What is a blogger to do when a hypothetical example turns out to be a real-life truth?

And what is a right-of-center blogger to do when he finds himself feeling sorry for (and downright supportive of) the hated Michael Moore?

As I will explain, both of these things have just happened to me.

In order to illustrate points, I often form analogies based on logical but hypothetical examples, as I did in this post yesterday:

If the government can censor a Citizens United film, then why not a Larry Flynt film? An Oliver Stone film? A Michael Moore film? (These guys are all incorporated, along with other big names in the film business.) Suppose they had made a film that a court decided was "susceptible of no other interpretation than to inform the electorate that President Bush is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Bush world, and that viewers should vote against him."

I think that might very well include a Hollywood film or two.

So what's the deal? Are liberals so caught up with the conservative aspect of this film (and the fact that the corporation had conservative views) that they don't realize the First Amendment cuts both ways?

And as this transcript of Amy Goodman's radio interview with him demonstrates, Michael Moore (now catching flak from the left) is more than a little freaked out. He says he is "in a state of total despair" and is disgusted that he "got dragged into it." The man is reduced to hemming, hawing, and stammering, and it's obvious that there is nothing he would rather avoid than being on the winning (right-wing) side.

Get a load of this. (As the saying that so often accompanies those endless emails goes, this stuff is too "precious for words.")

MICHAEL MOORE: Man, that's so depressing. It's like the way you--I mean, you just--this last week has been a rough week for democracy. I mean, I would be lying if I said that I wasn't in a total state of despair at this moment. And I'm not usually one that goes there. I mean, I'm usually like, "Let's go!" I have--that Supreme Court ruling--and the disgusting part of it is how I got dragged into it, that there's the whole argument before the Supreme Court and the justices and the attorneys for the other side discussing Fahrenheit 9/11. I don't know if you followed this.

AMY GOODMAN: Wait, explain the whole thing.

MICHAEL MOORE: Well, the Supreme Court case that was decided was based on the fact that the Federal Elections Commission declared this anti-Hillary ad an ad. And the other side was--they were calling it a documentary.

And on top of that, those meanies actually had the gall to compare an anti-Hillary movie to the profoundly anti-Bush Fahrenheit 9/11 (which was of course produced and distributed by a... corporation!!!!):

MICHAEL MOORE: And the FEC said, no, this is an ad, and you have to follow the election laws. In terms of where the money comes from, you have to report this. They said, no, it's just like Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. That was produced and distributed by a corporation, the Weinstein Company, etc., etc. And so the justices--they all had this discussion about how--why did Michael Moore get to distribute his film and not have to deal with the FEC, and they did? And that was the case that was decided. The justices decided, yeah, that's not right. And so, we're just going to let--now open up the floodgates and let all this money pour in. So I--

AMY GOODMAN: So you're the cause of this?

At this point a showing of remorse is clearly required. So our fat-cat corporatist filmmaker has to admit that he feels so bad that his "Catholic guilt" is even implicated! And he has to explain why his bias (unlike conservative bias) is actually not bias, but "journalism." (If I may compound the irony, let me agree that it is the latter....)

MICHAEL MOORE: Well, I've got to tell you, my own Catholic guilt and my own--I have thought about this for the last few days. Not that I'm the cause of it, but, you know--see, the thing is, and this is where--this is how they got away with it, is basically, you really never want the government, any arm of the government, whether it's the FEC or the Supreme Court, deciding who can say what, period.

You know, I think what I do is a form of journalism. You know, it's essentially a filmed version of the op-ed page, my op-ed page, and it's full of lots of facts and information, and it also is full of my opinion. And, you know, the right would say, "No, that's not true. You were just out there trying to get Bush out of the White House and get Kerry elected with Fahrenheit 9/11." And I could say and prove, of course, that I started working on that film long before there was a John Kerry for president. And I never spoke to anybody in the Kerry campaign, and I'm sure they didn't want to speak to me. So, that had nothing to do with that, whereas the Hillary thing was specifically set up to be out there during the campaign in '08 to stop Hillary Clinton. But you can see how it could get confusing and how they can create the ball of confusion in all of this.

Finally, Moore is forced to admit that his money came from one of those evil corporations to which all good people think should the First Amendment shouldn't apply. Very, very confusing indeed. Which forces Moore into a very startling admission -- he hates to admit it but he admires the evil of the right!

And, of course, where did my money come from? Well, my money came from a Hollywood studio. Hollywood studio is a corporation, not only just a corporation, but in this case, Fahrenheit 9/11 was made by Miramax, which is part of the Walt Disney Company. So you can see where they go with this.

And I think that I just--it just--I hate it when the other side, they're so--I mean, I hate it because I also, in some weird way, also admire them. They're so good at what they do, the evil that they perpetrate, their ability to rally people, and of course the amount of funding that they receive. Just to make this clear, the Walt Disney Company, once they saw Fahrenheit 9/11, Mr. Michael Eisner said, "We no way are ever releasing this movie." And as everyone knows the story, you know, we made this public, and he had to admit that they were trying to censor the film, and then I was able to get the film out because of a public outcry about it. So, we will never have the resources.And I think that I just--it just--I hate it when the other side, they're so--I mean, I hate it because I also, in some weird way, also admire them. They're so good at what they do, the evil that they perpetrate, their ability to rally people, and of course the amount of funding that they receive....

My evil side especially loves it when good people like Michael Moore find themselves trapped into supporting evil.

BWAAHAAHAA!

MORE: From Veeshir, a link to a piece with the charmingly alliterative title of "Michael Moore mooches Michiganders' money" -- which details Moore's latest fat cat behavior.

In his 2009 film "Capitalism: A Love Story," Michigan native Michael Moore went to Wall Street with a request to corporate officials whose companies received bailout money from the federal government.

"We're here to get the money back for the American people," Moore said in the film. "I've got more bags -- $10 billion probably won't fit in here."

Moore was criticizing an economic system he calls "legalized greed," but the Mackinac Center has discovered that Moore's movie qualified for a windfall -- at the expense of Michigan taxpayers.

That windfall would come from Michigan's refundable tax credit program for the film industry, a program that allows movie producers to apply for a tax refund of up to 42 percent of their spending in Michigan. This lavish provision means a studio can easily receive more from Michigan taxpayers than it pays in Michigan taxes.

What has capitalism ever done for Michael Moore? Less and less with every film.

Moore refused Mackinac's request for an interview.

He might be asked whether he means it when he says "Stop the bailouts for the rich."