Michael Moore: Bush administration calls out filmmaker

I'm surprised we haven't gotten to this one yet. Especially given how many folks around here are definitely not Michael Moore fans. From Reuters.com:

Federal officials may be planning to subpoena filmmaker Michael Moore seeking information about a trip he took to Cuba for his documentary, "Sicko," a source close to the situation said on Friday.

In a late Thursday appearance on NBC's "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," Moore said he was notified at the TV studio in Burbank, California, that a subpoena had already been issued.

But the source, who declined to be identified, said Moore had not actually been served with the request. Rather, the office of his attorney, David Boies, was contacted by a division of the U.S. Department of Commerce seeking the name of a person who would accept a subpoena on Moore's behalf. (Tourtellotte)​

I didn't see the show; I'm not a Leno fan. But there's a transcript and video segment available at ThinkProgress.org:

MOORE: Because I heard the al Qaeda terrorists that we have in the camps there detained are receiving free dental, medical, eye care, the whole deal, and our own 9/11 rescue workers can’t get that in New York City. And I just thought there was something completely crazy about that, so we sailed into Guantanamo Bay and filmed it, to try to get them the same care we’re giving al Qaeda. The Bush administration became upset at that, and it informed me at the same — when I was on the show last — that they were investigating me for doing this.

LENO: Well, investigating you for going to Cuba.

MOORE: Yeah, because Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba, and once we’re there in Cuba, we couldn’t get any help, so we went and got help from the Cuban doctors.

LENO: But a lot of celebrities go to Cuba.

MOORE: Yeah, oh yeah. Leonardo DiCaprio has been there, Cameron Diaz.

LENO: Sure, a lot of people go. But what happened just an hour ago —

MOORE: You want me to tell what happened –

LENO: Sure, go ahead.

MOORE: Ok, well, I haven’t even told my own family this yet, so you’re asking me to do this on national television.

LENO: Yeah, but it’s NBC, so not that many people are watching.

MOORE: Alright. Well, I was just informed while I was back there with Jay that the Bush administration has now issued a subpoena for me, going after me for helping these 9/11 rescue workers.

LENO: Well, no, for going to Cuba, it wasn’t for helping them –

MOORE: Well, that’s why I went there. I didn’t go there like Cameron Diaz to get a tan. No offense, I’m all for her tan. I’m just sailing around on a pontoon there in Cuba, but that’s not why I was there. I was there to help them and now I’m going to face this further harassment from the Bush people. Aren’t they busy with something else?​

We need to stay tuned. While I greatly appreciate Mr. Moore and his work, and while I would not wish him ill, I do hope the Bush administration brings this to a standoff. An unpopular executive administration challenging a charismatic and immensely--internationally--popular filmmaker is the sort of thing that promises to be spectacular.

For some reason, Bush can't keep his hands off Pandora's box, and whenever he fiddles around inside, he draws forth some new horror that leaves so many people, both at home and abroad, wondering if the guy is capable of learning anything. Maybe he drank or snorted those brain cells into oblivion, or gave them over to God at Bible boot camp. Or maybe there just comes a point when family prestige and fortune cannot buy him costume enough to hide the depths of his stupidity.

And the flip-side is to wonder how many people in the administration or Congress smoke black-market Cuban cigars.

This is going to be the sort of laugh-riot that might end in a real riot. Be there a God in heaven, may It save the United States of America from yet another astoundingly ill-conceived fight.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is why Bikers, Michael Moores, Punks, people who don't wear their seatbelts are great! They test the so-called freedoms we are "supposed" to have. So we can all see it's a bunch of bullshit, then go home and watch T.V, play games and pretend all it well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I never read this site but found it searching for something i heard on the radio. There it was for all to see:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47174

Ralph Nader? Tell me you voted for him and i will throw this PC out the window. I remember people were talking crap- 'green party man', 'yeah were green, see what we mean?'

What a joke/

Bear in mind that i like celebrities. Especially Sean Penn (former westie)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wouldn't worry about it

Yeah, I heard about Moore's stock in Halliburton. From Moore. And a while ago.

And he doesn't actually own the stock. It is owned by the non-profit organization run by Moore and his wife. This particular note also comes from WorldNetDaily.

The Chicken Littles over at WND are just hollering about nothing again.

We must also remember that the allegations are over a year and a half old, and come from a book whose veracity is severely challenged. To the one, the guy pretends that liberals should either make bad investments (criticism of Chomsky), or Democrats should break the law (criticism of Pelosi). In some cases, his data is outright false (criticism of Franken).

In Moore's case, if you pay attention to the WND rehash of its own story (the articles are separated by a month), the first (Nov. 1, 2005), which you posted, says that Moore owns the Halliburton stock. The second states that the stock is owned by the non-profit. In each case, however, their basis is the same thing:

If you want to see Moore's own signed Schedule D declaring his capital gains and losses where his stock ownership is listed, it's emblazoned on the cover of Peter Schweizer's new book, "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy." (WND, Nov. 1, 2005)

• • •​

In fact, the Schedule D form declaring his capital gains and losses where his stock ownership is listed, it's emblazoned on the cover of Schweizer's book. (WND, Dec. 1, 2005)​

Both WND and its source, Peter Schweizer, are mean-spirited, dishonest hacks.

Bay area KGO television, an affiliate of ABC television, looked into the Pelosi allegation:

Peter Schweizer, Hoover Research Fellow: "She has won the Cesar Chavez award from the United Farm Workers Union and yet they don't use members of the United Farm Workers Union to actually pick the grapes on their winery" ....

.... But in Napa we found the facts don't fit Schweizer's claim. For starters, the Pelosis pay more than union workers are paid in the same valley -- that from the pastor at St. Helena's Catholic Church, a well known advocate for farm workers who's involved in labor negotiations with the same labor manager the Pelosis use ....

.... Monsignor John Brenkle: "I don't think she has the possibility of finding other union workers here in the valley" ....

.... Angel Calderon, farm worker camp manager: "It's the truth, it's the truth. They pay better wages right here in Napa Valley."

Calderon manages one of three camps subsidized by Napa growers. For $11 dollars a day, workers get a clean place to live and three meals a day, access to doctors and dental care. But all of that aside, if Nancy Pelosi wanted to have union workers she could not ask the union for a contract. It's illegal and has been since 1975 ....

.... Marc Grossman, United Farm Workers Union: "It is patently illegal for any grower to even discuss a union contract, which is the only way you can supply union workers, without the workers first having voted in a state conducted secret ballot election."

I asked Peter Schweizer, the Hoover Research fellow, if he had researched those facts before he called Pelosi a hypocrite.

Peter Schweizer: "It's really for her to explain why there is this inconsistency. It's not my responsibility to go and find out how every single particular circumstance is handled on the Pelosi vineyard."

The 1975 Agricultural Labor Relations Act is pretty clear, what Peter Schweizer suggests would be illegal. Growers like Pelosi can't just hire workers from a union, but workers can unionize on their own and then negotiate with growers after they have organized. Schweizer told me this morning he would call me back and clear this all up -- he hasn't. We've left several messages .... (KGO TV)​

Al Franken's response to Schweizer's allegations that he doesn't hire minority workers can be found at the National Review Online. It's a good letter. Give it read.

I will go so far as to note that, while you don't read WND, it's kind of like FOX News. It's worth checking in on once in a while, in order to know what angry, ignorant, dishonest conservatives are talking about. That way, when the information filters back to you through the grapevine, you can spare yourself the headache of believing it.

 

As far as Moore: spin spin spin, the main thing to remember is that these people are entertainers.

Pelosi: I support her and hillary clinton for being strong women. That being said, are you sure she (Pelosi) could not hire from UFW (http://www.ufw.org/)? Have you checked your sources? I cannot see why a farm-vineyard, luxury hotel, restaurant etc. could not hire union workers, guess you know.

So did you vote for NADER?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Any chance that the pharmaceutical companies have anything to do with this possible lawsuit?

 

Of course not.

However, if you would like to dissect the 1975 Agricultural Labor Relations Act and show how Pelosi is supposed to go about hiring union workers, be my guest.

And as to Moore, the fact that he is an entertainer is what leads me to defend him as I do. I'm aware he's an entertainer. But the right seems to think he's much more than that. Of course, he's an American, and this is the digital age, so strongarming him the way the government treated another entertainer--Charlie Chaplin--won't work. It is the people who fear and hate Moore who give him his power. It is the ridiculous elevation of Michael Moore by his detractors that gives him such power.

 

I thought being an entertainer was compulsory in the USA these days. Heck, your president entertains us here in the UK regularly. So Moore is just going with the culture.

 

The only way she can hire union labor is if her laborers decide to unionize. They have not yet made that decision.

Is it that in your zeal you're simply not paying attention to that point?

You're entitled to your opinion. I feel the same way about you.

Ah, come on. He's smarter than Paris Hilton. And he's smarter than you. For instance:

Even as such, it's the American way. He's doing well according to that method. What's your excuse? Are you anti-American?

What would you recommend, then?

He's aware of the risks. And he's a professional performance artist, to boot.

I find incredibly stupid this conservative notion that imperfect people should not strive for improvement until they're perfect.

 

Oh, i am sure you absolutely DID vote for NADER. How i laughed at 'those people'

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...water under the bridge now.

And you are right about one thing, Moore is an entertainer. His movies are NOT documentaries if you go by the actual definition.

 

And I am absolutely sure you're smart. Take this, for instance:

Obviously, it's not water under the bridge if you need to keep bringing it up.

I'm already on the record here for my votes in 2000 and 2004.

I must admit, though, I'm starting to laugh at you just a little bit. I shouldn't, though, because it's cruel to make humor of such things as people can't help.

Like Moore, I guess I'm a hypocrite. And that makes both Michael Moore and myself human. What are you, and what's your excuse?

 

And what's your excuse?

I mean, don't get me wrong--there's nothing wrong with being a slacker. I've been one most of my life. It isn't as if Moore is demanding perfection of anyone, yet strangely, his opponents seem to demand perfection of him.

In accusing hypocrisy, this becomes important. If those opponents are not hypocritical, they must be perfect. If they're perfect, they're not human; part of human nature is that we are imperfect creatures.

Moore's "hypocrisy" is that he is aspiring to a better world that doesn't, at present, exist. His opponents' hypocrisy is that they choose to be dishonest while claiming Moore is dishonest for aspiring to a better world.

It would be laughable if the majority of his opponents weren't dangerous to our species.

 

I dont pretend to have arguments for or against what Moore is saying happened but i think his ideas are just little bit too farfetched. I find it difficult to believe they are true.
But as i said, i dont know all the ins and outs; im not American.

 

Michael Moore uses humor in his films and books in order to gain peoples ATTENTION, because so many people have tuned off politics and the issues that will inevitably affect their lives, he uses humor to gain their attention about politics, gay rights, health and many other things.
Thats why he's so effective at bringing people around, not because he uses underhanded tactics like Anne Coutler.
His humor and his passion for such things make him effective.

 

Yup, thats right Challenger. I read his stupid white men, and it is pretty easy to separate humour from important facts, but they help each other get along in the book.

 

I think to this date, his only serious published work is : Will they ever trust us again ?, And he didn't write that, he just published what others wrote to him. Its a reminder that he is serious about there being something wrong in America

 

I am tired of all this 'America should save the world' BS/

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Without getting into all the wonderful asides that have cropped up here, Bush or whoever is trying to indict Moore is a fool for doing so. All it will do is give Moore a platform to spew more lunacy, and it will solidify his bona fides with the lunatic fringe who worship him. In short, it's a PR disaster for the Bushies. They ought to leave him alone. Never go after someone who buys ink by the barrel, film by the reel or gets to talk 3 hours a day on the radio unedited. You will lose...even if you're right...