IN DEFENSE OF DEFENDING MICHAEL MOORE

I was thinking that a great politically mature and intelligent charismatic man such as Mike could enter into the latter half of the new century as "the man who just wouldn't stop harassing the government", "sticking up for the little guy", "sticking it to the man", "a tenacious man with a conscience and a call of duty (the answering to questions and justice for the just) that knew no boundaries".

Or "thoroughly un-American", "insubordinate", "anti-Establishment radical", "secretly Canadian", "college dropout" et cetera et cetera.

The problem of the image of a hero in the future. History is often written by the victor, and the odds are that once Mike is dead, he cannot defend himself and the next wave of generations will have grown up without knowing Michael Moore at all and will therefore probably not understand his motives for the actions he's taken and the life he chose. Think of what the balance of morals would be if Hitler had won the war... If Hitler had won, his values would be Good. If Bush's values are tomorrow's America…

The problem of one's place in history is not one's problem. We can only do what we can with the time we have. There is nothing we can do if someone decides to blacken our names once we are gone, so why should it concern us ? Ultimately, if the morals of the world so change that Bush is right and Mike is wrong, then that particular joust should be at the bottom of our list of priorities.

Regardless how much Michael Moore may or may not represent Thomas Paine (which I personally believe that he does), Michael Moore will likely be remembered one way or another. It is not often that we hear of such stories of political activists or even activists in general but the ones who make the news with their defiance, their actions, will be remembered for just that. Thomas Paine is among them, along with other notables like Nelly Mclung and Susan B Anthony. And there will always be someone, somewhere – a scholar, a historian, a citizen – who will raise to defend Thomas Paine, even in a “Bush is right” world.

Sure - but it gives me the creeps when I think of how much right and wrong can be fragile and relative, and even more when I imagine that Mike's name might be profaned even in the future, without me to defend him... (I had added a smiley, but no... It doesn't make me smile...)

I was telling all this to a friend, and he went : “He's a big boy, he can take it. It's funny. I truly want to say "Suck It Up Princess" to Moore at times. Wait, I just said it. What I mean overall is that I sincerely hope that an intelligent and noble man such as him does not get tarnished by future generations, but if he is, he could stand to turn the other cheek because it shouldn't matter to him if a million people hate him because he knows in his heart that he did what he believed to be the right thing and no one can take that away from him.”

Uh, what a way of construing the proposition “defend him”. Nice opportunity for me to take exception to the blowhard morals that rule the country and therefore the world.

To defend Mike = to be his mommy.

And as Mike is “a big boy now”, he doesn’t need to be defended. QED.

Wish it were that simple.

First let’s consider the representation of what is to be defended.

The metaphor is “obvious”, and therefore idiotic, but as with all the “obvious” things powerful enough to become cliches there is something true to it : the intuition that something weak and fragile is at stake. Hence the jumping to the mother and the baby. And neither Mike, nor me, nor you, nor anyone else is supposed to be “a baby”.

What Mike expresses is, to cut it short, democracy. Is democracy “a baby” ? I’m afraid it is. When I defend Mike, I defend his values. And yes, I defend his values as embodied by him, because I regard him as the one who carries them under their highest, freest form and at fever pitch and is therefore the aptest guide and role model I can think of for collective hope and change and individual self-confidence.

It's funny this person truly wanted to say "Suck It Up Princess" to Mike at times, because he never “whines”, so I wonder where he took this fantasy from. He’s being spat on, insulted and threatened, but he’s never “being a baby”. I don’t particularly admire him for this. I know and he knows that “whining” would be ineffective, that’s all. On the opposite, he has a lot of energy and joy seeping from him. I don’t know how much he suffers from the terrible amount of hatred and misunderstanding he has to face, nor how he handles it. I couldn’t. He’s very strong. He must be. The phrase “suck it up” originally means “deal with it and quit complaining” but in the end it’s most often used as “coping with something unpleasant without complaining-- because you have no choice.”

I think Mike uses his suffering as experience, as clay to grow and to teach. He transforms it. To me he’s basically a teacher, and the best one I know of. If you study the imagery carried by the covers and posters for his works, you will see that they definitely depict a big /small dialectical imagery, a superhero / little guy imagery. One of the ads for “The Big One” shows him as a tiny man about to be crushed by a gigantic shoe. Another, on the contrary, shows him as a triumphant man brandishing a gigantic phallic mike. Who’s “The Big One” ? The corporations that want to crush you ? The democracy that can save you ?

I defend THAT.

There’s no need to be a mother to defend someone or something. There’s no need to be a baby to be worth being defended.

You defend what matters to you and is in danger.

Because it is attacked. Because it is isolated. Because it is twisted. Because it is slandered. BECAUSE IF YOU DON’T IT DIES.

Soldiers defend. Disciples defend. Brothers, comrades defend. Not only mothers.

To defend is to protect, and more. It’s to show admiration, love, admiration, and solidarity. Especially solidarity.

My friend says that if his name is tarnished, “he could stand to turn the other cheek”.

But that’s precisely what he does. That’s what he does every day.

Michael Moore practices the Imitation of Christ, and he does it very well.

And the least I can do is defend such a man.

I did, I do, and I will.

HALLIBURTON : MIKE IS INNOCENT (A typical debunking of a lie from the lying liars)

PART ONE : PRELIMINARIES

Summarizing the story so far :


Mike had at one point written (in 2000 or 2001) that he didn't own a single share of stock. Peter Schweizer in the same kind of trash as David Hardy’s (this time entitled "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy") claims that he has on the opposite somewhere around 2,000 shares of Halliburton stock. A superficial research shows that the stock is indeed owned in a foundation, whose chairman appears to be Mike.



Why it’s a typical lie from the lying liars :

This is but the umpteenth example of villainous behavior from Mike uncovered by the Republicans. It’s surprising, coming from them who love him so. Aren't you surprised, too, by how ALL of the left wingers really are liars, closet capitalists and traitors to the little guy they defend ? The discourse is so plain to see :

LEFT-WINGERS - IDEALISTS OR HYPOCRITES?

Thursday, November 03, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com

Michael Moore is heavily invested in Halliburton. Ralph Nader lives in luxury houses and condos owned by his relatives. Noam Chomsky makes most of his income from the U.S. military. Rep. Nancy Pelosi is co-owner of several strictly non-union businesses. … And more gun control advocates than can easily be counted either own guns or hire armed bodyguards.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=1745

Scum.

Nader is scum. Moore is scum. Chomsky is scum. Pelosi is scum. (ad "lib" - if I may say so...)

But !... Bush is great. He's the one who really stands for the little guy.



Why it still needs to be debunked :

Because the Inquisition is law and reason.

******************************************************

PART TWO : THE PROCESS OF DEBUNKING

Where to begin :


No use claiming the foundation bought the stock and not Mike, it’s true but it’s weak. The Golden Rule to remember is that there’s nothing to be ashamed of.

And as a matter of fact, the foundation, called the “Center for Alternative Media and Culture”, is a non-profit, tax-exempt, 503© corporation that gives money away to independent filmmakers who are in the post-production phases of making films about various political and social causes. It was started by Mike and his sister Veronica using half the money he made from “Roger and Me.”

So basically, what they (and “they” quite likely doesn’t even include Mike - all he did was start the whole thing, and he did it with his own money) did is using money made from their stocks to fund films that are against the way they made their money. Uh ! Let’s hide our heads in the sand.



Go straight to THE question that matters.

The question that matters is :

What is the date on the purchase of the stock? It’s only if it was bought and sold recently that Mike’s integrity can be questioned. If it was sold a few years ago, before Halliburton started receiving no bid contracts, then his ethics are not at stake.

As it happens, the fact that the reviews of the book are all extremely discreet about the date will confirm you that you’re on the right track.

They mention stock over a five year period, and all it seems to be on the net is the same trash over and over, Pelosi – anti-union, Moore - hypocrite and racist, Chomsky - hypocrite and warmonger, all with the same shortened quotes and the same condescending tone of being better than them.

But no other info outside of reviews of the book, kinda strange, knowing how it’s normally followed by 50 or so comments along the lines, "ha liberals - mud, communists, Satan, French, etc" without questioning anything.


You need to google until you find the magic site :

http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php

Enter “Center for Alternative Media and Culture” and you can read the 990 forms yourselves, for 2001-2004.

The foundation bought Halliburton stock in May 1999 and sold them in May 2000 making a profit of 377 dollars, same with Boeing and Honeywell (lost around the time of the 'energy crisis'). They also haven’t had any stock listed on the 990s for the past two years,

Right, and Halliburton was awarded the no bid contract on March 8, 2003.

Mike told the truth. Mike is innocent.

As if.

Fucking Neo-Cons.

Remember back when Cheney appeared on NBC's Meet the Press on Sept 14, 2003, and said, "And as vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government."

And remember when he was asked whether he had known about Halliburton's noncompetitive contract, and he said, "I don't know any of the details of the contract because I deliberately stayed away from any information on that."

Those statements were proven false by a June, 2004, article in Time Magazine entitled, "The Paper Trail: Did Cheney Okay a Deal?" As it turns out, Bush and Cheney both were informed that Halliburton would get the contract before it was awarded. Time quoted an email sent by the Army Corps of Engineers, that said the contract for construction of oil pipelines was approved by Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith "contingent on informing WH tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office."

This email totally contradicts Cheney's nationally televised assertion that he had no involvement in Halliburton's contracts whatsoever. It proved once and for all that Cheney and the White House had played a key role in making Cheney's ex-employer the number one war profiteer in Iraq.

The email was dated March 5, 2003, and Halliburton was awarded the contract three days later without any bids by other companies.

http://www.countercurrents.org/us-pringle160205.htm


Oh, and what is this evil foundation doing with its ill-gotten gains? Among others, contributing to St. John’s Parish Family Center, St. Martin de Porres Catholic Worker House, and the Fellowship Church Outreach Program.

The Halliburton story only shows how desperate the right is to constantly dig up dirt on those who speak against them. Yes, ma, this is only more swift-boat spin.

Tell the truth everywhere.

Fight the bastards.