Obviously, that sort of thing cannot be allowed.

The persecution of Fischer had more to do with his incendiary radio interview on Philipine radio in which he shared his views that the US "got what it deserved" on 9-11 and that "what goes around comes around". Over 10 years had passed between the events of 1992 and the recent apprehension, at US request, of Fischer in Japan ... before Iceland intervened and gave the former World Champion an Icelandic passport.

Let's hope that Moore gives them another walloping ... or is exiled to Canada.

[ 10 May 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
The U.S. has prosecuted/persecuted individuals on spurious grounds in the past. For example the former world chess champion, Bobby Fischer, was declared persona non grata, despite being an American citizen, after trading illegally with Serbia - under a US boycott at the time. Fischer played a chess match with another former champion, Boris Spassky, in 1992 and this match was classified by the US as "trade". The Byzantine complexities of neocon interpretations of law require a Doctorate in Theology to disentangle.

---

Anyhow, does anyone know what the maximum fine, or even likely fine would be? Can there be a prison term? I could see this as a starting point for Moore's next documentary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
If prosecuting Fischer was so important and such a matter of principle for the U.S., then why did they wait over a decade before exerting any influence over Fischer's use of a U.S. passport? [Mind you, it's worth mentioning that Fischer's anti-Semitic remarks over the years have been repulsive. But that's not the official, or unofficial, reason why he was prosecuted. So it is not relevant.]

---

Picture social democrat Kucinich launching Bush impeachment papers, while filmmaker Moore simultaneously launches attacks on Neo-Con love of guns, greed, conspiratorial negligence, religiosity fused into gov't, and factory made toxic pharmaceutical poisons.

And without that, the US morphs into a rather ruthless and deceptive version of a Neo-Fascist
abomination.

Permanently, and unconditionally.

It sounds alarmist, but I had to get yer attention, folks.

See MM was going to expose Pharmaslut madness, and this latest development *may* (I repeat, may) just be conspiratorial and malicious retributive partisan targetting by the Republicult.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=michael+moore+pharmaceutical+industry&meta=

quote:

---

Anyhow, does anyone know what the maximum fine, or even likely fine would be? Can there be a prison term? I could see this as a starting point for Moore's next documentary.

---

The New York Yankees were fined $75,000 for having the nerve to play a Cuban team. Here's a list of some of the many companies that have been fined (even a 50% Israeli state owned one):

US fines sanctions-busting firms

It think this will turn out to be another total embarrassment for the US dictatorship when:

a) audiences see a poor quasi-third world state has better health care services than the biggest superpower (with the biggest mouth)

b) audiences, especially those in other industrialized countries--most of which have, to varying degrees, some form of universal public health care--see the US dictatorship's forcing of its people to suffer without it

Michael Moore Gets Ready to Rumble

quote:

---

The movie, screened for TIME, is double-barreled Moore, a mix of familiar numbers (47 million uninsured Americans, the ever rising cost of care) and chilling moments (the 18-month-old baby who dies of a seizure when she’s denied emergency-room access, the husband and father with kidney cancer whose insurer won’t pay for a bone-marrow transplant). Together, they will have many moviegoers angry enough to gouge holes in their armrests.

TIME: Your movie paints an almost utopian picture of the Canadian system. You do show some American critics arguing that there can be long waits for treatments north of the border, and you refute them simply by interviewing a handful of happy, satisfied Canadians. Pretty unscientific, no?

Michael Moore: Canadians as a whole are pretty happy with their system. Yes, it’s a flawed system, and the main flaw is that it’s underfunded. The [in-depth] answers exist in articles and essays, and I’ll have them up on my website.

TIME: You also speak rhapsodically about the French and Cuban systems and travel to Cuba, where you interview Che Guevara’s daughter. France, Cuba, Che. Are you going out of your way to annoy the right?

Michael Moore: I give people more credit than the media and the political machine running this country do. The story line is: France, bad; France, cowards. What crime did France commit? We wouldn’t have had this country without their support in the Revolution. They gave us that statue that sits out in New York Harbor. They responded immediately after 9/11. And they remain eternally grateful for what we did during World War II.

As for Cuba, yes, when I’ve got a film crew there, they’re going to show us their best. But there’s a reason the World Health Organization ranks their health-care system [among] the best in the Third World and that people from Latin America come there for their health care. There’s also a reason Cubans live on average a month longer than we do. I’m not trumpeting Castro or his regime. I just want to say to fellow Americans, “C’mon, we’re the United States! If they can do this, we can do it.”

---

quote:

---

You also speak rhapsodically about the French and Cuban systems and travel to Cuba, where you interview Che Guevara’s daughter. France, Cuba, Che. Are you going out of your way to annoy the right?

---

The truth is he could have come to Canada, too, and found free treatment available to anyone resident here.

Personal story: My brother, Chuck and I both broke our right wrists within a week of one another. But he did so in Minnesota, while I did it right here in Ontario.

quote:

---

Rick has sawed off the tops of two of his fingers. He is American and he doesn't have health insurance, one of almost 47 million people in that category. Reattaching the middle finger would cost $60,000, and the ring finger $12,000. In a grim arbitrage, Rick picks the cheaper option.

Across the border in Canada, a man with severed fingers has them all sewn back in a round-the-clock operation involving multiple surgeons. The operation costs him nothing.

That stark juxtaposition is one of many in U.S. filmmaker Michael Moore's documentary

---

Michael Moore's `Sicko' Slams U.S. Health System; Cannes Claps

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:
Unless you're trying to say that anyone punished for dealing with South Africa was also unjustly treated by the neo-con bogeyman?

---

Washington and fascist allies had warm relations with the South African apartheid regime which terrorized neighboring countries. Canada's Gerald Bull was a CIA pawn who supplied the apartheid regime with cannon barrels and ammunition, just like the CIA gave him the a-okay to supply Saddam with for the same war that certain shadow guvmint was arming the Ayatollah in Iran.

Canadians don't care for Sicko

quote:

---

Michael Moore is handing out fake bandages to promote his new film Sicko, an exposé of the failings of the U.S. health care system.

But he may feel like applying a couple to himself after the mauling he received yesterday from several Canadian journalists – present company included – following the film's first viewing at the Cannes Film Festival.

We Canucks were taking issue with the large liberties Sicko takes with the facts, with its lavish praise for Canada's government-funded medicare system compared with America's for-profit alternative.

While justifiably demonstrating the evils of an American system where dollars are the major determinant of the quality of medicare care a person receives, and where restoring a severed finger could cost an American $60,000 compared to nothing at all for a Canadian, Sicko makes it seem as if Canada's socialized medicine is flawless and that Canadians are satisfied with the status quo.

Moore makes the eyebrow-raising assertion that Canadians live on average three years longer than Americans because of their superior health care system.

Other Canadian journalists spoke of the long wait times Canadians face for health care, much longer than the few minutes Moore suggests in Sicko. Moore, who has come under considerable fire for factual inaccuracies in his films, parried back with more questionable claims.

"You're in a longer line than we're in because you get to live three years longer than we do. Why is that?" Moore said. "Why is it that a baby born in Toronto has a better chance of making it to its first birthday than a baby born in Detroit?"

Moore later back-pedalled on some of his praise, saying neither Harper nor regular Canadians should pat themselves on the back too much.

---

When movie critics are railing against "socialised medicine", dismissing life expectancy and infant mortality statistics you know it's hitting a nerve.

Would a more by-the-numbers method work? I doubt it. Some people chafe at his combination of gallows humour and serious themes, but without the entertainment value, would anyone really race to see the film?

He is right to wonder what happened to Canadians who used to be so funny rather than dark and cynical. That goes for the makers of manufacturing dissent who claim to be progressives, but stoop to joining in the right wing chorus attacking Moore as a filmmaker and human being to undermine his larger political message.

quote:

---

Moore's next film should highlight this new negativism and decontructionism that has become de rigueur in bougie leftish circles in Canada.

---

Moore's film will be attacked by the right, for sure. And it should be defended because it tells a substantial truth about Canadian medicine; that it is far better than what the U.S. provides to its citizens. Or doesn't provide.

But the Canadian journalists questioning Moore shouldn't be called "haters" or "bougie (sic)leftists".

That's because Moore's film is uncritical about Canadian practices. And while they are better than down south, I don't like it when Moore's "analysis" could be used by Steven Harper to show how great things are here.

quote:

---

What the media types don't like is that he is saying positive things about our medicare system.

---

Or maybe they think he is saying too-positive things about our medical system?

It ought to be possible to say that wait times are too long in Canada, BUT it's still FAR better than the US system.

Moore's documentary brilliant and uplifting - Fox News?!?!?!?

My head is spinning.

[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joel_Goldenberg:
Is it just me, or does Moore look dog tired in his most recent pictures, including one that ran in the Globe and Mail yesterday?

---

Also, he's just plain getting older. No way around that.

Anyway, I am sick to death of the constant nay-saying against Moore (I will give the man a kiss on the lips if I ever meet him, I love him so much). Yes, he tends to craft his footage to fit his agenda, just like every other damn film, documentary, news segment, etc in existence. But because he uses these common-as-dirt devices to afflict the powerful and fight injustice, then suddenly they become horribly unacceptable. What a load of malarkey.

Yes, it's good that there are people like Noam Chomsky, who are meticulous in their even-handedness, and totally scrupulous in the academic pursuit of truth. I'm glad they exist, but they don't have to be the end-all of discourse, so that anyone who isn't up to their standards is a carnival huckster. The fact is that people don't read that kind of stuff because people don't think that way. They don't think in facts, they think in stories, and if you want to reach them with something you have to tell them a story. That's the way it's been since we told tales around open fires, and that's still the way it is today.

Stories are inherently biased, because a story without bias ceases to be a story. It becomes a teletype. A shopping list. A dry, meaningless string of unrelated propositions that don't add up to anything.

Even the thought of unbiased journalism is silly to me, but Moore doesn't even claim to be a journalist. He's an opinionated loudmouth, and y'know what? There isn't a person on this board that couldn't be called the same. Do you think you're not biased? That if you made a film, it would be somehow more objective than what he does? Don't make me laugh.

Michael Moore isn't trying to be the Ministry of Truth (thank god). Michael Moore is just trying to show you what Michael Moore thinks. Obviously he thinks he's right about what he thinks, and he wants to show you why. That's not going to include every angle of every topic (how long would his movies have to be then?). It's going to include the angles of the topics that show you why he thinks he's right. If you want the "whole story", you're going to need a lot more than two hours to get it. In fact, there's no guarantee you'll ever get it at all, even with a lifetime of study. Seems like a tall order for a standard-length feature. It seems to me that all the people who crab at Moore because he's not telling the "whole story" are always just talking about those small elements of the story that match their own personal biases. In other words, they accuse Moore of being biased because he doesn't share their biases.

quote:

---

In your May 2, 2007 National Review article, “Paradise Island,” you specifically raised concerns about whether my trip to Cuba with 9/11 heroes, who have suffered serious health problems as a result of their exposure to toxic substances at Ground Zero that have gone untreated, was somehow going to support Castro and the Cuban government:

“It always leaves me shaking my head when I read about some big-time actor or director going to Cuba and gushing all over Castro.”

Putting aside the fact that you, like the Bush Administration, seem far more concerned about the trip to Cuba than the health care of these 9/11 heroes, I was struck by the fact that your concerns (including comments about Castro's reported financial worth) apparently do not extend to your own conduct, as reported in The Weekly Standard's April 23, 2007 story, “From the Courthouse to the White House Fred Thompson auditions for the leading role” (emphasis added):

“Thompson's work space looks just like what the home office of a successful politician or CEO should look like--though a little messier: a large desk, dark wood, leather furniture, lots of books and magazines and newspapers, a flat-screen TV, and box upon box of cigars--Montecristos from Havana.”

In light of your comments regarding Cuba and Castro, do you think the “box upon box of cigars – Montecristos from Havana” that you have in your office have contributed to Castro's reported wealth?

While I will leave it up to the conservatives to debate your hypocrisy and the Treasury Department to determine whether the “box upon box of cigars” violates the trade embargo, I hereby challenge you to a health care debate.

---

quote:

---

B P: ... don't think he is not making big money from his cause.

---

Good thing. Provided Michael Moore remains healthy, he should be able to afford to make many more movies and cause all sorts of right-wing heads to explode.

[ 30 May 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

B P: I dunno. Right wing exploiters don't hide their intent.

---

Then why do the Conservatives in Parliament have a secret manual on how to derail democracy and discredit the minority situation? And even the neocon class warriers pepper their propaganda with phrases like "bringing freedom to Iraq", "choice" in health care, and other misleading jargon.

If B P is going to derail the thread then I'm happy to indulge in a little sidebar myself.

quote:

---

Jeff House:I think "bougie leftists" is actually a hateful term, used to demonize others.

---

ceti might have got it wrong in this instance but the term "bourgeois socialist" has a long history.

quote:

---

A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances, in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.

To this section belongs economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organizers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-an-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.

We may cite Proudhon's Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form.

The Socialistic bourgeois wants all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessary resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat.

---

Who can forget Brian Mulroney's public comment that Canada does not have enough rich people? Isn't the corollary of that statement that there are too many poor people? Mulroney wanted bourgeois without proletarians. No wonder his comment aroused such anger and outrage.

The quote above comes from The Communist Manifesto. Marx's piece really is too good to edit.

quote:

---

Marx: ... They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceive the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby march straightaway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

---

Marx points out another, related, trend among bourgeois Socialists that seeks to make administrative reforms which "in no respect affect the the relation between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government."

As is usual with Marx, he makes his points and then sums up with some juicy and highly amusing expressions that seem to encapsulate his argument.

quote:

---

Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression, when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.

Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois Socialism.

It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois -- for the benefit of the working class.

---

"Bourgeois" is one of the most succinct terms used to describe capitalist "civilization" and clearly there are still bourgeois socialists in today's world even if they are called something completely different.

Sorry Jeff. Apparently such terms are still useful after all - even if ceti MAY have got it wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bobby Peru:
I dunno. Right wing exploiters don't hide their intent.

---

That is nonsense, of course they do, and are. Only they are evil in their intent, even if they do not realize it as so.

quote:

---

Moore wears his baseball cap and claims to be an average guy standing up for average people, but he is far from that.

---

Please do give us a quote of Michael Moore's where he claims himself to be joe average guy. And whether you like it or not he is standing up for average people.

quote:

---

He can afford to pay for the best private medical care and he is simply exploiting the message for his own good.

---

So what if he can pay for the best private medical care? So what if it is for his own good? That takes nothing away from the good in his messages that have made other people aware.

Oprah has made billions off of using the messages she uses, would you say she is doing it for her own good too?

quote:

---

Do you think he makes and finances his movies for public good?

---

quote:

---

He is no better than the right wing exploiter except he is claiming to be part of the commonality.

---

Again that is absolute nonsense, the right wing exploiter strives to mis-inform, as opposed to inform. Plus steal people's money, lives, and destroy our environment. The right wing exploiter also causes wars and chaos to make a profit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Yeah, don't you know the rules, people? Only right-wing exploiters are allowed to make money. Left-wing activists need to live in poverty and never, ever become successful at anything or earn any money.

[ 30 May 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

Left wing activists need to appear to live in poverty and hide any commercial success or wealth in order to maintain their "street cred" with the masses.

Michael Moore lives in a multi-million dollar apartment on New York's Fifth Avenue,sends his children to exclusive private schools and invests his money in capitalist ventures with the best returns like Halliburton and Exxon.

The average guy shlub personna he cultivates with his bomber jacket and ball cap is part of his act when he is "in character"

As for private schools - okay, that sucks. If you believe in public funding for public services, then I think you should use them. I would never send my kid to a private school.

quote:

---

Moore: Friends,

Well, as you may have read by now, our premiere of "Sicko" at the Cannes Film Festival has been an overwhelming success. The 2,000 people inside the Lumière Theater were alternately in tears and laughing during the two-hour film -- and when it was over, they gave it a standing ovation that seemed to go on for nearly 15 minutes! Many came up to me and said (and critics seem to agree) that this is my best film yet. I don't know about that, and it seems weird to compare any of these movies in the first place. But I do feel safe in saying that I am very, very happy with this film and I can't wait to show it to you when it opens on June 29th.

---

Wait. There's more Moore.

quote:

---

Moore: There are so many bad, awful films now and less and less people are going to the movies. Many who run Hollywood believe that the American people are too stupid to enjoy a film that respects their intelligence.

At the press screening for "Sicko," the Wall Street Journal reported that hardened reporters and critics wept. Even those who have been harsh to me in the past, or who have not agreed with my politics, were moved. Aside from my stated desire that "Sicko" ignite a fire for free, universal health care(and a larger wish that we, as Americans, do a better job of treating each other with a true sense of solidarity and respect), I continue to hope that I can make a contribution to the art of cinema and give people a good reason to get out of the house for a few hours.

---

I love that Moore expresses a concern, beyond his own success as a film maker, for film itself as an art form. This is head and shoulders above much of the drivel out there and is expressed in a modest and humble sort of way. Did I say Hooray for Mikey? Hooray for Mikey!!

quote:

---

Moore: At my festival press conference, the only negative word came from the Canadians. Two critics didn't like all the nice things I said about their health care system. Yes, Canadian health care has its flaws, but when I asked the two critics if they would exchange their health care cards for mine, they said "No!" Of course they wouldn't. Canadians live longer than we do and their infant mortality is not as high as ours. Their system is underfunded because their leaders have been trying to push for more American-style health care.

---

Wait! Still more Moore.

quote:

---

Moore: The New York Post reported Sunday that the Bush administration, in addition to going after me for filming scenes in or near Cuba, may now go after the 9/11 rescue workers I took with me to get the medical care they were denied by our own government. I couldn't make up irony like this if I wanted to, and I will do whatever is necessary to defend the human right of these true American heroes to receive the medical attention they deserve.

---

What a bastard ... how dare he try to help such people.

Oh yea. Hooray for Mikey! We need more just like him. And I'm pleased to see that he's successfully navigated some recent Canadian land mines. [grinning ridiculously ... ]

[ 30 May 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Left wing activists need to appear to live in poverty and hide any commercial success or wealth in order to maintain their "street cred" with the masses.

---

That is just as much nonsense as Bobby's post.
Activists on the left come from all walks of life and economic circumstance, if they are hiding something then perhaps they are not reallly left wing activists, eh?

quote:

---

He's a hypocrite who preys on the sentiments of his audiences to expand his personal wealth. Just a garden variety exploiter with a novel method of separating the suckers from their money.

---

It also cheapens the value of hatred which should be reserved for truly heinous acts such as Paris Hilton's attempts at religion since her sentencing.

It doesn't matter whether an exploiter utilises politics. Whether one mines the natural resources of third world countries or the gullibility of uncritical supporters for material reward,an exploiter is an exploiter.

Moore is a good entertainer along the lines of the Canadian sell-out, Rick Mercer. They are a brand,not a movement.

I find it hilarious that the same proponents of critical thinking regarding the right-wing excesses of the neo-con imperialist war-mongering mass media also swallow Mr. Moore's exploits as gospel.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
How do you know where he invests his money?

As for private schools - okay, that sucks. If you believe in public funding for public services, then I think you should use them. I would never send my kid to a private school.

As for his apartment - I couldn't care less. I'd live in a nice apartment too, if I could afford it. Could be worse. He could be doing the suburban sprawl thing.

---

How do I know? Read it somewhere in a financial rag. The article stated that both MM and Noam Chomsky invested in Halliburton.

It is probably true because wealthy people such as these two are probably invested in many funds etc that buy and sell any financial instrument for gain.

Whether or not they knew of it is debatable because most folks of their class have "people" who look after the details.

As for his apartment, what I find incongruous is that MM's public personna as an ordinary working person,subject to the stresses of working class life are totally at odds with the reality of living in a privileged class existence where one must provide financial statements and references before being granted committee approval to live there.

If you get down to the nitty gritty ALL people are exploiters. It is only the degree of it that differentiates one from another.

I see no justifable proof in your words that would suggest Mr Moore is exploitive more than his due.

That he at least provides truth to his audiences, or some degree of it, makes his exploitative foot print much less than those of let's say, the Pope, Benny Hinn, Pat Roberston and their ilk.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Moore is a good entertainer along the lines of the Canadian sell-out, Rick Mercer. They are a brand,not a movement.

---

Mercer is not a sell out, as he was bought and paid for by the CBC long,long ago. Remember his Jewish skit on "This hour has 22 Minutes"? Pretty disgusting stuff.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Wow, jester, I never knew you were a right wingnut!

---

I prefer equal -opportunity wingnut.

quote:

---

I see no justifable proof in your words that would suggest Mr Moore is exploitive more than his due.

---

I'll try again. My criticism of MM is that he is a traitor to the class he professes to represent. His immediate response to his success in representing the working class was to abandon them and join in the excesses of the privileged class.

To MM,the acme of his success is not the adulation of the working class but the acceptance of him by the privileged class.

quote:

---

That you are attacking the messanger, and not the message, should make it clear that there is valuable substance to the message which cannot be discounted.

---

Now your making sense. I agree. I don't have an issue with MM's message or his methods. He is raising awareness of citical issues.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Well, but the thing is, I probably invest in those companies too, even though I try to use ethical funds. The fact is, unless you stuff your money under the mattress, there aren't any financial vehicles for your money that are ethically pure.

---

Maybe not ethically pure but much purer than average. Most people are not prepared to invest the time required or the diligence necessary to make their own investment decisions.

Not to put too fine a point on it,anyone who can find the time to post on message boards can find the time to be an active investor.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
I agree. I don't have an issue with MM's message or his methods. He is raising awareness of citical issues.

My issue is that he is a class traitor, abandoning his working class roots to toady up the snoots for entry into the world he publicly criticises. Hes a hypocrite because he joins the elites on the backs of those who made his success possible.

---

How exactly has he abandoned his working class roots? He continues to make documentaries exposing critical issues, and he required entry into that world to be able to expose critical issues.

But the fact is, while he's gotten quite rich (as all successful movie producers and stars do), he's devoting all his time to causes like forcing the rich (that's him!) to pay high taxes to support universal programs for everyone else (that used to be him!).

What SHOULD he do with all the money he earns? I think he's doing a good thing with it. He's basically creating a media empire to do battle with corporate elite media empires. He's using his money and his fame to push extremely worthy political goals.

And yes, he uses some of that money for a luxury apartment and to live well. But you know, it's not in his interests to push for very high taxes for his income level, and he does it. It's not in his interest for the rich to fund universal health care, but he is pushing for that too.

We live in a capitalist system. We can't operate outside it, unfortunately. As soon as you become extremely successful at something, you'll get rich in this system. I'm sure there are lots of right-wingers who would love for Michael Moore to say, "Oh no! I never thought I'd become rich at this! I'd better quit now in case I get MORE rich!" and just leave the field to the corporate right-wing media.

quote:

---

How do I know? Read it somewhere in a financial rag. The article stated that both MM and Noam Chomsky invested in Halliburton.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by abnormal:

Actually his tax return somehow ended up in the public domain and was printed on the cover of a book about him. I have no idea how it was obtained but it was in the public domain.

At the time MM was declaring he didn't own any stocks his personal return showed that he was invested in Halliburton of all things. In the big scheme of things, not a big deal but for someone that was taking his public positions it was "humourous" shall we say.

---

Knowing how Moore works, I could see him buying some stock just so he could go to a shareholder's meeting and stir up some shit. He did join the NRA for similar reasons, after all.

As regards his lifestyle, and the supposed hypocrisy thereof, does anyone remember this cartoon?

[ 30 May 2007: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

If I advocate for AIDS sufferers, should I go out and get infected? I guess so, or it would be hypocritical.

If I advocate for better living conditions in the slums of Calacutta, I guess I'd better go move there 'cause I'd have no credibility otherwise.

What a world you live in, jester, where only the disenfranchised can speak for the disenfranchised, practically ensuring they will never be heard. A more self-defeating philosophy there's never been. The term "class traitor" is absurd in itself, though it may be slightly accurate in terms of Moore, since he is very wealthy, and works tirelessly to reduce the power and privilege associated with wealth in US society.

Come to think of it, are you poor enough to even be making these criticisms? It sounds like you're standing up for the poor or something. You'd better have the empty bank account to go with that opinion, buddy, or I'll disregard every word. I find I progress so much more in my understanding of the world when I focus on the speaker instead of what's being said.

For example, it is all too common to find politicians advocating sound environmental policies, being hounded about their personal life style. Do they need to live in a mud hut with zero environmental impact to be qualified to speak about the environment?