Obama is closer to Bill Clinton's 1992 middle way mahayana style democratic politics. He has been for years. He speaks a progressive game but, like Bill did, hires Goldman Sachs for economic advice. 

Naomi Klein and David Sirota are right to point out the fact that Obama has not turned his back on Bush's "shock doctrine" neoliberal policies, at least not in terms of his hires and campaign infrastructure.  This begs the question, what's the left to do?

Thing about Obama is that he never was an economoic populist. He may have used Saul Alinsky style organizing methods on the streets of Chicago. Hillary did too in her early organizing days. But Obama long aglo left these methods on the streets.

Sirota and others are grapplying with whether this is really an Obama moment for progressive or whether progressives need to step outside the moment and engage Obama not as a sycophant but as a movement. Problem is, Sirota is creating yet another black and white, either or dynamic, that the left must transcend right about now.

The key is that progressives need to do both. They need to use the campaign itself as a black and white "good versus evil" moment, because in a lot of ways it is. John McCain represents four or eight more years of Bushian evil. Strong words, but his most recent bellicosity towards Russia has me shuddering in my sandals. It is vitally important to see Obama get elected this fall. It is almost a matter of life and  death. I believe this.

At the same time, progressives must not abandon "movement politics." Sirota is right to say this is the only way to push an Obama administration away from the media constructed lens of a "centrist" american polity.  MIchael Moore convinced me years ago, at one of his college circuit tours, that Americans follow progressives on the issues, they just don;t know it, and neither do the candidates.  Movement politics is needed to force Obama to grapple with and reject the realities of "shock doctrine politics," in terms of policy and his staff selections. 

This is and isn't a time for either/or decisions. The either/or isn't "Obama Moment" politics or "movement politics." That decision was made months ago. It is both.  "Movement politics" folks need to be focusing on voter registration and local races around the country-- creating a progressive infrastructure that will then force a president obama to pursue more progressive policies. And, the Obama moment is real, even if he selects Evan Bayh, which would be sad, but hey, so what. Let's get this thing moving.

They Say:

"Skeptics unite: You only have to lose your inhibitions. That, in sum, is the underlying message of Bill Maher and Larry Charles' brilliant, incendiary "Religulous," in which comedian/talkshow host Maher inquires of the religious faithful and finds them severely wanting. By providing an example to other non-believers, Maher is, um, hell-bent on launching an even more aggressive conversation on the legitimacy of religion than he has on HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher."



Read More:

Variety




My personal favorite blog, Wonkette, has a great way to freak out your Obamaniacal friends with a fake text message announcing his VP as.... Michael Moore! Or whoever else you want. [Wonkette]

John McCain is gaining ground in national polls- a result of his performance at the Saddleback Church event? Of people getting tired of Obama? Or something else? Will this climb continue? This whole thing makes me nervous.... [Pollster.com]

Rudy Guiliani is set to be the keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention, as Republicans are trying to live their post-9/11 days of domination. Did I mention that Giuliani was the mayor then?! Former Democrat and winner of the Benedict Arnold Prize for Bipartisanship, Senator Joseph Lieberman will also speak. [HuffPo]

If you want to learn more about Obama but wish you could be taught in your native language of "frat boy," Brobama has your back. Learn about the issues and how they apply to you, the common bro. [Brobama]

Anything else?

In his new book, Mike's Election Guide, there is a chapter on "How The Democrats Can Blow It...In Six Easy Steps".

So when you hear Democrats and liberals and supporters of Barack Obama say they are worried that John McCain has a good chance of winning, they ain't a-kidding. Who would know better than the very people who have handed the Republicans one election after another on a silver platter? Yes, be afraid, be very afraid.

I've watched Democratic politicians and pundits on tv already following the first step

1. Keep saying nice things about McCain.
If you want to help elect McCain, keep blessing him as if he were the white knight who accidentally hopped on the wrong horse. Keep reminding a country at war that he, and he alone, is a war hero. That he's been "good on global warming" and campaign finance. Say that enough, and you know what happens? People start to believe it! You've sold them on the idea that McCain isn't a bad egg, and they do not hear the rest of what you have to say: "But John McCain is four more years of George W. Bush."

The second step could happen this week -

2. Pick a running mate who is a conservative white guy or a general or a Republican.
Yes, it will seem like smart politics at first. Shore up Obama's lack of military experience with a hawk. Be true to Obama's message that he'll be a president for everybody by having him run with a Republican. Make a pitch to the purple states of Virginia and Indiana by putting one of their own on the ticket. Or make the red state of Ohio happy by handing the vice presidential slot to its governor. Just so long as Obama's running mate screams "same old, same old," making it harder for him to attract the new voters he needs to win.

I'm not too excited about any of the three who are supposedly the top contenders, although of the three (Bayh, Biden, Kaine), Biden would easily be my top choice.

A big reason why John McCain has now taken a lead in some polls is because of the negative attacks the Republicans have run lately. While the Democrats are setting Obama up for the next step -

5. Show up to a gunfight with a peashooter.
Convince yourself that the Republicans are just going to roll over and play dead because there is simply no life left in their party. Convince yourself this one is in the bag! Convince yourself that if you play by the rules, the Republicans will too.

And when McCain and his people roll out their nuclear arsenal on you, just go all sweet and sensitive and logical. Believe that the truth shall prevail, that good people will see what the Republicans are up to. As they smear you, your family, your religious beliefs — cower, back down, go on the defensive.

It's probably only a matter of time before he's advised to-

6. Denounce me!
Obama, at some point, might be asked this question: "Michael Moore has endorsed you. But he recently said (fill in the blank with some outrageously offensive line taken out of context). Will you still accept his endorsement, or do you denounce him?"

And he better denounce me, or they will tear him to shreds. He had better back away not only from me but from anyone and everyone who veers a bit too far to the left of where his advisers have told him is the sweet spot for all those red-state voters. I won't take it personally...

We can't take four more years of this madness, Barack. We need you to be a candidate who will fight back every time they attack you. Actually, don't even wait till you have to fight back. Fight first! Show some vision and courage and smoke them out. Keep asking why these lobbyists are McCain's best friends. Let's finally have a Democrat who's got the balls to fire first.

So Barack, by denouncing me, you can help McCain get elected. Because when you denounce me, it's not really me you're distancing yourself from — it's the millions upon millions of people who feel the same way about things as I do.

Hopefully, McCain's lead is short lived. Obama will be picking a running mate soon, then comes the Democratic National Convention. It's the Democrats and Barack Obama's election to lose, so please, don't blow it!

Dear Caroline,

We've never met, so I hope you don't find this letter too presumptuous or inappropriate. As its contents involve the public's business, I am sending this to you via the public on the Internet. I knew your brother John. He was a great guy, and I know he would've had a ball during this thrilling and historic election year. We all miss him dearly.

Barack Obama selected you to head up his search for a vice presidential candidate. It appears we may be just days (hours?) away from learning who that choice will be.

The media is reporting that Senator Obama has narrowed his alternatives to three men: Joe Biden, Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine. They're all decent fellows, but they are far from the core of what the Obama campaign has been about: Change. Real change. Out with the old. And don't invade countries that pose no threat to us.

Read more...

On October 3, David Zucker is going to release the film An American Carol  picking fun at filmmaker "Michael Malone" (read Michael Moore) who wants to ban July 4th.  The film's story is in the model of "A Christmas Carol."  Bill O'Reilly makes a cameo, as does a number of others from the trailer.  Ultimately, I'm surprised they found enough actors in Hollywood to film this thing!

Dear Caroline,

We've never met, so I hope you don't find this letter too presumptuous or inappropriate. As its contents involve the public's business, I am sending this to you via the public on the Internet. I knew your brother John. He was a great guy, and I know he would've had a ball during this thrilling and historic election year. We all miss him dearly.

Barack Obama selected you to head up his search for a vice presidential candidate. It appears we may be just days (hours?) away from learning who that choice will be.

The media is reporting that Senator Obama has narrowed his alternatives to three men: Joe Biden, Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine. They're all decent fellows, but they are far from the core of what the Obama campaign has been about: Change. Real change. Out with the old. And don't invade countries that pose no threat to us.

Senators Biden and Bayh voted for that invasion and that war, the war Barack ran against, the war Barack reminded us was the big difference between him and Senator Clinton because she voted for the war and he spoke out against it while running for Senate (a brave and bold thing to do back in 2002).

For Obama to place either of these senators on the ticket would be a huge blow to the millions that chose him in the primaries over Hillary. He will undercut one of the strongest advantages he has over the Hundred-Year War senator, Mr. McCain. By anointing a VP who did what McCain did in throwing us into this war, Mr. Obama will lose the moral high ground in the debates.

As for Governor Kaine of Virginia, his big problem is, well, Obama's big problem -- who is he? The toughest thing Barack has had to overcome -- and it will continue to be his biggest obstacle -- is that too many of the voters simply don't know him well enough to vote for him. The fact that Obama is new to the scene is both one of his most attractive qualities AND his biggest drawback. Too many Americans, who on the surface seem to like Barack Obama, just don't feel comfortable voting for someone who hasn't been on the national scene very long. It's a comfort level thing, and it may be just what keeps Obama from winning in November ("I'd rather vote for the devil I know than the devil I don't know").

What Obama needs is a vice presidential candidate who is NOT a professional politician, but someone who is well-known and beloved by people across the political spectrum; someone who, like Obama, spoke out against the war; someone who has a good and generous heart, who will be cheered by the rest of the world; someone whom we've known and loved and admired all our lives and who has dedicated her life to public service and to the greater good for all.

That person, Caroline, is you.

I cannot think of a more winning ticket than one that reads: "OBAMA-KENNEDY."

Caroline, I know that nominating yourself is the furthest idea from your mind and not consistent with who you are, but there would be some poetic justice to such an action. Just think, eight years after the last head of a vice presidential search team looked far and wide for a VP -- and then picked himself (a move topped only by his hubris to then lead the country to near ruin while in office) -- along comes Caroline Kennedy to return the favor with far different results, a vice president who helps restore America to its goodness and greatness.

Caroline, you are one of the most beloved and respected women in this country, and you have been so admired throughout your life. You chose a life outside of politics, to work for charities and schools, to write and lecture, to raise a wonderful family. But you did not choose to lead a private life. You have traveled the world and met with its leaders, giving you much experience on the world stage, a stage you have been on since you were a little girl.

The nation has, remarkably (considering our fascination with celebrity), left you alone and let you live your life in peace. (It's like, long ago, we all collectively agreed that, with her father tragically gone, a man who died because he wanted to serve his country, we would look out for her, we would wish for her to be happy and well, and we would have her back. But we would let her be.)

Now, I am breaking this unwritten code and asking you to come forward and help us in our hour of need. So many families are hurting, losing their homes, going bankrupt with health care bills, seeing their public schools in shambles and living with this war without end. This is a historic year for women, from Hillary's candidacy to the numerous women running for the House and Senate. This is the year that a woman should be on the Democratic ticket. This is the year that both names on that ticket should be people OUTSIDE the party machine. This is the year millions of independents and, yes, millions of Republicans are looking for something new and fresh and bold (and you are the Kennedy Republicans would vote for!).

This is the moment, Caroline. Seize it! And Barack, if you're reading this, you probably know that she is far too humble and decent to nominate herself. So step up and surprise us again. Step up and be different than every politician we have witnessed in our lifetime. Keep the passion burning amongst the young people and others who have been energized by your unexpected, unpredicted, against-all-odds candidacy that has ignited and inspired a nation. Do it for all those reasons. Make Caroline Kennedy your VP. "Obama-Kennedy." Wow, does that sound so cool.

Caroline, thanks for letting me intrude on your life. How wonderful it will be to have a vice president who will respect the Constitution, who will support (instead of control) her president, who will never let her staff out a CIA agent, and who will never tell her country that she is "currently residing in an undisclosed location."

Say it one more time: "OBAMA-KENNEDY." A move like that might send a message to the country that the Democrats would actually like to win an election for once.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

Tuesday, August 19th, 2008
"Caroline: Pull a Cheney!" An Open Letter to Caroline Kennedy (head of the Obama VP search team) from Michael Moore

"Dear Caroline,

We've never met, so I hope you don't find this letter too presumptuous or inappropriate. As its contents involve the public's business, I am sending this to you via the public on the Internet. I knew your brother John. He was a great guy, and I know he would've had a ball during this thrilling and historic election year. We all miss him dearly.

Barack Obama selected you to head up his search for a vice presidential candidate. It appears we may be just days (hours?) away from learning who that choice will be.

The media is reporting that Senator Obama has narrowed his alternatives to three men: Joe Biden, Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine. They're all decent fellows, but they are far from the core of what the Obama campaign has been about: Change. Real change. Out with the old. And don't invade countries that pose no threat to us.

Senators Biden and Bayh voted for that invasion and that war, the war Barack ran against, the war Barack reminded us was the big difference between him and Senator Clinton because she voted for the war and he spoke out against it while running for Senate (a brave and bold thing to do back in 2002).

For Obama to place either of these senators on the ticket would be a huge blow to the millions that chose him in the primaries over Hillary. He will undercut one of the strongest advantages he has over the Hundred-Year War senator, Mr. McCain. By anointing a VP who did what McCain did in throwing us into this war, Mr. Obama will lose the moral high ground in the debates.

As for Governor Kaine of Virginia, his big problem is, well, Obama's big problem -- who is he? The toughest thing Barack has had to overcome -- and it will continue to be his biggest obstacle -- is that too many of the voters simply don't know him well enough to vote for him. The fact that Obama is new to the scene is both one of his most attractive qualities AND his biggest drawback. Too many Americans, who on the surface seem to like Barack Obama, just don't feel comfortable voting for someone who hasn't been on the national scene very long. It's a comfort level thing, and it may be just what keeps Obama from winning in November ("I'd rather vote for the devil I know than the devil I don't know").

What Obama needs is a vice presidential candidate who is NOT a professional politician, but someone who is well-known and beloved by people across the political spectrum; someone who, like Obama, spoke out against the war; someone who has a good and generous heart, who will be cheered by the rest of the world; someone whom we've known and loved and admired all our lives and who has dedicated her life to public service and to the greater good for all.

That person, Caroline, is you.

I cannot think of a more winning ticket than one that reads: "OBAMA-KENNEDY."

Caroline, I know that nominating yourself is the furthest idea from your mind and not consistent with who you are, but there would be some poetic justice to such an action. Just think, eight years after the last head of a vice presidential search team looked far and wide for a VP -- and then picked himself (a move topped only by his hubris to then lead the country to near ruin while in office) -- along comes Caroline Kennedy to return the favor with far different results, a vice president who helps restore America to its goodness and greatness.

Caroline, you are one of the most beloved and respected women in this country, and you have been so admired throughout your life. You chose a life outside of politics, to work for charities and schools, to write and lecture, to raise a wonderful family. But you did not choose to lead a private life. You have traveled the world and met with its leaders, giving you much experience on the world stage, a stage you have been on since you were a little girl.

The nation has, remarkably (considering our fascination with celebrity), left you alone and let you live your life in peace. (It's like, long ago, we all collectively agreed that, with her father tragically gone, a man who died because he wanted to serve his country, we would look out for her, we would wish for her to be happy and well, and we would have her back. But we would let her be.)

Now, I am breaking this unwritten code and asking you to come forward and help us in our hour of need. So many families are hurting, losing their homes, going bankrupt with health care bills, seeing their public schools in shambles and living with this war without end. This is a historic year for women, from Hillary's candidacy to the numerous women running for the House and Senate. This is the year that a woman should be on the Democratic ticket. This is the year that both names on that ticket should be people OUTSIDE the party machine. This is the year millions of independents and, yes, millions of Republicans are looking for something new and fresh and bold (and you are the Kennedy Republicans would vote for!).

This is the moment, Caroline. Seize it! And Barack, if you're reading this, you probably know that she is far too humble and decent to nominate herself. So step up and surprise us again. Step up and be different than every politician we have witnessed in our lifetime. Keep the passion burning amongst the young people and others who have been energized by your unexpected, unpredicted, against-all-odds candidacy that has ignited and inspired a nation. Do it for all those reasons. Make Caroline Kennedy your VP. "Obama-Kennedy." Wow, does that sound so cool.

Caroline, thanks for letting me intrude on your life. How wonderful it will be to have a vice president who will respect the Constitution, who will support (instead of control) her president, who will never let her staff out a CIA agent, and who will never tell her country that she is "currently residing in an undisclosed location."

Say it one more time: "OBAMA-KENNEDY." A move like that might send a message to the country that the Democrats would actually like to win an election for once."

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

On tonight's Hardball, Chris Matthews resurrected the old liberal saw/strawman of Obama as the victim of racist Republicans. (via Newsbusters):

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this. Isn't he [McCain] handing out permission slips to vote against Barack? "Inexperience" is my favorite. Because you could have all kinds of problems with Barack Obama: ethnically, politically, culturally, class—I don't know what the adjective is for class, but "classily." And you can have every problem in the world with Mrs. Obama. But you could hide it all under, not hide it all, you could present it all under one word: "you know, I've got nothing against him. He's a bright young man with a quality education, interesting new ideas. But he's not quite ready yet." And that's a fair critique which covers all your reasons for opposing him.

Let's cut through Matthews' miasma. No one needs a "permission slip" to oppose a candidate on political, cultural or class grounds. Matthews' allegation was unmistakable: McCain is intentionally broadcasting a subliminal appeal to racists. If ever a candidate has tried to avoid the race issue, it's John McCain. Matthews should put up, shut up, or better yet, apologize.

And continuing along the same theme, a total and complete contradiction of Mathews' assertion by film-maker Michael Moore, who in an open letter to Caroline Kennedy said this:

The toughest thing Barack has had to overcome -- and it will continue to be his biggest obstacle -- is that too many of the voters simply don't know him well enough to vote for him. The fact that Obama is new to the scene is both one of his most attractive qualities AND his biggest drawback.

Talk about pretzel logic.

In the twisted reasoning of the left, Democrats fear Obama will lose because the American People rightfully question his lack of experience. But to question his experience is in itself a form of racism.

*Sigh*

Dear Caroline,

We've never met, so I hope you don't find this letter too presumptuous or inappropriate. As its contents involve the public's business, I am sending this to you via the public on the Internet. I knew your brother John. He was a great guy, and I know he would've had a ball during this thrilling and historic election year. We all miss him dearly.

Barack Obama selected you to head up his search for a vice presidential candidate. It appears we may be just days (hours?) away from learning who that choice will be.

The media is reporting that Senator Obama has narrowed his alternatives to three men: Joe Biden, Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine. They're all decent fellows, but they are far from the core of what the Obama campaign has been about: Change. Real change. Out with the old. And don't invade countries that pose no threat to us.

Senators Biden and Bayh voted for that invasion and that war, the war Barack ran against, the war Barack reminded us was the big difference between him and Senator Clinton because she voted for the war and he spoke out against it while running for Senate (a brave and bold thing to do back in 2002).

For Obama to place either of these senators on the ticket would be a huge blow to the millions that chose him in the primaries over Hillary. He will undercut one of the strongest advantages he has over the Hundred-Year War senator, Mr. McCain. By anointing a VP who did what McCain did in throwing us into this war, Mr. Obama will lose the moral high ground in the debates.

As for Governor Kaine of Virginia, his big problem is, well, Obama's big problem -- who is he? The toughest thing Barack has had to overcome -- and it will continue to be his biggest obstacle -- is that too many of the voters simply don't know him well enough to vote for him. The fact that Obama is new to the scene is both one of his most attractive qualities AND his biggest drawback. Too many Americans, who on the surface seem to like Barack Obama, just don't feel comfortable voting for someone who hasn't been on the national scene very long. It's a comfort level thing, and it may be just what keeps Obama from winning in November ("I'd rather vote for the devil I know than the devil I don't know").

What Obama needs is a vice presidential candidate who is NOT a professional politician, but someone who is well-known and beloved by people across the political spectrum; someone who, like Obama, spoke out against the war; someone who has a good and generous heart, who will be cheered by the rest of the world; someone whom we've known and loved and admired all our lives and who has dedicated her life to public service and to the greater good for all.

That person, Caroline, is you.

I cannot think of a more winning ticket than one that reads: "OBAMA-KENNEDY."

Caroline, I know that nominating yourself is the furthest idea from your mind and not consistent with who you are, but there would be some poetic justice to such an action. Just think, eight years after the last head of a vice presidential search team looked far and wide for a VP -- and then picked himself (a move topped only by his hubris to then lead the country to near ruin while in office) -- along comes Caroline Kennedy to return the favor with far different results, a vice president who helps restore America to its goodness and greatness.

Caroline, you are one of the most beloved and respected women in this country, and you have been so admired throughout your life. You chose a life outside of politics, to work for charities and schools, to write and lecture, to raise a wonderful family. But you did not choose to lead a private life. You have traveled the world and met with its leaders, giving you much experience on the world stage, a stage you have been on since you were a little girl.

The nation has, remarkably (considering our fascination with celebrity), left you alone and let you live your life in peace. (It's like, long ago, we all collectively agreed that, with her father tragically gone, a man who died because he wanted to serve his country, we would look out for her, we would wish for her to be happy and well, and we would have her back. But we would let her be.)

Now, I am breaking this unwritten code and asking you to come forward and help us in our hour of need. So many families are hurting, losing their homes, going bankrupt with health care bills, seeing their public schools in shambles and living with this war without end. This is a historic year for women, from Hillary's candidacy to the numerous women running for the House and Senate. This is the year that a woman should be on the Democratic ticket. This is the year that both names on that ticket should be people OUTSIDE the party machine. This is the year millions of independents and, yes, millions of Republicans are looking for something new and fresh and bold (and you are the Kennedy Republicans would vote for!).

This is the moment, Caroline. Seize it! And Barack, if you're reading this, you probably know that she is far too humble and decent to nominate herself. So step up and surprise us again. Step up and be different than every politician we have witnessed in our lifetime. Keep the passion burning amongst the young people and others who have been energized by your unexpected, unpredicted, against-all-odds candidacy that has ignited and inspired a nation. Do it for all those reasons. Make Caroline Kennedy your VP. "Obama-Kennedy." Wow, does that sound so cool.

Caroline, thanks for letting me intrude on your life. How wonderful it will be to have a vice president who will respect the Constitution, who will support (instead of control) her president, who will never let her staff out a CIA agent, and who will never tell her country that she is "currently residing in an undisclosed location."

Say it one more time: "OBAMA-KENNEDY." A move like that might send a message to the country that the Democrats would actually like to win an election for once.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com
Like this post? Please share it with the bookmark button

Had I underestimated the power of Snake Oil Salesman, Michael Moore?

"The Culture of Fear" was tossed into my lap several times from so called "experts" on American culture. So, I thought about it and realized that this label is both accurate and inaccurate at the same time. Let me explain. But before we continue, it's necessary for me to point out that there are two different definitions of the word, "fearful".

• Fearful: being afraid
• The Anti-American definition of "fearful": Also known as Paranoid Schizophrenia or just simply being afraid of something that's not there and/or having delusions that something fearful is there when it is not.

My main point with this blog entry is to explain the reasoning behind people owning guns (aside from hobbyists), why Americans look or act paranoid, and possible reasoning as to why Americans are more homicidal than those from other developed nations. Also as a disclaimer, please keep in mind while you're reading this that I am *not* defending criminals. That's the job of the Anti-Americans - not me.

My ideas as to how we got so violent:

(1) First off, I don't think many are aware of how most Americans are raised. Forget about history and past wars. If Americans walk around feeling "fearful" all their lives, there's got to be a reason for it, no? One must look no further than how we are raised. Most Americans learn the difference between right and wrong via very violent and painful punishments in the home as toddlers, kids, and as adolescents. And many of our ancestors used to get their ass kicked in school by the nuns. There are gray areas when it comes to child discipline, and I'm confident to say that many forms of discipline over here are actually child abuse just veiled under the term, "discipline" to make the offenders feel better about what they do. Violent discipline varies from family to family and can happen on several different levels. We learn to fear our parents. If we are good boys and girls, we are only doing so to avoid a "can-o-whoop-ass" from our parents. We are not behaving because we have "learned" or because "we want to". We don't know the answers or why we do what we do, but for the most part, we'll do anything to please our parents (until the end) and to avoid as much pain as possible in the process. We go out into the world as an "independent" adult carrying that same fear - although irrational. (Please keep in mind that I am generalizing here. If you want specifics on how I feel about violent discipline, read this.)

But wait. This way of being brought up isn't specific to Americans. This "doing things to avoid an irrational or rational fear of getting spanked" isn't specific to American culture either. I would like to bet, however, that there is more domestic violence (especially of the torturous kind i.e. tying kids to bed etc) in the US compared to any other developed nation. Or is it just that America talks about her violent problems more? Australia being similarly jaded, I'd be curious of what their crime rate is in comparison to America's.

One in three Americans girls and one in 5/6 American boys are sexually abused in the US, and these are just the stats that are reported. There are symptoms of being sexually abused and those include hyper-vigilance, watchfulness, and the inability to trust like the unabused are capable of doing. This is to be expected. Even those victims who claim that they are over the rape still possess a somewhat paranoid nature to them that is to be expected. Another name for this is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Add this in with the mixture of violent attacks on innocent Americans (whether it be coming from the home, school, or in the big wide open spaces) and you get a lovely cocktail of jaded Americans. Because that's what we are.

Americans are jaded. This is a more accurate way of describing us. By calling us fearful (in the form of schoolyard bullying) is actually belittling and mocking all the victims of crimes here. It's a condescending and pretentious way of spitting on people that have been hurt. Let's see you do any better considering the circumstances. The fact of the matter is that one's place of birth does *not* dictate how one deals with a traumatic experience. Unless you've been there yourself under the very same circumstances and past, you have no right to get on your high-horses and preach how someone is to feel their feelings - especially when you don't even live here in a less than modest neighborhood to know what the hell you're talking about. Now, this is no excuse for people to wave their guns at every suspicion, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about paranoid and fearful Americans, right? Anti-Americans aren't angry at the criminals here because they mourn their death when they get the death penalty. Anti-Americans are mad at the peaceful gun-holders and non-gun-holders in America. Even though I don't own a gun myself, I defend the responsible and peaceful law abiding citizens living here who are being unnecessarily attacked. Anyway, after reading this, I grew confused. It shows that Australian and Canadian rapes far outweigh American rapes. Hmm.... I am positive there is a connection between rape and jaded behavior, but am not convinced it causes violent behavior leading to one's death.

Why are there so many crimes in America?

(2) If you look at other developed countries, America is the only country where one must look after himself. We do have social services and welfare programs here, but compared to the rest of the world, the US stands alone and its people stand alone and must fend for themselves. It's about the "I" not the "we". This is very stressful for everybody living in the states except for those people who GENUINELY love their jobs (which are the minority). There's much contempt here for others that don't work as hard regardless of their excuse. (Who woulda thunk it?) There's also much contempt for those countries that have more free time, work less, live longer, and enjoy life more. Superfrenchie displays very good examples of this here and here. There are many in the US who pretend that they love to work long and hard hours at stressful jobs, but deep down inside they are bitter, jealous, angry, and resentful and take out these frustrations on other people - namely those who are defenseless (their kids) and not working as hard.

(3) Putting the blacks through slavery has much to do with our violent beginning as well. Not that the evil whities weren't already violent to begin with (hey, weren't the British who were powering the world for 300 years with THEIR blazing firearms white too? Oops!?!? :oops: ), but it doesn't help that the Blacks fought back very violently (and justifiably so!). Has not anyone ever heard the term, "violence begets more violence"? It doesn't matter who's the perpetrator or who's the victim. Violence simply begets more violence. Now, whites beat/kill each other up, blacks beat/kill each other up and so on. Many countries (both past and present) have been guilty of keeping slaves (both black, white, and other races). And Americans held on to slaves the longest.

(4) Poverty: There is more unemployment in Canada and other socialized countries compared to the US. But this doesn't mean that they are poverty stricken. My bet is that there's more poverty in the states. My bet is that this contributes significantly to our crime rates.

(5) Could it also have something to do with the fact that we don't have proper institutions for the mentally ill here as other countries have? Most of our severely mentally ill are the homeless that you see when you come here. Thanks to our "compassionate" government, this may be just another of several reasons why there is more crime here.

(6) More examples of bad parenting in America: Read from 1-4 in this article written by "Mohammed". It is an opinion, but I concur with all that he says because I see this too much over here. It is hard to live in America, in my opinion. Don't be fooled by the sunshiny smiley faces. Some of us pretend that we are happy just to keep our sanity. Life is very stressful here compared to other developed nations. Some Americans make bad decisions to have too many kids that are shoved into daycare centers while mom and dad work all day. They trust day care as the kids's virtual parents more than they trust themselves. Parents don't pay attention to the signs when their kids come home from school or the day care depressed or acting funny. If America has shown anything, it has shown that kids living here are not important. They are too little to worry about as adults are struggling for survival and have their own "adult problems" to worry about daughter and son. All of these bad choices and stressful living conditions that we are subjected to and subject ourselves to is bound to show on the people...somehow...someway, wouldn't you think? Kids are treated here with no more respect than dust particles, so in the end they act the way they are treated: no self-esteem and running on auto-pilot until they crack. This is not a rocket science.

It's not that uneducated and stressed-out people hump more than others. It's that they don't use birth control and want to make more kids so that they can feel in control and have others to powerhouse. These reckless parents come out of abusive homes too, and the cycle continues from one generation to the next. Where one feels powerless in their lives due to past abuses, they feel the need to regain power through making babies - or by making babies to have someone love them unconditionally for once. It's sad. And it's a continuous cycle in America which begs that each of you reading this watch the movie, IDIOCRACY. Once seeing that, everything I'm typing here will make more sense.

What about Americans with guns? Yes, those suffering from severe cases of PTSD and/or (REAL!) Paranoia will more likely be purchasing a gun. Or will they? PTSD is not just for vets and is more complex than what people make it out to be. Let's look at the symptoms:

* sleep problems including nightmares and waking early
* flashbacks and replays which you are unable to switch off
* impaired memory, forgetfulness, inability to recall names, facts and dates that are well known to you
* impaired concentration
* impaired learning ability (eg through poor memory and inability to concentrate)
* hypervigilance (feels like but is not paranoia)
* exaggerated startle response
* irritability, sudden intense anger, occasional violent outbursts
* panic attacks
* hypersensitivity, whereby every remark is perceived as critical
* obsessiveness - the experience takes over your life, you can't get it out of your mind
* joint and muscle pains which have no obvious cause
* feelings of nervousness, anxiety
* reactive depression (not endogenous depression)
* excessive levels of shame, embarrassment
* survivor guilt for having survived when others perished or for not having done more to help or save others
* a feeling of having been given a second chance at life
* undue fear
* low self-esteem and shattered self-confidence
* emotional numbness, anhedonia (inability to feel love or joy)
* feelings of detachment
* avoidance of anything that reminds you of the experience
* physical and mental paralysis at any reminder of the experience

This is not something to laugh at, by the way, as Canadians and people all over the world suffer from PTSD too. Even animals suffer from this.

All I'm trying to say is to dig behind and beyond the simplicity of just thinking all white Americans are born evil, non-human, and inherently violent, nuts, and paranoid. This is yet another case of Anti-Americans taking a COMPLEX subject and looking at it with a narrow black and white view. What else is new in Anti-America?

Can people be born evil? Or are the Anti-Americans claiming that all white Americans are born evil? Most of us? Only the white people? Or just the white people BORN in America? If you say that people aren't born evil, than you'll be forced into a more complex route of admitting that the Americans that ARE criminal are under environmental duress and past abuse. Whichever the case, both answers show criminals to be victims as well. Criminals: victims or not should be treated as such: not with sympathy, not with empathy, but with punishment, in my opinion. However, the people the Anti-Americans yell at are the non-criminal gun holders and non-gun holders which is very curious. Does anyone have any answers for THAT?

If you're talking about those who possess guns and leave them lying around loaded for any kid to pick up and start shooting, then you've got an argument. We are then talking about irresponsible gun holders. If the access to guns decline in the US, so will the accidents. This is a HUGE problem here. I still stand by the 2nd amendment, but what I don't stand by is how easily obtainable they are (just like in Canada and Switzerland) as background checks are a joke. There should be a more formal process in which the person trying to buy a gun is examined mentally with a fine tooth comb.

I am no arm-chair psychologist or anything. I, just like other curious people, wonder why we kill people so easily as we know it's not so much to do with firearm possession as it is to do with the gun owners themselves! Suffice it to say, there are plenty of stabbings, stranglings, and other forms of homicide here that don't involve guns.

One Brit flaunts his expertise on Guns in America.

(sic) Sorry, do americans not have fists like the rest of the world?

Since when was shooting a acceptable method of self defence? As for killing food, that can be done with other means.

He goes on to explain his point further:

(sic) My point is, it isnt exactly an acceptable reason to have a gun. If someone is armed with a knife, then its only right then that you defend yourself in the same way.

What would be better, getting rid of guns and decreasing the amount of deaths or keeping it for self defence and having those deaths at the same level?

Theres a reason, besides the huge population that USA has such high crime/homicide rate.. Its because the majority of the rest of the world dont let you own a gun for no reason. Just seems stupid that they continue to have it for self defence, when their are so many alternatives.

8O

What are we debating here? Criminals (who kill PEOPLE as a sport) or gun holders (who are responsible and using it for defense or other hobbies not relating to murder)? You can't conveniently blur these two together. There IS a difference. Irresponsible people with guns ARE the minority.

Do the Anti's not realize that there are very nice law abiding citizens who have guns that only use them for defense and not offense? Do the Anti's not realize that most of the people in the US who commit homicide out of OFFENSE are holding ILLEGALLY OBTAINED or stolen firearms? Do the Anti's not realize how EASILY accessible firearms are in Switzerland and how most males have them (and the same with Holy Canada)? As you can see here, simply HAVING a gun is VERY different than having urges to kill innocent people for fun. Is this concept too hard to grasp? If it is not just holding a gun that automatically makes one a criminal, then what is it? This just simply proves that we must look deeper to find the answers as to why Americans are more violent. And we should just limit our research to gun crime, it should be ALL crime! It's most curious how the Anti-Americans talk more about gun control in America than they do about crime where a gun wasn't used. Those crimes are completely blacked out. It seems more likely that they just want guns out than wanting crime to decrease. I don't think that the Far Left really care about innocents getting killed at all as their agenda to flex their supremest muscles at the yanks are more important than anything else. This is what the "morally superior" Far Left is all about: their agenda (not human lives).

Michael Moore was comparing the violence in the US with Canada. You'd have to be retarded *not* to understand why Americans are more fearful. The stupid Anti-American Leftists are thinking that Americans live day in and day out thinking that some Black or Arab "boogie-man" is hiding in the bushes waiting to kill us whether we're in our own countries or abroad. Naturally folks, where violence is MORE prevalent, the normal response to lock your doors and not walk alone at night in some areas of town is NOT "racially motivated" nor is it "unique" to Americans. :roll: I feel almost retarded myself for having to explain the obvious.

I was amused. One Canadian woman was interviewed by Micheal Moore in this movie (Bowling for Columbine) and she stated that her home was broken into AND vandalized while she was sleeping at night. She stated that that incident didn't scare her :roll: , and that she continues to *not* lock her doors at night because that would be, yanno, too American she doesn't want to disconnect herself from the rest of the world. I think she'd feel very comfortable over here in the US as we harbor the most mentally ill people in the civilized world, so she'd feel right at home. Welcome, drunk Blondie!

*sighs*

You know, it's these people like HER that deserve to be vandalized and robbed! As a matter of fact, I could use some things as money is a little tight where I am. I wonder if she'd give me her address in Canada, and then I can come over and take what I like while she's sleeping? She seems very generous to me. And hey, aren't the AA Canadians all about sharing their money with the less fortunate? :D She should have gone one step further and just gave her address out publicly considering how "open to visitors" she is. One question, though: Do Canadians lock their door when they have sex? Hmm... OK, I know I'm getting hammy here, but if you had watched the film, you'd see what I mean. We UHHMERICANS are considered anti-social and again, insular, for locking our doors. After all, that's not friendly behavior, right? :?

Surely, Americans are painfully and clinically "guilty" of locking their doors more than Canadians, but Michael Moore gives this impression that none of us over here leave our doors unlocked. And as a matter of fact, there are certain towns and neighborhoods where people feel comfortable keeping their doors unlocked in the US - just as there are town, cities, neighborhoods in CANADA where people LOCK their doors. How stupid does Michael Moore and Co. think Americans are??? And I don't believe that ditsy Canuck who said that she wasn't scared after the break-in. She was TERRIFIED. She's just trying to make Canada out to be something that it's not. I don't care what country one is living in. At the end of the day, we are all people just trying to get by in the world. We all bleed the same blood and cry the same tears and feel the same feelings. I am not convinced, otherwise.

It's funny how Americans are looked down upon for locking their doors, yet that was also the case in Japan when I was living there. I also had never heard of a girl living living in an apartment alone in Japan that kept her doors unlocked. (I'm sure they leave their doors open in the country areas, though.) My Japanese friends even told me to avoid certain areas as the were deemed "dangerous". Hmm.... (are they 'fraid of the blacks too?) Has any research taken place in other developed countries regarding this "issue"? Naw. It's just got to be America, right? Well, of course!! Let's not defeat the purpose of Anti-Americanism!

To move on, the perceived uniqueness of learning by "cause and effect" is not a phenomenon peculiar to the "American Culture". Once again, look at the violence here in proportion to people "acting careful" to prevent such things happening to them.

Another question comes to mind. Should our media not cover crime news or perhaps not cover it as much? We know for a fact that it is real. It does happen. And anybody with 1/4th of a brain should realize that crime news is hardly covered in Canada because it DOESN'T HAPPEN ANYWHERE NEAR AS MUCH AS DOES THE USA. So, what ARE the benefits of covering crime news? Is it just there to cater to the gore-loving, blood-thirsty audience? Is it there to make Americans realize what's going on out there so as to take precaution and promote safety? What if there's someone in the neighborhood that is a sniper killer? You know, it is so easy for a Canadian living in Peaceful Canada to lecture Americans on what and what not do do regarding safety. Don't you think? What about the black people in the US that have guns and lock THEIR doors? Have you a fitting label for them? Paranoid? Fearful? Mentally Ill? Republican? They need to take measurements because they're defending against the evil whities? Which is it?

Here's my answer: I think that people all over the world should never be over-confident in thinking it's not going to happen to them. I also think that people all over should never live in fear, either. What ever happened to this concept we call, "balance"?

Can we not learn anything from crime? I think we can. No. When I say "learn from crime", I'm not talking about (after watching the news) running around waving your pistol because you heard that Jane Doe was brutally raped and murdered and the perpetrator's on the loose. What I mean is that without crime news, we'd be a very naive and over-confident society leading to people trusting everyone thereby putting innocents in harm's way. We don't want THAT, do we? Learning from crime, makes intelligent people look for why these things take place to begin with as what was done here. My belief is that if we know what makes a killer, we someday will know how to prevent a killer. But you don't figure these things out by having the reality of the world cut off from you. It may very well be the case that American local news is too centered on crime, and I can only guess it is there to raise people's eyebrows. However, thanks to Michael Mooreisms, Anti-Americans are now successfully brainwashed to believe that the US media reports homicide only to make white people hate black people. Never mind the high number of crimes committed everyday between the Black and Mexican communities (gangs). Never mind the fact that most serial killers and sexual predators are WHITE!!!! Yes, that's on our television channels too, people!

WE CAN SEE VERY CLEARLY THAT WHITE PEOPLE COMMIT CRIMES TOO! WHITE CRIMES, BLACK CRIMES, BROWN CRIMES, YELLOW CRIMES, PURPLE CRIMES, GREEN CRIMES, AND ORANGE CRIMES ARE ALL REPORTED E-Q-U-A-L-L-Y! But you clowns wouldn't know that unless you lived over here! Or are living here with your eyes OPEN and not living in grandma's basement.

At the end of the day folks, what does TOO MUCH CRIME NEWS do? It makes people numb and desensitized. Yes, you heard that correctly. Crimes news does *not* make the average American "paranoid", or "fearful" nor is that why we "search the bushes for the boogie man". Hearing on the news about another homicide for us is like hearing a commercial for Crest toothpaste. The reaction is the same, really. Some stories touch us and make us cry or shout at the TV, but generally speaking the surprise revolved around crime just isn't there anymore. And in America, if we don't want to watch about violence in the news, a remote control and cable television was invented for that very purpose.

I am furious with Michael Moore making this "unique" "culture of fear" to be about RACE... when it's not. It was "Bowling for Columbine" and "Stupid White Men" that got Anti-Americans both in Europe and in Canada to believe that if you have if you have African roots that you are innocent and holy by default, that if you have immigrated from another country, you are innocent and holy by default, but if you are white and born in America, you are guilty and inherently evil by default.

Additionally, it was absolutely deplorable to hear Michael belittle the victim's families of 9-11 calling them and anyone else affected "a culture of fear". If you don't think that a terrorist attack has a effect on its people, you are callous and have just as much blood on your hands as the terrorists themselves. Interestingly enough, it is those countries living peaceful lives taking for granted what they have, that are the ones mocking the reactions of trauma survivors. You will always see the Anti-American Canadians and Brits cry for those at the hands of our Capital Punishment system in America. But you won't get that same "understanding" and "sympathy" from the Anti-American scumbags regarding those victims that WERE ACTUALLY INNOCENT. There's the blatant hypocrisy right there. Anti-America says that 3,000 innocent Americans from all over the world deserved the Death Penalty that day (even though 24 Canadians died in the towers as well). As the saying now goes:

"As someone who takes human rights seriously, I'm appalled by the lack of sympathy the left feels toward the victims of any regime other than the Bush administration. Let's shout it to prisoners everywhere: If you're not harmed by an American, your suffering doesn't count." --Erik Svane

When Americans watch "Bowling for Columbine", they do so with a grain of salt (for the most part). Even liberal Americans do and even some leftists. We live here. We see what happens in our country. We know "Bowling for Columbine" is for entertainment's sake and not to be taken too seriously. We are also well aware that Michael has lied and fabricated stories in his past pieces. We are aware of the manipulative tricks that he does with his footage to make people believe things that aren't true. We know. We're Americans.

BUT...

Those living elsewhere will take "Bowling for Columbine" to heart and because they hate Americans as well, will hang on to Michael's e-v-e-r-y word. That is where AA Canadians and Brits go for their comfort food: The Michael Moore library.

And we know it's not just UHHMERICANS that are vigilant after major disasters. Take 9-11 for example. Do some research on how following that day, people traveling coming from other countries took a downward spiral...for years. I was working at the airlines during that time and flight routes were canceled to and from other countries for years. Only in the last couple of years has travel from abroad increased since the attacks. Uh. Could it actually be that tourism declined because those from elsewhere were afraid of the Muslim that could be hiding in the bush to behead them? Hmm... Why, after 9-11, did the Japanese government begin fingerprinting all foreigners coming into the country if it is only Americans that are "taking precautions" against further attacks. In all actuality, nothing too drastic a change in the US has happened post 9-11 to show that we are seriously preventing further terrorism. The Iraqi war (creating more terror, in my opinion) and the Patriot Act are laughable. Airport security is a joke as it's always been. Innocents from other countries as well as American citizens are unnecessarily being detained and abused too often while people board the planes with all sorts of weaponry. America is still a place where you can standby for a flight check in your luggage, miss the flight, and have your luggage travel alone (if that doesn't say anything). What I'm trying to say is our "paranoid" measures to be a more secure country are about other things - NOT about being "fearful". Please! And before you Anti's get into your diatribe about "stupid Americans', read this first and learn how you're just as dumb if not more.

Right-wing Americans are always talking about "the war on terror" and how it's "protecting us". Propaganda is put out so that we do fear terrorists and submit to silly wars out of pure greed. But I'm also going to say that Americans are no more fearful than your average Canadian is about America turning on its side and squishing Canada. All this fear that the AA's perceive is rather hype; it's about following the crowd, the leader, the authority, it's about the desire to belong and the inability for one to take responsibility for his own shortcomings. Weak people are seduced by power. This is the same way Anti-Americanism works.

If you really want to explore racism in America, here might be a good start.

You want to pin an "Ugly American"? How about your beloved and millionaire Michael Moore himself?

MOORE MANIPULATES VICTIMS:
Moore held a screening of Bowling for Columbine in Littleton and charged admission the families of the victims.
• Columbine victim mother Anne Hechter: "It's laughable that Moore attempts to portray himself as an anti-establishment liberal who is the voice of the common folk, when in fact he is no better than the greedy capitalists he shuns. Maybe now that he has made millions of dollars off the blood of our children he could toss a DVD or two our way to view."
• Mark Taylor, one of the victims that Moore took to K-Mart headquarters, on Moore: "I am completely against him. He screwed me over. I had no idea what Moore's agenda was. And he had an agenda. He had it all planned out, completely. I believe that every American has the right to have a gun. We should have the right to protect ourselves."

Read more here about how "Bowling for Columbine" was a FICTION documentary along with the rest of his work. Credits to Mike, however. He is brilliant at what he does. His work is also very entertaining.

Lastly, when we examine the word, "fearful", we must ask ourselves:

• Are all 300+ million Americans feeling this fear or just the gun-holders and the evil whities?
• What percentage of these people are fearing something real?
• Is it irrational fear brought on by a degree of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Is this fear really just Paranoid Schizophrenia that is being experienced?

Something interesting to note. Anti-Americans frequently call us "paranoid" and "fearful" by having invaded Iraq. But those same Anti's said that we went to Iraq for oil and money for Bush's rich buddies. Which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it too. You don't want to sound like an opportunist, do you? So, pick one and stick with it.

Secondly, in the beginning of "Bowling for Columbine", Michael shows how Americans weren't reactive enough when suspicious noises from crimes being committed were happening nearby. But then later, he accuses us for not being suspicious enough. He needs to take a pick too.

For all I know, everything I write in this blog may be a fallacy. So, take me with a grain of salt as well. All I'm trying to say here is to not always take to heart everything you read and see in the media. If Americans are truly the cowardly, brain-dead gorillas that you believe them to be, question and challenge the literature you come across and make sound and balanced arguments in the public forums you use to communicate. Only then can you say that you're better than Americans. The Anti's are so obsessed with Anti-American news that the concept that there are other ideas out there is unknown or thrown out immediately without properly looking at all the angles in its complexity.

If you truly want to learn about American culture, take courses or read books about Anthropology, Sociology, and Criminology. Actually live in the US and move around while you are here with an open and curious mind. If you don't know why these three subjects are important to understand groups of people, culture, sub-cultures, and society, than you are part of the dumbing down of the world.

To say that Americans are just simply fearful for the sake of fearing alone is to deny that America is a violent country. And you don't want to deny such if you are an Anti-American.

Canada is afraid of America. Now, how's that for a blanket statement?

Un cinéaste anti-étasunien, Michael Malone, propose rien de moins que l'abolition du 4 juillet, fête sacrée de l'indépendance étasunienne. Il sera par la suite visité par trois «héros» étasuniens, George Washington, John F. Kennedy et George Patton, qui lui feront découvrir les bons cotés de la nation.

Vous dites: une vaste et vile campagne de propagande de la droite étasunienne contre la «gauche», car lorsqu'on parle de gauchisme étasunien, il faut le mettre entre guillemets, et son porte-parole officieux, et curieusement moins présent en 2008, probablement parce qu'indésirable ? Probablement, mais c'est assurément la vengeance d'un ancien partisan démocrate illuminé par les valeurs conservatrices après les attentats du 11 septembre 2001.

Disons que d'après cet article du Weekly Standard, Zucker, l'ex-démocrate en question, n'a jamais vraiment été à sa place chez les ânes, si ce n'est que pour un penchant environnementaliste. Au contraire, Zucker est depuis longtemps un fervent religieux et décidément un adepte de la force armée.

Quoiqu'il en soit, le visionnement de la bande-annonce laisse espérer un film plutôt drôle. Il n'est pas sans me déplaire que quelqu'un se paie sérieusement la tête de Michael Moore, même si je ne honnis pas vicéralement ce cinéaste comme la plupart de ses détracteurs. Maintenant, quant à savoir que ce film est un produit de propagande conservatrice, ça ne fait qu'augmenter mes raisons de rire, ajoutant bien involontairement à l'humour ce patriotisme et cette religiosité caricaturaux défendus par une certaine droite intégriste étasunienne.

In an attempt to insert himself into the current presidential contest, Moore has released a book called “Mike's Election Guide 2008.”

In an excerpt on his Web site, the “Sicko” filmmaker posts a formula for a Barack Obama loss.

Titled “How The Democrats Can Blow It ...In Six Easy Steps,” Moore sets forth a “blueprint for losing the most winnable presidential election in American history.”

Along with items that he claims will cause the presumptive Democrat nominee to eventually lose (like “saying nice things about McCain,” picking “a running mate who is a conservative white guy or a general or a Republican” and “writing speeches for Obama that make him sound like a hawk”) is something that signals a new level of self-absorption even for Moore. Step number six reads, “Denounce me!”

According to Moore, if Obama distances himself from him, it would be a fatal error, politically and strategically.

The “Bowling for Columbine” and “Fahrenheit 9/11” documentary maker writes that “Obama, at some point, might be asked this question: ‘Michael Moore has endorsed you. But he recently said (fill in the blank with some outrageously offensive line taken out of context). Will you still accept his endorsement, or do you denounce him?’”

Moore answers his own hypothetical in the following way: “So Barack, by denouncing me, you can help McCain get elected. Because when you denounce me, it's not really me you're distancing yourself from — it's the millions upon millions of people who feel the same way about things as I do.”

The only problem for Moore is that the millions upon millions of people who feel the same way he does live on Planet X and usually vote the Tin Foil Hat Party.

James Hirsen is a media analyst, Trinity Law School professor, and teacher of mass media and entertainment law at Biola University.

Visit: Newsmax TV Hollywood: http://www.youtube.com/user/NMHollywood