Thank you for your recent response to my article, entitled ?More Lott, Less Moore.? I take it from your characterization of me as a ?dumb-ass,? a ?gun-toting bigot,? and a ?hair-triggered lunatic,? that you didn?t enjoy the column very much. Thankfully, since your letter was over 1000 words long (and since you sent it twice), I was able to zero in (pun intended) on your specific points of contention.
In your letter, you cite my ?mischaracterization? of the thesis of Bowling for Columbine as the main flaw in my editorial. I think that was why you called me a ?dumb-ass? and accused me of never having seen the movie. For the record, I saw it twice, but I admit that I watched the movie with Samuel Adams (Cream Stout the first time, Summer Ale the second). My choice of company may have slightly altered my perceptions of some of the movie?s content, especially towards the end of the film. Sorry about that, Timmy.
Nonetheless, it should be clear to anyone with an IQ over room temperature that Michael Moore spent the first half of his film trying to link two images in the minds of his viewers. The first image was an America obsessed with guns. The second image was an America overwhelmed by crime. In fact, the description on the cover box at Blockbuster says the movie ?takes aim (the pun is Blockbuster?s, not mine) at America?s love affair with guns and violence.? So, if you didn?t catch the link between guns and violence in the film (not necessarily, but perhaps because you?re a dumb-ass), it?s right there on the cover in black and white.
In your previous love letter, you made a big deal out of the few moments in the second half of the film where Moore offers a few sentences admitting that the ?more guns, more crime? thesis may be overly simplistic. Those comments revolved around the prevalence of guns in Canada. I am pleased that you noticed that Moore did contradict the thesis he worked so hard to establish in the first half of the movie. But that brief contradiction should be used as a criticism of Moore, not as a criticism of me. Clearly, I am correct in asserting that Moore?s point in making the film is to tie guns and violence together in an attempt to advance the gun control agenda.
Furthermore, I hope you noticed what happened right after that brief contradiction. Moore immediately (starting with one of his interviews) re-adopted the thesis he pursued in the first half of the movie. And, of course, he pounded that theme in repeatedly for the rest of the movie. All of this was capped off by his harassment of Charlton Heston (in his own home, mind you) as he was suffering the early stages of Alzheimer?s disease. That was among the most disgraceful episodes I have ever witnessed on film. His harassment of the septuagenarian speaks volumes about his character.
I want to concede the point you made in your letter (three times in each of the two letters) about the absence of any direct assertion by Moore that guns are the main cause of crime in America. Timmy, you know as well as I do that Moore is a propagandist who uses the words of others and manipulates visual images to present an idea. He rarely uses his own words to make an important point.
Before I conclude this rather critical email, I want to let you know how much your letter has changed my life. Of course, the letter frightened me at first. Unarmed liberal adults who call themselves ?Timmy? scare the hell out of me. But once the sheer terror wore off, I decided it was time to act on my concerns.
First, I went down to Dick?s Sporting Goods and bought a Remington 870 shotgun to make myself feel a little more secure. Of course, I already had a Remington 870, but that?s the beauty of it. Every time you and your friends bombard me with hate mail, I plan to buy another gun I don?t really need. In other words, I intend to make your childish techniques of in-Timmy-dation (sorry) backfire (pun intended).
But this time I did a Lott Moore (double barreled [pun intended] pun intended) than buy a firearm just for kicks (pun unintended). I also took a part-time job with the National Rifle Association. Starting next week I will be doing a weekly commentary for www.NRANews.com. The filmed commentaries will only run once a week for a few minutes but the extra money should be enough to send me to Dick?s Sporting Goods every time you guys decide to fill my in-box with liberal love letters.
Just in case you?re in the mood, I can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. Drop me a line, Timmy. I?ve got my sites set (pun intended) on another Remington.
Mike Adams is the author of ?Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel.? Signed copies of his book can be purchased at Trover Shop on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, or on his website (www.DrAdams.org).