I mean what we have differing opinions of the extent to which the "subjective style of the debate" is valid.
Then do you appreciate the irony of your own subjectivity as has been pointed out here? Such as "reading in", making guesses and then seeking to prove them, etc.?
But yes, I'd thought that you and I have differing views was such a given for over a year, until this thread, where you made claims about the truth/whole truth that portrayed things differently than I'd once understood. It's definitely fair enough that considering you definitely lean towards the objective view, and many of us in this thread personalize and humanize these issues, that we are definitely on different wavelengths. All sides have flaws and distortions to be called out. One side isn't the pure one, while another is the angry one.....imho.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I love watching the evolution of threads on the Train. A thread can start off about one topic and then on the flip of a coin it can take on a whole new life and meaning.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I love watching the evolution of threads on the Train. A thread can start off about one topic and then on the flip of a coin it can take on a whole new life and meaning.
*looks around inconspicuously, while whistling*
The Halliburton thread is pretty funny for it's twists and turns, too!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Then do you appreciate the irony of your own subjectivity as has been pointed out here? Such as "reading in", making guesses and then seeking to prove them, etc.?
It all depends if I was actually "reading in", agelica. It all depends on what my views were based.
But yes, I'd thought that you and I have differing views was such a given for over a year, until this thread, where you made claims about the truth/whole truth that portrayed things differently than I'd once understood. It's definitely fair enough that considering you definitely lean towards the objective view, and many of us in this thread personalize and humanize these issues, that we are definitely on different wavelengths. All sides have flaws and distortions to be called out. One side isn't the pure one, while another is the angry one.....imho.
It all depends if I was actually "reading in", agelica. It all depends on what my views were based.
As with everyone. Which is why personal judgments from the outside, on personal underlying positions, are just that. And as personal judgments, while they may or may not align with what is objective, still always are personal judgments and therefore subjective.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
As with everyone. Which is why personal judgments from the outside, on personal underlying positions, are just that. And as personal judgments, while they may or may not align with what is objective, still always are personal judgments and therefore subjective.
You didn't say that I had to leave. Rather, you said I have to play by your rules. Otherwise, I could leave.
Envision what? A lift without force? I can certainly envision that, since it is the ideal I live to everyday.
The problem with your plan for me is that you ignore that "going elsewhere" I'll encounter the same things, just with different people behind them.
There you go again putting words in my mouth I didnt say or imply. I didnt say you have to play by my rules. For one they are not my rules but rather the rules of this nation. I said you could leave if you didnt like the rules and wanted to do something beside complain about the bad situation you find yourself in.
You will encounter the same things by going elsewhere and starting your own tax free utopia with likeminded people? How will that happen if you have no taxes in your new nation? Are you admitting it will not work? Then we agree.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
There you go again putting words in my mouth I didnt say or imply. I didnt say you have to play by my rules. For one they are not my rules but rather the rules of this nation.
Ok. If you don't think I have to play by your rules, I'll note that and remember it.
I said you could leave if you didnt like the rules and wanted to do something beside complain about the bad situation you find yourself in.
I certainly could, yes. That option is available to everyone who complains. Why don't you suggest they leave?
You will encounter the same things by going elsewhere and starting your own tax free utopia with likeminded people? How will that happen if you have no taxes in your new nation? Are you admitting it will not work? Then we agree.
Hehe...I'm saying that whatever mythical place you've invented in your head that could be home to a "new tax free utopia" is already claimed by an old taxing utopia.
Kabong, you hardly ever answer questions directly, so it's a little silly to ask me the above questions. Every debate I have with you, you approach issues in a sideways fashion. You have likely never said any of the above. Yet you'll post the words of others that do and you won't disown them and you won't directly agree with them, yet everything you do say would lead one to the latter.
what questions didn't i answer? and i hope you realize the extreme irony in you, of all ppl, saying this! you constantly ignore questions and twist and distort things to get out of being wrong!
You're asking me if I discuss the positive consequences of taxation? Rarely do I do that, but I don't discuss the negative consequences much either. I discuss the philosophy of taxation and that is its means, not its ends.
a philosophy in which you equate to having a gun pointed at your head while you are forcibly robbed...
Of course. They tend to come up in every conversation I have on taxation.
oh, come on now, now you're making things up!!!!!
when i've brought up roads and emergency services you reply something to the effect of
'i don't need their roads'
'i never used emergency services, why should i pay for them?'
can you plz cite just 1 post in which you spoke of positives of the tax system?, i'm not talking about replying when it's directly asked of you, but that you brought up on your own???
and, i'd like to add that comment of yours 'they tend to come up in every conversation...' seems a bit...i dunno...sideways? you don't bring them up, others do, and when it is brought up you say you don't need them, you don't bring them up on your own, you only ever speak of the negatives agaisnt you taxation causes, you can say 'i've never had to use emergency services, why should i pay for them?' but you fail to mention all the ppl they DO help!
Ok. I actually went back and looked at this thread. Ironically, that is the thread you called me out in right after complaining about people calling you out in threads.
and???? what's that gotta do w/ what we're talking about?? oh, i see...trying to deflect the attention away from you by bringing up unrelated things
but, for the record, what i complained of was being brought up in threads and what is brought up being lies...what i said about you was all factual
you said previously that profit is just gonna be made from war and how ridiculous it was to think that profits from war could ever be a motive...
'well, someone has to profit from war'
i quoted the following from another's post
'Since 2000, the year Bush was elected, the company's stock value has tripled.
As the Center for Corporate Policy (http://www.corporatepolicy.org) notes, it is no coincidence that Lockheed VP Bruce Jackson--who helped draft the Republican foreign policy platform in 2000--is a key player at the Project for a New American Century, the intellectual incubator of the Iraq war.'
and said 'but i thought ffg said profiting from a war was just an innocent byproduct!?'
Furthermore, right away in that thread, I made my position on this clear:
"This isn't the 'spreading of knowledge'. I'm not going to allow people to hide behind that argument when they're obviously pushing a point. The man who hides behind 'spreading knowledge' is a man who knows that a disconnect exists between his conclusions and his facts.
If this was 'spreading of knowledge' you'd do it in an unbiased fashion. You'd post the upsides to all these corporations. Your 'knowledge' tells us that Caterpiller Corporation killed a peace activist. Yet it makes no mention of the fact that the homes of nearly every peace activist and the hospitals in which they birthed their children were built using a piece of their equipment. Does this fact justify the death of a peach activist? No. But is it worth something in the face of language like 'evildoer' and 'horrific'? Yes."
it is still the spreading of knowledge, which someone else said, not me.
my knowledge told you that??? i didn't start that thread!
Your entire concept in that thread was that corporations were engineering wars and that the simple fact that they profitted somehow proved this to be the case. That begs the question: what do their other actions then prove? But you didn't want to consider that there. Furthermore, the blanket statements of "evil" along with other assertions being tossed around implied greater truths that would have required a much more complete picture.
uhhhh...all i did was reply in another person's thread w/ some info
This was in no way contradictory to what I said in this thread, and I apologize for even entertaining the idea that it would have been. It's entirely consistent with what I've said here: those who proclaim great truths cannot present biased ones. In others words, someone who professes that a corporation or a man or anything else is "evil" needs to consider their actions, not just the actions that can be construed to fit their preexisting bias. And those who make claims about "engineered wars" need to present actual evidence of engineering.
can you plz cite the post where i mentioned 'evil' in that thread??
and you do contradict yourself, you said i HAD to post the good haliburton did when i said i didn't think they deserved their bonuses and listed why i thought that...if your kid stole money from your wallet would you say 'but you did make your bed today, so....'??
so why do i have to post every side of haliburton just b/c i stated my opinion?
All I've said is that the information has to match the claims and be non-contradictory or else I'm going to post what I want to post -- a challenge to the person who is making those claims.
what claims did i make? first off, about lockheed martin i said SEEMS LIKE an agenda, not this is undisputable fact!!!
about haliburton all i said was i don't think haliburton deserves the bonuses they got for their work in iraq b/c of a, b, c, d, e,.....-zz, especially in a time where we can't afford to give our troops adequate protection and rummy is saying 'you go to war w/ the army you have, not the army you'd like to have'
that is my opinion, if you think they have done so much good that outweighed the bad i listed feel free to do so...i don't see why i have an obligation to do this when i already stated my personal opinion on it and it being contradictory to what you are looking for
as for your question of 'why else are they important', plz see the bolded portion above for an example, now i would like to hear your assumptions on why
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
what questions didn't i answer? and i hope you realize the extreme irony in you, of all ppl, saying this! you constantly ignore questions and twist and distort things to get out of being wrong!
so you refuse to answer my questions?
a philosophy in which you equate to having a gun pointed at your head while you are forcibly robbed...
oh, come on now, now you're making things up!!!!!
when i've brought up roads and emergency services you reply something to the effect of
'i don't need their roads'
'i never used emergency services, why should i pay for them?'
can you plz cite just 1 post in which you spoke of positives of the tax system?, i'm not talking about replying when it's directly asked of you, but that you brought up on your own???
and, i'd like to add that comment of yours 'they tend to come up in every conversation...' seems a bit...i dunno...sideways? you don't bring them up, others do, and when it is brought up you say you don't need them, you don't bring them up on your own, you only ever speak of the negatives agaisnt you taxation causes, you can say 'i've never had to use emergency services, why should i pay for them?' but you fail to mention all the ppl they DO help!
and???? what's that gotta do w/ what we're talking about?? oh, i see...trying to deflect the attention away from you by bringing up unrelated things
but, for the record, what i complained of was being brought up in threads and what is brought up being lies...what i said about you was all factual
you said previously that profit is just gonna be made from war and how ridiculous it was to think that profits from war could ever be a motive...
'well, someone has to profit from war'
i quoted the following from another's post
'Since 2000, the year Bush was elected, the company's stock value has tripled.
As the Center for Corporate Policy (http://www.corporatepolicy.org) notes, it is no coincidence that Lockheed VP Bruce Jackson--who helped draft the Republican foreign policy platform in 2000--is a key player at the Project for a New American Century, the intellectual incubator of the Iraq war.'
and said 'but i thought ffg said profiting from a war was just an innocent byproduct!?'
it is still the spreading of knowledge, which someone else said, not me.
my knowledge told you that??? i didn't start that thread!
wrong!!!!! if read what i said the agenda comment was directed at lockheed martin, which i even said in the reply to you after that one!
uhhhh...all i did was reply in another person's thread w/ some info
can you plz cite the post where i mentioned 'evil' in that thread??
and you do contradict yourself, you said i HAD to post the good haliburton did when i said i didn't think they deserved their bonuses and listed why i thought that...if your kid stole money from your wallet would you say 'but you did make your bed today, so....'??
so why do i have to post every side of haliburton just b/c i stated my opinion?
what claims did i make? first off, about lockheed martin i said SEEMS LIKE an agenda, not this is undisputable fact!!!
about haliburton all i said was i don't think haliburton deserves the bonuses they got for their work in iraq b/c of a, b, c, d, e,.....-zz, especially in a time where we can't afford to give our troops adequate protection and rummy is saying 'you go to war w/ the army you have, not the army you'd like to have'
that is my opinion, if you think they have done so much good that outweighed the bad i listed feel free to do so...i don't see why i have an obligation to do this when i already stated my personal opinion on it and it being contradictory to what you are looking for
as for your question of 'why else are they important', plz see the bolded portion above for an example, now i would like to hear your assumptions on why
Ok, so I've thought about this and am here to say that I did contradict myself when suggesting that Kabong (as well as some others here) had an obligation to present a more complete picture of fact, but that Michael Moore does not. The contradiction stemmed from a belief that these posters were making deeper claims than they were. So, I apologize for that contradiction. It will not happen again.
Ok, so I've thought about this and am here to say that I did contradict myself when suggesting that Kabong (as well as some others here) had an obligation to present a more complete picture of fact, but that Michael Moore does not. The contradiction stemmed from a belief that these posters were making deeper claims than they were. So, I apologize for that contradiction. It will not happen again.
Cool! That's very big of you to do this...it doesn't happen too often.
I thought you were also saying Michael Moore had the same obligation because you thought he was claiming "the truth", as well, but far be it for me to nitpick over petty details!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I thought you were also saying Michael Moore had the same obligation because you thought he was claiming "the truth"
No -- I was applying two contradictory standards. I was saying that Moore had no obligation to provide contrary evidence in his films, but that Kabong did in his posts. While Moore and Kabong aren't the same person, and their subject matters aren't always the same, and their mediums are different, the standard should be the same because it applies to the presentation of information. Who presents that information, its subject matter, and its medium shouldn't change the standard.
Ok, so I've thought about this and am here to say that I did contradict myself when suggesting that Kabong (as well as some others here) had an obligation to present a more complete picture of fact, but that Michael Moore does not. The contradiction stemmed from a belief that these posters were making deeper claims than they were. So, I apologize for that contradiction. It will not happen again.
apology accepted
it takes a lot to admit to contradicting oneself
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
It's a wrap! My new film, "Sicko," is all done and will have its world premiere this Saturday night at the Cannes Film Festival. As with "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11," we are honored to have been chosen by this prestigious festival to screen our work there.
My intention was to keep "Sicko" under wraps and show it to virtually no one before its premiere in Cannes. That is what I have done and, as you may have noticed if you are a recipient of my infrequent Internet letters, I have been very silent about what I've been up to. In part, that's because I was working very hard to complete the film. But my silence was also because I knew that the health care industry -- an industry which makes up more than 15 percent of our GDP -- was not going to like much of what they were going to see in this movie and I thought it best not to upset them any sooner than need be.
Well, going quietly to Cannes, I guess, was not to be. For some strange reason, on May 2nd the Bush administration initiated an action against me over how I obtained some of the content they believe is in my film. As none of them have actually seen the film (or so I hope!), they decided, unlike with "Fahrenheit 9/11," not to wait until the film was out of the gate and too far down the road to begin their attack.
Bush's Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, launched an investigation of a trip I took to Cuba to film scenes for the movie. These scenes involve a group of 9/11 rescue workers who are suffering from illnesses obtained from working down at Ground Zero. They have received little or no help with their health care from the government. I do not want to give away what actually happens in the movie because I don't want to spoil it for you (although I'm sure you'll hear much about it after it unspools Saturday). Plus, our lawyers have advised me to say little at this point, as the film goes somewhere far scarier than "Cuba." Rest assured of one thing: no laws were broken. All I've done is violate the modern-day rule of journalism that says, "ask no questions of those in power or your luncheon privileges will be revoked."
This preemptive action taken by the Bush administration on the eve of the "Sicko" premiere in Cannes led our attorneys to fear for the safety of our film, noting that Secretary Paulson may try to claim that the content of the movie was obtained through a violation of the trade embargo that our country has against Cuba and the travel laws that prohibit average citizens of our free country from traveling to Cuba. (The law does not prohibit anyone from exercising their first amendment right of a free press and documentaries are protected works of journalism.)
I was floored when our lawyers told me this. "Are you saying they might actually confiscate our movie?" "Yes," was the answer. "These days, anything is possible. Even if there is just a 20 percent chance the government would seize our movie before Cannes, does anyone want to take that risk?"
Certainly not. So there we were last week, spiriting a duplicate master negative out of the country just so no one from the government would take it from us. (Seriously, I can't believe I just typed those words! Did I mention that I'm an American, and this is America and NO ONE should ever have to say they had to do such a thing?)
I mean, folks, I have just about had it. Investigating ME because I'm trying to help some 9/11 rescue workers our government has abandoned? Once again, up is down and black is white. There are only two people in need of an investigation and a trial, and the desire for this across America is so widespread you don't even need to see the one's smirk or hear the other's sneer to know who I am talking about.
But no, I'm the one who now has to hire lawyers and sneak my documentary out of the country just so people can see a friggin' movie. I mean, it's just a movie! What on earth could I have placed on celluloid that would require such a nonsensical action against me?
Ok. Scratch that.
Well, I'm on my way to Cannes right now, a copy of the movie in my bag. Don't feel too bad for me, I'll be in the south of France for a week! But then it's back to the U.S. for a number of premieres and benefits and then, finally, a chance for all of you to see this film that I have made. Circle June 29th on your calendar because that's when it opens in theaters everywhere across the country and Canada (for the rest of the world, it opens in the fall).
I can't wait for you to see it.
Yours,
Michael Moore
P.S. I will write more about what happens from Cannes. Stay tuned on my website, MichaelMoore.com.
Comments
I mean what we have differing opinions of the extent to which the "subjective style of the debate" is valid.
But yes, I'd thought that you and I have differing views was such a given for over a year, until this thread, where you made claims about the truth/whole truth that portrayed things differently than I'd once understood. It's definitely fair enough that considering you definitely lean towards the objective view, and many of us in this thread personalize and humanize these issues, that we are definitely on different wavelengths. All sides have flaws and distortions to be called out. One side isn't the pure one, while another is the angry one.....imho.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The Halliburton thread is pretty funny for it's twists and turns, too!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It all depends if I was actually "reading in", agelica. It all depends on what my views were based.
Ok.
As with everyone. Which is why personal judgments from the outside, on personal underlying positions, are just that. And as personal judgments, while they may or may not align with what is objective, still always are personal judgments and therefore subjective.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ok.
There you go again putting words in my mouth I didnt say or imply. I didnt say you have to play by my rules. For one they are not my rules but rather the rules of this nation. I said you could leave if you didnt like the rules and wanted to do something beside complain about the bad situation you find yourself in.
You will encounter the same things by going elsewhere and starting your own tax free utopia with likeminded people? How will that happen if you have no taxes in your new nation? Are you admitting it will not work? Then we agree.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Ok. If you don't think I have to play by your rules, I'll note that and remember it.
I certainly could, yes. That option is available to everyone who complains. Why don't you suggest they leave?
Hehe...I'm saying that whatever mythical place you've invented in your head that could be home to a "new tax free utopia" is already claimed by an old taxing utopia.
what questions didn't i answer? and i hope you realize the extreme irony in you, of all ppl, saying this! you constantly ignore questions and twist and distort things to get out of being wrong!
so you refuse to answer my questions?
a philosophy in which you equate to having a gun pointed at your head while you are forcibly robbed...
oh, come on now, now you're making things up!!!!!
when i've brought up roads and emergency services you reply something to the effect of
'i don't need their roads'
'i never used emergency services, why should i pay for them?'
can you plz cite just 1 post in which you spoke of positives of the tax system?, i'm not talking about replying when it's directly asked of you, but that you brought up on your own???
and, i'd like to add that comment of yours 'they tend to come up in every conversation...' seems a bit...i dunno...sideways? you don't bring them up, others do, and when it is brought up you say you don't need them, you don't bring them up on your own, you only ever speak of the negatives agaisnt you taxation causes, you can say 'i've never had to use emergency services, why should i pay for them?' but you fail to mention all the ppl they DO help!
and???? what's that gotta do w/ what we're talking about?? oh, i see...trying to deflect the attention away from you by bringing up unrelated things
but, for the record, what i complained of was being brought up in threads and what is brought up being lies...what i said about you was all factual
you said previously that profit is just gonna be made from war and how ridiculous it was to think that profits from war could ever be a motive...
'well, someone has to profit from war'
i quoted the following from another's post
'Since 2000, the year Bush was elected, the company's stock value has tripled.
As the Center for Corporate Policy (http://www.corporatepolicy.org) notes, it is no coincidence that Lockheed VP Bruce Jackson--who helped draft the Republican foreign policy platform in 2000--is a key player at the Project for a New American Century, the intellectual incubator of the Iraq war.'
and said 'but i thought ffg said profiting from a war was just an innocent byproduct!?'
it is still the spreading of knowledge, which someone else said, not me.
my knowledge told you that??? i didn't start that thread!
wrong!!!!! if read what i said the agenda comment was directed at lockheed martin, which i even said in the reply to you after that one!
uhhhh...all i did was reply in another person's thread w/ some info
can you plz cite the post where i mentioned 'evil' in that thread??
and you do contradict yourself, you said i HAD to post the good haliburton did when i said i didn't think they deserved their bonuses and listed why i thought that...if your kid stole money from your wallet would you say 'but you did make your bed today, so....'??
so why do i have to post every side of haliburton just b/c i stated my opinion?
what claims did i make? first off, about lockheed martin i said SEEMS LIKE an agenda, not this is undisputable fact!!!
about haliburton all i said was i don't think haliburton deserves the bonuses they got for their work in iraq b/c of a, b, c, d, e,.....-zz, especially in a time where we can't afford to give our troops adequate protection and rummy is saying 'you go to war w/ the army you have, not the army you'd like to have'
that is my opinion, if you think they have done so much good that outweighed the bad i listed feel free to do so...i don't see why i have an obligation to do this when i already stated my personal opinion on it and it being contradictory to what you are looking for
as for your question of 'why else are they important', plz see the bolded portion above for an example, now i would like to hear your assumptions on why
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I thought you were also saying Michael Moore had the same obligation because you thought he was claiming "the truth", as well, but far be it for me to nitpick over petty details!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No -- I was applying two contradictory standards. I was saying that Moore had no obligation to provide contrary evidence in his films, but that Kabong did in his posts. While Moore and Kabong aren't the same person, and their subject matters aren't always the same, and their mediums are different, the standard should be the same because it applies to the presentation of information. Who presents that information, its subject matter, and its medium shouldn't change the standard.
apology accepted
it takes a lot to admit to contradicting oneself
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
"Sicko" Is Completed and We're Off to Cannes!
May 17, 2007
Friends,
It's a wrap! My new film, "Sicko," is all done and will have its world premiere this Saturday night at the Cannes Film Festival. As with "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11," we are honored to have been chosen by this prestigious festival to screen our work there.
My intention was to keep "Sicko" under wraps and show it to virtually no one before its premiere in Cannes. That is what I have done and, as you may have noticed if you are a recipient of my infrequent Internet letters, I have been very silent about what I've been up to. In part, that's because I was working very hard to complete the film. But my silence was also because I knew that the health care industry -- an industry which makes up more than 15 percent of our GDP -- was not going to like much of what they were going to see in this movie and I thought it best not to upset them any sooner than need be.
Well, going quietly to Cannes, I guess, was not to be. For some strange reason, on May 2nd the Bush administration initiated an action against me over how I obtained some of the content they believe is in my film. As none of them have actually seen the film (or so I hope!), they decided, unlike with "Fahrenheit 9/11," not to wait until the film was out of the gate and too far down the road to begin their attack.
Bush's Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, launched an investigation of a trip I took to Cuba to film scenes for the movie. These scenes involve a group of 9/11 rescue workers who are suffering from illnesses obtained from working down at Ground Zero. They have received little or no help with their health care from the government. I do not want to give away what actually happens in the movie because I don't want to spoil it for you (although I'm sure you'll hear much about it after it unspools Saturday). Plus, our lawyers have advised me to say little at this point, as the film goes somewhere far scarier than "Cuba." Rest assured of one thing: no laws were broken. All I've done is violate the modern-day rule of journalism that says, "ask no questions of those in power or your luncheon privileges will be revoked."
This preemptive action taken by the Bush administration on the eve of the "Sicko" premiere in Cannes led our attorneys to fear for the safety of our film, noting that Secretary Paulson may try to claim that the content of the movie was obtained through a violation of the trade embargo that our country has against Cuba and the travel laws that prohibit average citizens of our free country from traveling to Cuba. (The law does not prohibit anyone from exercising their first amendment right of a free press and documentaries are protected works of journalism.)
I was floored when our lawyers told me this. "Are you saying they might actually confiscate our movie?" "Yes," was the answer. "These days, anything is possible. Even if there is just a 20 percent chance the government would seize our movie before Cannes, does anyone want to take that risk?"
Certainly not. So there we were last week, spiriting a duplicate master negative out of the country just so no one from the government would take it from us. (Seriously, I can't believe I just typed those words! Did I mention that I'm an American, and this is America and NO ONE should ever have to say they had to do such a thing?)
I mean, folks, I have just about had it. Investigating ME because I'm trying to help some 9/11 rescue workers our government has abandoned? Once again, up is down and black is white. There are only two people in need of an investigation and a trial, and the desire for this across America is so widespread you don't even need to see the one's smirk or hear the other's sneer to know who I am talking about.
But no, I'm the one who now has to hire lawyers and sneak my documentary out of the country just so people can see a friggin' movie. I mean, it's just a movie! What on earth could I have placed on celluloid that would require such a nonsensical action against me?
Ok. Scratch that.
Well, I'm on my way to Cannes right now, a copy of the movie in my bag. Don't feel too bad for me, I'll be in the south of France for a week! But then it's back to the U.S. for a number of premieres and benefits and then, finally, a chance for all of you to see this film that I have made. Circle June 29th on your calendar because that's when it opens in theaters everywhere across the country and Canada (for the rest of the world, it opens in the fall).
I can't wait for you to see it.
Yours,
Michael Moore
P.S. I will write more about what happens from Cannes. Stay tuned on my website, MichaelMoore.com.
edit: i spell bad.