Letter from michael Moore, April 7 (1 Viewer)

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
April 7, 2003

Dear friends,

It appears that the Bush administration will have succeeded in colonizing Iraq sometime in the next few days. This is a blunder of such magnitude -- and we will pay for it for years to come. It was not worth the life of one single American kid in uniform, let alone the thousands of Iraqis who have died, and my condolences and prayers go out to all of them.

So, where are all those weapons of mass destruction that were the pretense for this war? Ha! There is so much to say about all this, but I will save it for later.

What I am most concerned about right now is that all of you -- the majority of Americans who did not support this war in the first place -- not go silent or be intimidated by what will be touted as some great military victory. Now, more than ever, the voices of peace and truth must be heard. I have received a lot of mail from people who are feeling a profound sense of despair and believe that their voices have been drowned out by the drums and bombs of false patriotism.

Some are afraid of retaliation at work or at school or in their neighborhoods because they have been vocal proponents of peace. They have been told over and over that it is not "appropriate" to protest once the country is at war, and that your only duty now is to "support the troops."

Can I share with you what it's been like for me since I used my time on the Oscar stage two weeks ago to speak out against Bush and this war? I hope that, in reading what I'm about to tell you, you'll feel a bit more emboldened to make your voice heard in whatever way or forum that is open to you.

When "Bowling for Columbine" was announced as the Oscar winner for Best Documentary at the Academy Awards, the audience rose to its feet. It was a great moment, one that I will always cherish. They were standing and cheering for a film that says we Americans are a uniquely violent people, using our massive stash of guns to kill each other and to use them against many countries around the world. They were applauding a film that shows George W. Bush using fictitious fears to frighten the public into giving him whatever he wants. And they were honoring a film that states the following: The first Gulf War was an attempt to reinstall the dictator of Kuwait; Saddam Hussein was armed with weapons from the United States; and the American government is responsible for the deaths of a half-million children in Iraq over the past decade through its sanctions and bombing. That was the movie they were cheering, that was the movie they voted for, and so I decided that is what I should acknowledge in my speech.

And, thus, I said the following from the Oscar stage:

"On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan (from Canada), I would like to thank the Academy for this award. I have invited the other Documentary nominees on stage with me. They are here in solidarity because we like non-fiction. We like non-fiction because we live in fictitious times. We live in a time where fictitious election results give us a fictitious president.

We are now fighting a war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fictitious 'Orange Alerts,' we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And, whenever you've got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, you're time is up."

Halfway through my remarks, some in the audience started to cheer. That immediately set off a group of people in the balcony who started to boo. Then those supporting my remarks started to shout down the booers. The L. A. Times reported that the director of the show started screaming at the orchestra "Music! Music!" in order to cut me off, so the band dutifully struck up a tune and my time was up. (For more on why I said what I said, you can read the op-ed I wrote for the L.A. Times, plus other reaction from around the country at my website www.michaelmoore.com)

The next day -- and in the two weeks since -- the right-wing pundits and radio shock jocks have been calling for my head. So, has all this ruckus hurt me? Have they succeeded in "silencing" me?

Well, take a look at my Oscar "backlash":

On the day after I criticized Bush and the war at the Academy Awards, attendance at "Bowling for Columbine" in theaters around the country went up 110% (source:DailyVariety/BoxOfficeMojo.com). The following weekend, the box office gross was up a whopping 73% (Variety). It is now the longest-running consecutive commercial release in America, 26 weeks in a row and still thriving. The number of theaters showing the film since the Oscars has INCREASED, and it has now bested the previous box office record for a documentary by nearly 300%.

Yesterday (April 6), "Stupid White Men" shot back to 1 on the New York Times bestseller list. This is my book's 50th week on the list, 8 of them at number one, and this marks its fourth return to the top position, something that virtually never happens.

In the week after the Oscars, my website was getting 10-20 million hits A DAY (one day we even got more hits than the White House!). The mail has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive (and the hate mail has been hilarious!).

In the two days following the Oscars, more people pre-ordered the video for "Bowling for Columbine" on Amazon.com than the video for the Oscar winner for Best Picture, "Chicago".

In the past week, I have obtained funding for my next documentary, and I have been offered a slot back on television to do an updated version of "TV Nation"/"The Awful Truth."

I tell you all of this because I want to counteract a message that is told to us all the time -- that, if you take a chance to speak out politically, you will live to regret it. It will hurt you in some way, usually financially. You could lose your job. Others may not hire you. You will lose friends. And on and on and on.

Take the Dixie Chicks. I'm sure you've all heard by now that, because their lead singer mentioned how she was ashamed that Bush was from her home state of Texas, their record sales have "plummeted" and country stations are boycotting their music. The truth is that their sales are NOT down. This week, after all the attacks, their album is still at 1 on the Billboard country charts and, according to Entertainment Weekly, on the pop charts during all the brouhaha, they ROSE from 6 to 4. In the New York Times, Frank Rich reports that he tried to find a ticket to ANY of the Dixie Chicks' upcoming concerts but he couldn't because they were all sold out. (To read Rich's column from yesterday's Times, "Bowling for Kennebunkport," go here: http://www.michaelmoore.com/articles/index.php?article=20030406-nytimes. He does a pretty good job of laying it all out and talks about my next film and the impact it could potentially have.) Their song, "Travelin' Soldier" (a beautiful anti-war ballad) was the most requested song on the internet last week. They have not been hurt at all -- but that is not what the media would have you believe. Why is that? Because there is nothing more important now than to keep the voices of dissent -- and those who would dare to ask a question -- SILENT. And what better way than to try and take a few well-known entertainers down with a pack of lies so that the average Joe or Jane gets the message loud and clear: "Wow, if they would do that to the Dixie Chicks or Michael Moore, what would they do to little ol' me?" In other words, shut the f--- up.

And that, my friends, is the real point of this film that I just got an Oscar for -- how those in charge use FEAR to manipulate the public into doing whatever they are told.

Well, the good news -- if there can be any good news this week -- is that not only have neither I nor others been silenced, we have been joined by millions of Americans who think the same way we do. Don't let the false patriots intimidate you by setting the agenda or the terms of the debate. Don't be defeated by polls that show 70% of the public in favor of the war. Remember that these Americans being polled are the same Americans whose kids (or neighbor's kids) have been sent over to Iraq. They are scared for the troops and they are being cowed into supporting a war they did not want -- and they want even less to see their friends, family, and neighbors come home dead. Everyone supports the troops returning home alive and all of us need to reach out and let their families know that.

Unfortunately, Bush and Co. are not through yet. This invasion and conquest will encourage them to do it again elsewhere. The real purpose of this war was to say to the rest of the world, "Don't Mess with Texas - If You Got What We Want, We're Coming to Get It!" This is not the time for the majority of us who believe in a peaceful America to be quiet. Make your voices heard. Despite what they have pulled off, it is still our country.

Yours,

Michael Moore
 
I also believe that Michael Moore is a genius for highlighting what he has to date.

but, one has to wonder is he too a ruthless businessman out to further his own cause by taking this stance being aware of the controversy that it will cause hence resulting in more sales?? Just a thought

Also a few less words in his letters would be good.

Go on the Michael



.|..|
 
Amusing though that piece is (and check out the entry on Jonathan Franzen while you're at it) it's very much a New York concoction. Eavesdropping on the chatter of the NY literati, it's easy to forget that in most of the US the intellectual left hardly even exists. In short, Moore is huge; NY Press isn't.

It's a sad consequence of that fact the intellectual left in the US is confined to New York City, a few other urban pockets and selected university departments. I'm ambivalent about Moore too, but I suspect the US left needs him a lot more than it would admit.


Originally posted by rumpus
Lest we forget there are many Americans who hate the man and consider him a threat to the left.

check out the piece on him here:

http://www.nypress.com/16/13/news&columns/feature.cfm
 
I soitenly didn't mean it to look like I agreed with that hate piece...it's just interesting.

I'd be a Moore supporter not because I think he's truly enlightened or on the level.... I admire him because he works hard at getting his voice heard in a place were that isn’t easy... oh, and his voice isn't that of unfiltered evil.
 
Originally posted by DontMugYourself
but, one has to wonder is he too a ruthless businessman out to further his own cause by taking this stance being aware of the controversy that it will cause hence resulting in more sales?? Just a thought

I think his point that he was illiustating that more people are being informed and not a look-at-me-im-getting-rich type thing
 
I was recently researching stuff on documentary and propaganda and I came across a longish review/commentary of Bowling for Columbine. In it, the guy made reference to Moore's earlier series TV Nation. He pointed out that an exposé was done and it revealed all sorts of behind the scenes shennanigans by Moore, as in setting things up to make it look worse than it is etc.

It's makes you think though. Remember for example in Bowling for Colmubine though, when he's in Canada and he tries a random house and finds the door unlocked? How do we know that he didn't try 50 dors before finding one unlocked. Or how do we know that it wasn't staged?

I dont like ragging on Michael Moore because he's a great writer and a breath of fresh air, but I think we should be aware that he may be tempted to construct things so they appear worse than they are, just to further his argument. On the whole, I'm sure he's perfectly honest, but maybe, just maybe, he might tamper with results from time to time.

I'll try to get teh text of the review and see who it was that did the exposé thing but it seemed fairly legitimate.

Roxy
 
Originally posted by roxy
when he's in Canada and he tries a random house and finds the door unlocked? How do we know that he didn't try 50 dors before finding one unlocked.

Of course it wouldn't have been the first door he tried...or maybe it was. The point was that he walked up to someone's house, opened the door and he wasn't shot!!!!

You'd be fucking shot in Chicago...if you could find a door unlocked in a city of 12 million people.

I thought that was pretty impressive actually.

I believe there was more than one door he opened too.

!baggyyyy
 
House Passes Legislation to Block Gun Lawsuits
By Jesse J. Holland Associated Press Writer
Published: Apr 10, 2003

WASHINGTON (AP) - The gun industry, which has fought repeated lawsuits accusing it of allowing weapons to fall into criminal hands, would get help from Congress with its legal troubles under legislation approved by the House.
The Republican-controlled House decided on a 285-140 vote to prohibit lawsuits from being brought against gun manufacturers and distributors for damages resulting from their product.

The legislation "would help prevent abuse of the legal system and help curb the growing problem of frivolous lawsuits in the United States," the White House said in a statement. "At the same time, the legislation would carefully preserve the right of individuals to have their day in court with civil liability actions."

Since 1998, at least 33 municipalities, counties and states have sued gun makers, with many alleging manufacturers allowed weapons to reach criminals because of lax distribution policies and irresponsible marketing. The NAACP is litigating a similar suit in New York now, contending that guns "led to disproportionate numbers of injuries, deaths and other damages" among minorities.

But House Republicans called those lawsuits frivolous and said those lawyers are trying to sue the U.S. gun industry out of existence.

"Those who are filing lawsuits against the firearm industry are doing so because they want to bankrupt the industry," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Republicans, gun manufacturers and gun advocates have argued that gun companies cannot be held responsible for the crimes of gun users.

Many House Democrats, however, said the GOP legislation banning suits against gun makers and dealers probably was unconstitutional and was politically motivated.

Nevertheless, 68 Democrats voted for the measure. Three Republicans opposed it.

"This body is considering this bill today because the National Rifle Association is holding their annual convention at the end of April, and the majority leadership in this chamber is compelled to prove to the pro-gun special interests that they will do whatever it takes," said Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass.

Republicans denied they were trying to impress the NRA and accused Democrats of being against guns.

The NRA holds its annual meeting in Orlando, Fla., April 24-27. The association vehemently opposes additional gun controls or regulation of the firearms industry and contributes heavily to political candidates who share that view.

The bill has not yet been considered by the GOP-controlled Senate, but at least one senator, Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California, is already opposing it.

"This bill is simply the latest attempt of the gun lobby to evade industry accountability for its reckless conduct," she said.

The legislation would prohibit lawsuits from being brought against gun and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers for damages resulting from purported misuse of their product.

The bill would bar local governments from bringing cases against gun makers. Thirty-one states have passed legislation banning their cities and counties from filing similar lawsuits, supporters said.

Such suits by private individuals or groups also would be blocked by the federal legislation.

The pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly Handgun Control, criticized the congressional action Thursday, saying the gun industry knowingly allows guns to be purchased by criminals.

"It's unconscionable that the United States Congress is moving rapidly towards granting wide-ranging immunity to an industry that knows how to stop arming our nation's most dangerous criminals, but refuses to change," said Michael Barnes, the center's president.

---

On the Net:

Information on the bill, H.R. 1036, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov

AP-ES-04-10-03 1124EDT
 
Originally posted by kmastering
I like Moore but let's all agree guns are shite, except when they're rammed up a delicate part of a republicans anatomy!

I'm really gonna hang myself here, but I was down Dublin on friday and had time to kill so I became a tourist. Me and the Bass jumped on to the sightseeing bus to investigate this alleged "capital city". figured that if you have to sit in Dublin for a few hours its probably the cheapest place to go...
Anyways, most of the tour was historical, based around the 1916-1922ish (yes, you know where this is going) period where lots of Irish folks and English folks shot the hell out of each other. What resulted from this was:
A: an independent state (occupied by the americans and english)
B: Thumped.
My take on this - As terrible as guns are, they take the personal element out of killing (not having to asphixiate everyone with your bare hands really speeds up a war), therefore enabling political reform. I'm not on the NRA bandwagon, I'm just goiong with fact. In historical terms recorded histrory only involves something like 23 years of actual international peace, and I'm sure that during that period there was some fuckwit making shite of peoples lives that should have been shot.

Guns are Brilliant - people are shite!
 
Originally posted by captain anomie
Guns are Brilliant - people are shite!

Cpt A, you goon - we want war to be HARDER, not easier. Imagine how great the world would be if, instead of inventing guns, scientists had invented some sort of invincible material, and you could make a suit out of it and you'd be bulletproof, bomb-proof, fireproof etc etc. You could make buildings out of it too, and then there'd be no point in having wars cos everyone could just ignore them

It'd be deadly. People would just have to learn to get along
 
egg and goon race

RE:Guns are Brilliant, People are Shite.

egg -Thats very nice, especially with all the sunny weather we’ve been having- but as I said, I’m going to hang myself on this one. Dont take this one to heart or anything, I'm just going for the (assume lecturer's voice) "look beyond the trees" bandwagon. I get the bit about making war a bit harder and that you are hinting that there are better things scientists could do with their time, both those things are relevant in the current climate of war propaganda, which to the unconditioned mind involves both the ‘pro and ‘anti war stance. I generally sit on the fence as far as this war has been going, as there arent many places to sit in Donegal. When you say “we want war to be harder”, I assume you are talking from the ‘no-war' side of the debate. I’m just going to try and clarify a bit of what i was trying to get at up above there.

I know "no-war" people hate it when its said aloud, thats why I’m saying it - Conflict, Competetiveness, One-upmanship, Moral rewards and many other things that enable the political systems to operate a War are part of what makes us human. These are the same traits that make people march against war. In fear humans always adopt a gang/mob mentality. These are not elements supplied by the government. These are inbuilt parts of the human condition. If you are deprived of food and water for four days your mind will tell you that it is worthwhile to kill another human for food. At the point of desperation, the political stance is irrelevant - survival instincts take over. Its one of the most fundamental traits in nature, and has always governed evolution. If you plant a small tree, the grass beside it will grow in such a way to try and fight for its share of sunlight. This isnt rocket science, its junior cert. Somewhere near the bottom line of history, it says “all history is written by murderers” the reason for this is that they are still alive to write it all down. Do you think the founding basis of the culture you’ve grown up in (i.e. christianity) would have survived by peacefully protesting? What I'm getting at with this is that the society that surrounds us, the conveniences, the ability to make a decision and not be beaten for it does owe some of its dues to the use of violence, i.e. once in a while a bit of revolution gives evolution the kick it needs.

I’m sure folk who are reading this thread could easily now be thinking “this fucker wants to invade iraq because he’s a devout christian, bloody rednecks are at it again”. I really dont condone violence in any shape or form, I dont condone this war because anyone with one eye open knows that its motives are not about survival or any form, or desperation on behalf of the greater aggressors. Yer man said I was a goon, so I'm just following up the discussion from the same realist stance I started with, then I might call him a goon.
- saying that guns take the personal element out of killing, I’d still like to try and explain that a bit better. It’ll probably take me weeks to word the explanation for this so that you can see the rational (sic) thought behind it.

I beleive that the U.S were going in to IRAQ, regardless of anything we said, even if the UK had pulled out. I just pause to think how it would be if you sent a boat load of Americans to IRAQ and told them to take it over without guns, missiles or any thing else but their bare hands, and maybe a stick. Can you Imagine the great psychological effect it would have on the soldiers and american and iraqi folks over the course of their lives? I, for one cant. What I can say is that guns are a convenience, just like cars* they speed up the journey, its a disgusting fact but its true.

I think that if you look to IRAQ and see that without the invasion, the secrets of the torture chambers and general system of governing would have remained in place. For the sake of humanity it had to be removed. I cant say that Bush has used the right method to stop this or if they have planned to rebuild it properly. But guns really did speed up the process. what you have to realise that sometimes war is necessary, because of the abovementioned survival and desporation instincts. Less than 100 years ago in this country people were mistreated and a two tier society existed. The people used guns to try to change this situation. Do you know another way it could have been done? I’m sure if we lived then rather than now, we would see things differently. We would not be rallying against war with quite the same gusto. Mike Moore is good at exposing things within the american system, but it is fundamental to realise that War comes natural. It would happen without bush, saddam, the IRA, It happens in socialism, it is inevitable, and always has been - I know I’m gonna hang for this but fuck it, its tuesday - see the bit in ‘space oddessy’ where the ape guy breaks the thingy? Or the monolith guy plays chess? Thats war.

*cars still kill more americans than 911, but that war yeilds no profit. Anyway I diverged a bit.
goon.
 
"I just pause to think how it would be if you sent a boat load of Americans to IRAQ and told them to take it over without guns, missiles or any thing else but their bare hands, and maybe a stick. Can you Imagine the great psychological effect it would have on the soldiers and american and iraqi folks over the course of their lives?"

Exactly. It should have that effect, it's a normal human reaction. Killing people when there is no threat to you is not the same as killing in defence, for food etc. It should be psychologically damaging. Which is why most war propaganda insists on the supposedly inhuman, machine-like, surgical nature of their war. It's the reason for all the catchy jargon and technology fetishism. As you said:

"I, for one cant. What I can say is that guns are a convenience, just like cars* they speed up the journey, its a disgusting fact but its true."

And it's exactly the reason why most sane people have a problem with the idea of machines whose sole reason for existing is to maim and kill - conveniently of course.
 
Re: egg and goon race

Originally posted by captain anomie
Conflict, Competetiveness, One-upmanship, Moral rewards and many other things that enable the political systems to operate a War are part of what makes us human.

Actually my new friend from Donegal, those are the ego-based things that make us animals. It's our humanity that demands we transcend the ego and seek a higher level of existence.

As Gahndi said, non-violence or non-existence. !bing

Peace,

Mary Sunshine
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Activity
So far there's no one here
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.

21 Day Calendar

Lau (Unplugged)
The Sugar Club
8 Leeson Street Lower, Saint Kevin's, Dublin 2, D02 ET97, Ireland

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...

Upgrade now

Latest threads

Latest Activity

Loading…
Back
Top