Even if you're a journalist who politially is in line with many of the things Moore believes, you can't go off like Paul Krugman and others have and praise his tactics if you know they are built on lies, Even if it is the satanic George W. Bush.

Once you give a person the right to be prosecutor, judge and jury based on their ground rules -- in Moore's case his belief that if you "feel" something is true that then makes it so -- don't be outrageed if a few years down the line Michael's using the same tactics against your pet cause, and getting away with it, especially since the "you" amd the "feelings" in this case are exclusively owned by Michael Moore (liberal Democrats might think that could never happen, but until 2000, they also Ralph Nader was one of the most secularly saintly people in the world, so things do change).

Anyway, it's nice to see that Scott Simon gets at least that part of the equasion, no matter what his overall politics are. But given who he attacked, when he did it and where the attack was published, his e-mail box was probably hit with a tsunami of hate mail by NPR listeners crying betrayal this morning. I'll have to wake up early for "Weekend Editon" on Saturday to see if any of that seeps into Scott's talk with Daniel Schorr.

I thin a lot of people thought the way I did. If you make a documentary movie, it was suppose to be at least as close to the truth as possible. When I heard Mr. Moore state that his "documentary" was just his ideas and was not based on truth, I wondered why was it even called a documentary movie. It should just have been called a fictional movie.

I think at least a few people thought as I did, a documentary movie was suppose to be as close to the truth as possible. Then I heard Mr. Moore state that his "documentary" movie was just his own ideas and not necessarily the truth. Why wasn't it just called a "fictional" movie instead.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a document--they 're just a lie. Maybe that's what he means by documentary.

The problem is by calling it a documentary, people believe these lies.

During his 1996 libel trial, Moore testified he is not a documentarian, he's an entertainer and therefore doesn't have to be held to the same standard of truth as regular journalists.

The problem with that is while it may satisfy the lawyers, Moore does not make that claim freely. You only get it out of his when someone presses him on the issue, and let's face it, not many interviewers make the effort to get that claim out of his mouth. For the masses of ticket-buyers out there, Michael is perfectly happy to let them believe otherwise about his journalistic standards.

He has a lot in common with Vince McMahon. Everyone knows that pro wrestling is fake, but the experience requires you to at least pretend it is legit.

I heard that Moore got to sit next to Jimmy Carter in the presidential box at the Democrat convention. I'm surprised that Moore would agree to elevate Jimmy Carter's status in this way. Has he no shame?

I think the following commentary sums it all up pretty well, so I'll post it again in honor of all the bright lights at the DNC:

http://www.secularislam.org/articles/khawaja20.htm

Note: Though the article stands on its own, but it might be enhanced by reading it together with the image of Michael Moore sitting with Jimmy Carter (in the box of honor?)at the DNC firmly fixed in one's inner eye.