Lileks disses Michael Moore!

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-10-30 03:06pm

If you ask me, Michael Moore is a gasbag who, if stuck with a pin, would fly around the room until he ended up on the floor as three pounds of wrinkled hot-dog skin and a sweat-stained ballcap. And if he is a balloon, that would mean that his penis is twisted in a tight little knot.

Scene: Annie’s Cafe. The Joint Lions-Elks-Kiwanis-Rotarian Task Force on the Moore Situation is meeting in the back room. The wait staff have removed the plates in cowed silence; a Council Elder locks the door, clears his throat, and lights the cross.

Elder: Ev’body got your hoods? Well, put ‘em on, then.

Funny shit.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-10-30 03:09pm

Don your asbestos, put on that HEV, secure your condoms and hit the deck

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-30 03:12pm

This is rather old, isn't it?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-10-30 03:16pm

It's new to me. If it's already been posted, my apologies.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-30 03:21pm

It hasn't been, but it does mention reelecting Strom Thurmond, and I remember reading it awhile back...

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-30 03:22pm

It hasn't been, but it does mention reelecting Strom Thurmond, and I remember reading it awhile back...

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-10-30 04:27pm

Lileks has pulled a Dennis Miller since Bush was elected. Fortunately, UNLIKE Miller, Lileks is USUALLY still funny.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-10-30 04:39pm

I believe I've seen it before.

Last week I chased down the guys who pick up the old newspapers, and demanded to know where the newspapers went. I have my suspicions that all this tonnage of wet pulp is lashed with twine, shoved on barges that struggle their way across the Pacific, laboring through the troughs and waves, disgorging their sodden cargo in a Shanghai port. When the papers are dried, the ink is removed by a special smelting process that adds toxicity, then it is smeared over children and the elderly - just for the hell of it! Just for the sheer joy the Corporate Masters will get on their Tumor Tour of ‘24, when the make a swing through the region to amuse themselves of the consequence of their ecological despoliation.

The toxic ink is never hosed on 15-year old girls who work on assembly lines, because these are the only people foreign journalists ever interview, and we don’t want to give the game away.

As for aluminum cans, well, I think it goes without saying that they’re all crushed by hand by welfare-to-work recipients making three cents an hour, and shipped to Sierra Leone where desperate locals lick the dried beer from the sharp shards of old Bud containers, thus contributing to America’s shameful record of encouraging alcoholism and tongue laceration in the Third World. They say on a bright day the reflections from Mount Alcoa - as the locals sarcastically call it, and whose maintenance supplies 93% of the area jobs - blinds a rare breed of parrot and forces them to fly into buildings.

He’s a good multimillionaire, you see, but those other guys got their money the old-fashioned way: they snuck into the homes of the Working Poor and stole the golden eggs the exhausted laborers lay during the night.The only guy who earned his millions is Our Man Mike. Perhaps to show his good will, he's instructed his accountants to pay the pre-Bush estate tax rate in the event of his demise, instead of bequeathing it all to his daughter. It's not like she earned it, anyway.

Funny stuff, in my opinion.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-10-30 07:11pm

Well Mr Moore is being sued....

DETROIT, Michigan (AP) -- James Nichols, the brother of Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols, says he was tricked into appearing in the documentary "Bowling for Columbine," according to a federal lawsuit filed against filmmaker Michael Moore.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/29/nichols.ap/

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-30 08:19pm

theski wrote:Well Mr Moore is being sued....

DETROIT, Michigan (AP) -- James Nichols, the brother of Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols, says he was tricked into appearing in the documentary "Bowling for Columbine," according to a federal lawsuit filed against filmmaker Michael Moore.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/29/nichols.ap/

I'm not suprised. James Nichols has been fighting to defend his good name ever since the FBI prematurely labeled him a collaborator in the Oklahoma City bombing and Moore pretty much labels him a terrorist.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-10-31 11:39am

It's no mystery Michael Moore is so ridiculed - after all, it's probably hard being a left-winger in a nation where Bill Clinton is considered a communist.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-10-31 11:40am

Simon H.Johansen wrote:It's no mystery Michael Moore is so ridiculed - after all, it's probably hard being a left-winger in a nation where Bill Clinton is considered a communist.

Ooops - I meant "It's probably hard being as left-winged as Moore in a nation where Bill Clinton is considered a communist.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-31 11:52am

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
Simon H.Johansen wrote:It's no mystery Michael Moore is so ridiculed - after all, it's probably hard being a left-winger in a nation where Bill Clinton is considered a communist.
Ooops - I meant "It's probably hard being as left-winged as Moore in a nation where Bill Clinton is considered a communist.

Sure....

I don't know any one save hysterical conservatives that ever labeled Clinton a communist. If you claim that's mainstream opinion, please feel free to back it up.

A lot of the criticisms of Moore have less to do with his politics than with his penchant for dishonesty and hypocrisy. He's hardly unique in is his politics or even his outspoken nature. They are no different than those a lot of liberals of the last thirty or forty years; in fact most come straight from the liberal bible.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-10-31 12:29pm

Stormbringer wrote:I'm not suprised. James Nichols has been fighting to defend his good name ever since the FBI prematurely labeled him a collaborator in the Oklahoma City bombing and Moore pretty much labels him a terrorist.

Nichols labeled himself a terrorist, the guy bragged about sleeping with a gun under his pillow and ranted about evils of the Federal goverment. Moore might have steered him towards those topics, but Nichols shot his mouth off quite eagerly. As far as I'm concerned he can blame only himself.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-31 12:34pm

Sir Sirius wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:I'm not suprised. James Nichols has been fighting to defend his good name ever since the FBI prematurely labeled him a collaborator in the Oklahoma City bombing and Moore pretty much labels him a terrorist.
Nichols labeled himself a terrorist, the guy bragged about sleeping with a gun under his pillow and ranted about evils of the Federal goverment. Moore might have steered him towards those topics, but Nichols shot his mouth off quite eagerly. As far as I'm concerned he can blame only himself.

He was a real wacko but as far as I know he has always denied ever participating in the Oklahoma City bombing. He might be a nut case but he isn't a terrorist. If the FBI officially cleared him (despite trying like hell to nail him on anything at all!) I'd say Michael Moore doesn't stand a chance in hell of proving it.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-10-31 12:45pm

Stormbringer wrote:He was a real wacko but as far as I know he has always denied ever participating in the Oklahoma City bombing. He might be a nut case but he isn't a terrorist. If the FBI officially cleared him (despite trying like hell to nail him on anything at all!) I'd say Michael Moore doesn't stand a chance in hell of proving it.

Unless my memory is totaly shot Moore never called or accused him of being a terrorist or even insinuate that he was a terrorist. He just gave this moron a chance to make an ass of himself in front of a large audience, a change that Nichols seized quite eagerly and ended up looking like a terrorist in the process.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-31 12:56pm

Sir Sirius wrote:Unless my memory is totaly shot Moore never called or accused him of being a terrorist or even insinuate that he was a terrorist. He just gave this moron a chance to make an ass of himself in front of a large audience, a change that Nichols seized quite eagerly and ended up looking like a terrorist in the process.

He as usual didn't say it, BfC certainly insinuates it but I'm not sure whether what he did would qualify as a libel or not. I guess that'll be decided in courts.

The other charges though, are going to be much harder given Moore's use of false pretenses to get the interview.

And yes, Nichols made a complete ass out of himself. He's a certified crazy. There's no question about that. But he's also not a terrorist and has had his once fairly decent life ruined by the FBI's premature labeling of him as an accomplice. He certainly has the right to defend his name on that score.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-10-31 01:35pm

Stormbringer wrote:He as usual didn't say it, BfC certainly insinuates it but I'm not sure whether what he did would qualify as a libel or not. I guess that'll be decided in courts.

Nichols does certainly come of as a terrorist in BfC, but he did that to him self by shooting his mouth off. Moore can hardly be blamed, let alone sued, for giving this lunatic a chance to bury himself.

Stormbringer wrote:The other charges though, are going to be much harder given Moore's use of false pretenses to get the interview.

I don't know your legal system, but suing Moore for "invasion of privacy" when Nichols freely gave this interview in his own home sounds a bit odd. As does "intentional infliction of emotional distress", unless of course it can be shown that Moore was deliberately out to harm Nichols, which I doubt. To me it sounds like Nichols is crying, "Whaa-haa! Moore mislead me *sob*, he is so mean *sob*. Gimme loads of money, please, pretty please. *sob*"

Stormbringer wrote:And yes, Nichols made a complete ass out of himself. He's a certified crazy. There's no question about that. But he's also not a terrorist and has had his once fairly decent life ruined by the FBI's premature labeling of him as an accomplice. He certainly has the right to defend his name on that score.

The best way Nichols can defend his name is keep his big mouth shut in the future. I'm having a seriously hard time feeling sorry for that loon and the ridiculous sums of money he's asking for make him look like a money grabbing opportunist. He's asking for more then a HUNDRED MILLION Dollars!

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-31 01:47pm

Nichols does certainly come of as a terrorist in BfC, but he did that to him self by shooting his mouth off. Moore can hardly be blamed, let alone sued, for giving this lunatic a chance to bury himself.

He came off as a lunatic, no doubt. Hell, he is a lunatic but he isn't a terrorist.

I don't know your legal system, but suing Moore for "invasion of privacy" when Nichols freely gave this interview in his own home sounds a bit odd. As does "intentional infliction of emotional distress", unless of course it can be shown that Moore was deliberately out to harm Nichols, which I doubt. To me it sounds like Nichols is crying, "Whaa-haa! Moore mislead me *sob*, he is so mean *sob*. Gimme loads of money, please, pretty please. *sob*"

As I recall a fair amount of the Nichols material was supposed to be off the record and not recorded, that would be the breach of privacy. As for the emotional distress, that's a legal catch all and essentially meaningless.

The best way Nichols can defend his name is keep his big mouth shut in the future. I'm having a seriously hard time feeling sorry for that loon and the ridiculous sums of money he's asking for make him look like a money grabbing opportunist. He's asking for more then a HUNDRED MILLION Dollars!

No doubt it, he never should have talked to Moore. Then again no one should talk to Moore given his questionable practices. But it's too late for that. And if some of his charges are true though he has a legal case, money grubbing or not.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-10-31 02:08pm

Sir Sirius wrote:I don't know your legal system, but suing Moore for "invasion of privacy" when Nichols freely gave this interview in his own home sounds a bit odd. As does "intentional infliction of emotional distress", unless of course it can be shown that Moore was deliberately out to harm Nichols, which I doubt. To me it sounds like Nichols is crying, "Whaa-haa! Moore mislead me *sob*, he is so mean *sob*. Gimme loads of money, please, pretty please. *sob*"

Unfortunately for Mr. Nichols, Moore's attorneys will have the legal release form which Nichols must have signed in order for his interview footage to be included in BFC, which demonstrates consent, so the invasion of privacy charge goes right out the window. And unless that form identifies Moore as representing anybody other than himself or can produce witnesses stating under oath that Moore lied about the purpose of the interview, then bang goes the fasle pretenses/misrepresentation charge as well. Since the movie is nowhere near about James Nichols specifically or has the Murrah bombing as its focus, and the Nichols interview takes up only a few minutes of footage in the entire film, it will be extremely difficult to make a deliberate intent to inflict harm charge fly, if not impossible.

And as for the libel, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that Michael Moore made the false accusation in Bowling For Columbine that James Nichols is/was a terrorist or that he was complicit in the Murrah bombing, or crafted a deliberate impression of Nichols as a terrorist, then the charge cannot be sustained as a matter of fact, and in that event, the lawsuit sinks for lack of merit.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-31 02:12pm

Unfortunately for Mr. Nichols, Moore's attorneys will have the legal release form which Nichols must have signed in order for his interview footage to be included in BFC, which demonstrates consent, so the invasion of privacy charge goes right out the window.

What about the Moore assuring Nichols that certain parts would not be taped and then not only taping them but putting them in the movie. I'm no liar but that charge might well stick if it can be proved.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-10-31 02:33pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Unfortunately for Mr. Nichols, Moore's attorneys will have the legal release form which Nichols must have signed in order for his interview footage to be included in BFC, which demonstrates consent, so the invasion of privacy charge goes right out the window.
What about the Moore assuring Nichols that certain parts would not be taped and then not only taping them but putting them in the movie. I'm no liar but that charge might well stick if it can be proved.

The following is an example of a standard release form between a photographer and an adult model:

Adult Model Release

In consideration of my engagement as a model, upon the terms herewith stated, I hereby give to photographer’s name goes here his/her heirs, legal representatives and assigns, those for whom photographer’s name goes here is acting, and those acting with his/her authority and permission:

a) the unrestricted right and permission to copyright and use, re-use, publish, and republish photographic portraits or pictures of me or in which I may be included intact or in part, composite or distorted in character or form, without restriction as to changes or transformations in conjunction with my own or a fictitious name, or reproduction hereof in color or otherwise, made through any and all media now or hereafter known for illustration, art, promotion, advertising, trade, or any other purpose whatsoever.

b) I also permit the use of any printed material in connection therewith.

c) I hereby relinquish any right that I may have to examine or approve the completed product or products or the advertising copy or printed matter that may be used in conjunction therewith or the use to which it may be applied.

d) I hereby release, discharge and agree to save harmless [photographer], his/her heirs, legal representatives or assigns, and all persons functioning under his/her permission or authority, or those for whom he/she is functioning, from any liability by virtue of any blurring, distortion, alteration, optical illusion, or use in composite form whether intentional or otherwise, that may occur or be produced in the taking of said picture or in any subsequent processing thereof, as well as any publication thereof, including without limitation any claims for libel or invasion of privacy.

e) I hereby affirm that I am over the age of majority and have the right to contract in my own name. I have read the above authorization, release and agreement, prior to its execution; I fully understand the contents thereof. This agreement shall be binding upon me and my heirs, legal representatives and assigns.

Dated: _____________________________________

Signed:_____________________________________

Address:____________________________________

City:_______________________________________

State/Zip:____________________________________

Phone:______________________________________

Witness:_____________________________________

Now, if James Nichols signed a comprehensive release authourising unrestricted right of usage for any and all footage shot by Moore during the interview, waived all rights to review the material prior to release, and released Moore from any responsibility for any alteration or reediting, then Nichols can cry all he likes about how unfair Moore was to him but can't do fuck-all about it. And he'll be very hard-pressed to demonstrate that he didn't know when the cameras were rolling.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-31 02:40pm

So it would depnd on what sort of contract he signed?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-31 03:01pm

Stormbringer wrote:What about the Moore assuring Nichols that certain parts would not be taped and then not only taping them but putting them in the movie. I'm no liar but that charge might well stick if it can be proved.

What is it about the Moore-haters that leads them to make such ridiculous charges, believe the most insanely dubious claims made in an attack against him, classify mere insinuation as "outright lies" if he does them and total bullshit as reasonable accusations if they're done against him, etc?

Nichols signed a release form prior to the interview. We know that. He also had a camera staring him in the face while he was talking. Now, if he claims that he was unaware that he was being taped, we have only two possible explanations:

1) He is blind, deaf, and dumber than fertilizer.
2) He's lying about being told that it wasn't being taped, because no one can get away with telling you you're not being taped and then having his cameraman shove a camera in your face while you're talking.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-10-31 05:10pm

Darth Wong wrote:What is it about the Moore-haters that leads them to make such ridiculous charges, believe the most insanely dubious claims made in an attack against him, classify mere insinuation as "outright lies" if he does them and total bullshit as reasonable accusations if they're done against him, etc?

Same as the Clinton-haters —basic programming.

Stormbringer wrote:So it would depend on what sort of contract he signed?

Basic contract law, actually. And since it is highly unlikely if not impossible that Michael Moore would have handed out anything except a standard omnibus release form for James Nichols to sign, I'd say Nichols is already going into court two strikes down and I don't expect the libel claim is sustainable.