of the intertubes that some of your fans are convinced you did it as a publicity ploy or a guarantee that the government can’t “supress” the film.  As if they would even try.

A Weinstein Co. source said that the company has hired several firms that specialize in dealing with piracy and is taking “a very aggressive approach to protecting the film.”

Good luck with that.  It’s already out.  Tens of thousands of copies exist on hard drives all over the world.  It’s a bag minus the cat, fellas.  Plus, what the hell are you gonna do to The Pirate Bay?  Threaten them?  Then try to track down all the various torrent sites hosting a copy of the torrents?  But it’s not the movie, so...under what law will you make a claim?  In what jurisdiction?  All to stop something that literally cannot be stopped?

Do you even know that after a certain critical mass of downloads is reached and with certain technologies, you don’t even need a central torrent tracker to make it work?  You cannot stop it.  You can’t even contain it.  I know you have to fight to protect your rights.  Good luck with that.  Just know that ultimately you will fail.  The pirates have you beat and they know how you watermark.  You’ll never catch the smart ones.  The best you can hope for is this one wasn’t smart.  :)

News roundup

Just a post to quickly round up all the straggling links, news stories, etc.

First up, the interview I did on CHQR AM 770 in Calgary Alberta Canada.  The show is The World Tonight with Rob Breakenridge.  I flubbed it a bit at the end, but I thought it went well.  The file is a 7.52MB mp3.

Next, an interview I did two weeks ago with Dave from Snarkbait, a great guy and someone who should blog more...he’s one of the people who truly understands the concept of liberty and small government.  We need more voices reminding us of what freedom and liberty really mean.

Lastly, another piece at Newsweek by Tony Dokoupil on the potential legal issues surrounding Moore’s Cuban visit.

NEWSWEEK has learned that Moore’s production company, Dog Eat Dog productions, credentialed the interviewees itself—in essence, knighting them as journalists—and then flew them from Miami to Cuba on a charter flight reserved for licensed travelers. Is that good enough? “Moore is not allowed to travel with companions unless they’re also licensed by the Treasury to travel to Cuba as journalists,” says David Cibrian, international trade attorney at Strasburger & Price. “ Journalists don’t bring people from elsewhere to interview in Cuba. People go to Cuba to interview Cubans.”

That’s true enough.  The article further mentions that Treasury says they have no record of issuing a license, but Miami customs officer Angel Marques says he would have been asked, charter flight trip or no.  Either Michael talked or bought his way onto a plane boat in Miami, or he got a license and the Treasury Department lost it.  On purpose or by incompetence.  Either explanation seems plausible.  No matter what, though, I am actually on Moore’s side here as far as the government investigation goes.  One, it would be a waste of taxpayer money.  Two, Moore has positioned this as a journalistic endeavor.  Let’s not let him off the hook for that by proving it wasn’t “journalism.”

We should hold him to the standard that he has now accepted: journalist.  He took the label for himself; we should hold his feet to that fire.

Moore called me

While I find the timing...interesting...he did in fact call and was completely normal and gracious about it.  You can hear for yourself.

Moore’s voicemail to JimK (MP3, 905.7K)

Thank you, Michael.  I appreciate the help and I always have.  You know that, of course, because I posted right here on the site that I was grateful to the guardian angel long before this became an issue for the press to feed on.  I hope that your Cannes screening goes well, but more importantly I hope you’ve used your power to tell the truth this time.  I’d love to support this movie, as I’m no friend of the HMO.

In case anyone doubts it, that’s definitely him.  Even if I didn’t recognize the voice, he used phrasing that was identical to the original emails I got from the third party.  This also puts to rest the doubts I’ve seen all over the ‘net that it was even Mike in the first place.  Now we all know.

Man...what is in that film?  Am I crazy or did he sound...nervous?  I guess we’ll all find out why he did this when the film shows tonight at Cannes.

Well, if you insist…

Apparently I’m going to be the focus of every press idiot that still fawns over Mikey’s bullshit for the next few days.  Yeah, better to focus on me than him, I suppose, that way you can keep your blinders on about why he does things.

This time it’s Rush & Malloy in the New York Daily News.  I suppose there are worse places in which to be talked about; I could have been in a column by one of the interns that write Perez Hilton’s blog.  Gossip columnists in the Daily News is a bit of a step up from that.  Only just, but still a step up.

We can now confirm to Kenefick that his secret benefactor is none other than the dreaded, detestable, loathsome Michael Moore.

Moore didn’t contact us. We heard it on our own.

Well, you confirm a lot of things, but for now I am assuming this is true.  I got it from a pretty good source myself, hence my post that you quote in your...uhh..."article."

One friend of Moore’s did say, “We sure are happy Jim’s wife received the care she needed.”

First of all, Moore doesn’t have friends.  He has employees and allies.  Secondly, my wife was ALWAYS RECEIVING CARE.  It was never in doubt that she was going to get the medical care she and her doctors felt was necessary, regardless of cost.  I would have made it work, no matter what I had to do.  That having been said, if the well-wishes were in any way sincere...thank you.

Still, he doesn’t sound especially grateful.

Having suspected Moore might be his secret patron, he contends that his bete noir made the gift just to publicize “Sicko,” which takes aim at America’s health-care system and, we’ve heard, touches upon Moore’s covert generosity.

Oh my.  “Doesn’t sound especially grateful?” A few years ago, Moore threatened to sue me.  Add to that the fact that $12,000 is equal to his ding-dong budget for the week.  Or what it costs to make one of those suits for award shows.  Add to this growing list the fact that it was never altruism and every human being alive who knows anything about Moore knows that.  He paid $12,000 so he could manufacture a “gotcha” moment in his film.  Sounds pretty cheap to me.

What am I supposed to be grateful for?  The chance to look like an ass?  The chance to be in his movie?  For him throwing me pocket change in order to try to humiliate me later?  That’s why he did it.  Period.

I was grateful for the easing of my financial burden for 12 months.  I meant it when I said it helped us climb out of a hole.  If Mike called me up and said “It was me, and regardless of our differences I just wanted to help.” then I would have a 180 degree turnaround in attitude...but he’s not doing that is he?  He’s leaking information and trying to make me look like a complete git over it...and you, Rush & Malloy, are helping.

Was I supposed to roll over and stop looking for the flaws in everything Mikey says?  Was I supposed to stop telling the truth?  Was $12,000 supposed to buy me off?

Are any of you that cheap?

If Mikey had called me up and said “Look, man, I know we disagree on everything, but I just wanted to help.  No strings attached, and I hope she gets better.” that would be an amazing gift and a real piece of altruism.

He.  Didn’t.  Do.  That.

He’s leaking and using this in whatever way he can think of to promote his film.  He paid $12,000 so that you, the press, would focus on what a “nice guy” he is and in the same breath, make me look like a jerk.  He’s getting you to denounce and discredit me and keeping his hands clean so it’s not a Goliath-crushes-David scenario.

And you people didn’t even get $12,000!  Now that’s cheap.

Moore weasels out of another case

Jabba runs that spice one more time.

Filmmaker Michael Moore did not libel the brother of Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols, a U.S. court said Tuesday.

The appeals court sided with a federal judge who in 2005 threw out James Nichols’ suit accusing Moore of libeling and defaming him in the Oscar-winning documentary, “Bowling for Columbine.”

Nichols said statements in the 2002 film could lead viewers to believe he was involved in the 1995 bombing, which killed 168 people. He also said the film invaded his privacy and inflicted emotional distress.

But Nichols “has not presented any evidence indicating that Michael Moore intended to falsely implicate James Nichols in the Oklahoma City bombing,” the appeals panel said.

That last sentence is the key, and the key word in that sentence is “intended.” That’s how Moore has always gotten away with it ever since he lost to the lawyer in Roger & Me.  He constructs just enough plausible deniability so that he is legally protected, but we all know exactly what he intends to portray when we watch teh film.

I tell you what, whatever he pays his legal staff?  It’s totally worth it.  This guy is slimier than a Louisiana Congressman and manages to walk away from every legal challenge put to him.  He’s like the Teflon Liar.  It would almost be admirable if it wasn’t so sleazy.