Seven Questions for Michael Moore… Michael Moore has recently asked seven inane questions, addressed to President Bush, under the arrogant presumption that he is doing so "on behalf of" the victims of the World Trade Center attack.  If he is even aware of what his words mean, this fat pig can only mean that he regards himself as the moral or political spokesman of the victims; a disgraceful and disrespectful act of corpse-robbing since none of those people gave him permission to speak for them.

Well Michael, I myself have a few questions for you, seven in fact.  I ask them, with similar egomaniacal immodesty, on behalf of everyone who is not a complete fucking idiot.

1.  Why have you refused to issue corrections for books like Stupid White Men that have been savaged in the press for the unusually high rate of errors and misrepresentations they contain?

You know the savaging I'm talking about.  Liberals alone account for an astonishing number of the critical beatings you've received, as you can find here and here and here.  And since they're your natural allies, that's not good.

Good God he's a fat pig

Unfortunately, it's not just your books that appear to have been written in a haze of euphoria after doubling up on your meds.  People keep finding numerous errors of fact in your documentaries and television programs too, some of which you've quietly corrected in re-issue without accepting responsibility for the original distortion.  Yet a film, even moreso than a book, must be painstakingly edited and undergo review by many people over a lengthy post-production schedule.  Only you could have had the veto power to keep a lie in.  How is it that your falsehoods survived this vetting process?

Hey, maybe this is one of the reasons Mother Jones fired you for incompetence.

2.  Why do you keep circulating urban myths long after they've been shot down?

This ties in with number one; you seem to have a long-standing habit of telling a slighly better version of the truth, one unencumbered by nuance or complexity.  While you can claim that your research is sloppy or that you've corrected the printed record by backpedaling on a talk show, there's no excuse for your retailing fictions after you've already been corrected.  And you do it a lot.

Frequently these myths don't even make sense.  For example, you've darkly hinted that relatives of Osama bin Laden were allowed to leave the United States following the World Trade Center destruction due to the existence of some nefarious conspiracy involving George W. Bush.  (You mistakenly assert that bin Laden's relatives left during the ban on plane travel without the cooperation of the FBI.)

Of course if such a conspiracy really existed one wonders why these relatives were still in the United States the day of the attack.  I mean presumably the whole point of a conspiracy is so the conspirators can plan ahead.  You can't possibly mean to indicate that relatives of bin Laden are guilty of terrorism by virtue of blood relation.  If your absurd anecdote has any meaning it must be that a cover-up was underway even as the dust of the World Trade Center was still settling.

3.  How did you manage to make an entire movie about gun violence without exploring the violent crime in lower class minority neighborhoods?

This is especially curious because you waste little time getting to your point that gun violence is a product of white fear of minorities.  Presumably then the violent crime that afflicts minorities is caused by paranoid whites who buy up K-Mart's rifle stockpile and drive through the ghetto shooting darkies.  Or something.

No, wait, that can't be it because most of the violence there is intra-ethnic and closely related to a maladaptive gangster ethos and turf wars.  Hey maybe you can devote some time to that in your next book or movie, that is if your moaning about disadvantaged minorities is for more than just show.

4.  What was it like getting booed while giving your Oscar acceptance speech?

You looked like one of the victims of your own documentaries, rambling idiotically about "fictition" and then hustling your ass backstage to intimidate reporters who might actually have noticed both your inarticulate flailing and the crowd's hostility.  In fact you later claimed that the audience was booing your enemies.  Hey, nice try.

5.  Why aren't you allowing advance review copies of your latest book to go out before you start on your promotional speaking tour?

A wag might suggest that after past experiences you're trying to avoid getting asked about any of the embarrassing factual innovations that pepper your writing.

If so, I have to warn you it's a foolhardly gambit which could magnify the book's negative critical reception.  Hollywood does this kind of thing with movies it knows are stinkers:  bottle them up and hope for a good opening weekend before the reviews hit the papers.  Critics have been known to treat such movies with especial unkindness.

6.  How does someone who complains relentlessly about corporations and wealthy executives who prefer profits over people justify his exorbitant lifestyle including a $1.3 million home on the Upper West Side?

You do claim to give money to "charity and political causes", but you know, given your veracity on other matters I'd like to see receipts and tax returns.  At any rate, what about all those guys you are supposed to be in solidarity with?  Surely the many little people who've helped you build up your career could use some extra cash.

Why do I ask?  Because if you're bringing in millions of dollars while paying your crew and other lackeys whatever the market will bear, that would be just a tad hypocritical.  Maybe it's some alpha male thing, where you need to show them all who's boss by the size of your paycheck.  Yet when I hear liberals whine about executive salaries they invariably declaim on the evils of corporate suits making 100 times more than the janitor.  I think they're daft but I'm wondering what you think.

This is more than just idle spit-balling.  Writers on "TV Nation" claim you tried to prevent them from joining the Writer's Guild.  They also claim they relied on the Guild to keep you from screwing them out of royalties and other payments.  What an odd thing to do for someone who champions unions.

7.  Why is it unfair to draw conclusions about you based on your fat, slovenly appearance?

Some people reasonably associate sloppiness and obesity with poor impulse control, an emotional, reactive temperament, egocentric personal habits, and a lifelong inability to make intelligent choices.  Comments?