Actually, the Charlton Heston scene seems to be the only thing that the Establishment media seems to be able to get a leg up on Moore with, and of course, they say it was "over the top" because it made them feel uncomfortable. They are even suggesting that Heston is an unfair target because of his supposed early stage Alzheimers (which was announced conveniently just prior to the release of this film--not that I'm cynical or anything).

I don't find that to be a fair criticism of the Heston segment at all, because Heston hasn't stepped down from his position as NRA spokesperson, and is still making appearances for them. That makes the man fair game, regardless of his age, and ESPECIALLY if his mental capacity is questionable.

I haven't seen the film yet, but I'm going tomorrow. If I'm guessing this at all right, I'm guessing Moore put the Heston interview at the end just to make us squirm. He knows he will get flack for it from the Establishment media, but he also knows that a whole lot of people will see it, and say "why the hell would the NRA want a spokesperson who is a flake"? In other words, it sows seeds of discontent and doubt about the NRA's tactics and media campaign, calling into question it's accuracy and factualness.

The great thing about this film is there are TONS of young people going to see it. Young people who were in high school at the time of the shootings at Columbine, and young people who are still in high school.

BTW, I don't think "frauds" is an accurate word to describe people who are willing to use the arts and mass media in their efforts to fight corrupt politicans and business interests. No public figure is who they seem to be to the public. That isn't automatic cause to assume fraudence, IMO. People who expose the facts, and present them in a powerful way, ie through an arts medium or mass medium like film, aren't immediately suspect just because they make people uncomfortable.

It would be a lot more productive in this conversation, if that is the point you want to argue, to argue it by explaining why you believe Pete Seeger, Michael Moore, Studs Terkel, and Utah Phillips are frauds, and what makes them that way. I can actually agree with you about Seeger and Phillips, less so with Terkel, and I disagree completely about Moore. I don't think Moore has ever presented himself as anything but what he is, nor do I see any image making of himself as a commodity that has any widespread public appeal. He has been pretty much anathema to public popularity in a way that Seeger and Phillips aren't, because they use nostaligic music (ie folk music) as their medium.

Now, I think one could make the argument that Charlton Heston is a fraud, because it is his machismo movie star image that is being used to promote the proliferation of assault weapons in the US, which makes him such an effective spokesman for the NRA.

This is a complex subect that just gets cheapened and dumbed down when people start hurling epithets and engaging in personal attacks against Moore, rather than addressing the disturbing subject matter of the film.

What is amazing to me is that considering the social implications of this crime, ie of white, comfortably middle class males executing their teachers and fellow class mates in the manner in which they did it, is that so little information about it has made it's way into the public arena for examination and debate. In every appearance I have seen by Moore to promote this film, he has said in everyone of them that he wasn't promoting any kind of an agenda, and he has no answers to the questions the film raises.

I'm sure I'll have more to say after I see it. I'll be seeing it with three teenagers, BTW--one high school senior, and two college students.