posted April 08, 2003 11:44 PM              

All my love
Jax

>My Oscar "Backlash": "Stupid White Men" Back At #1, "Bowling" Breaks New Records

>

>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 ackno

> wledge 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: Daily Variety/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

>www.michaelmoore.com

posted April 09, 2003 03:36 AM            

quote:

---

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.

---

posted May 31, 2003 03:44 PM            

Which part or parts of the articles about Michael Moore were untrue? Or does truth not matter?

posted June 03, 2003 12:32 PM              

Michael Moore AND the Dixie Chick criticize Bush and then their agents/label/production company, whatever, chews them out & forces them to apologize publicly...making them truly look like indecisive, confused, typical idiot celebrities trying to act like they can change the world

posted June 03, 2003 05:28 PM            

quote:

---

(snip)..Mikey (you sanctimonious bubble of pus)..(snip)

---

It was nothing but a buch of hurled insults. Have you read Moore's book, Stupid White Men ? I have. And I daresay that neither one of the authors of the two articles did either.

Yeah, MM may be somewhat hypocritical in the sense that he talkes about all this inequality based on money and such while living in a million dollar apartment but hey, he's only human. He made tons of money because his work resonated with alot of people and makes sense. He's not a saint. Few of us would walk away from buttloads of money being thrown at us. That seems to be the biggest argument used against Mike by the right, this contradiction of him being rich now while talking about the plight of the poor. That doesn't take away awhole lot from his message, for me personally. It might for some, but the guy lived much of his life poor, and he calls things as he sees them. For that I respect him. But he's not perfect.

Truth is all that matters.

posted June 03, 2003 07:01 PM            

"Fat, slovenly, left-wing radical big-mouth Michael Moore pontificated to a London audience that the victims of 9/11 on the hijacked planes were wimps and if only more bad-ass black gangstas had been on board … "If the passengers had included black men," he claimed, "those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes, who as we all know take no disrespect from anybody."

Notwithstanding Moore's myopic and inaccurate stereotyping, he seems to have overlooked the real hero passengers who DID attack the hijackers and aborted one of the terrorist missions with a Pyrric victory that cost them their lives."

"Talk about racist bovine excrement! Classic double standard liberal claptrap. Can you imagine if Clarence Thomas or J.C. Watts had even suggested anything so outrageous? ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, CNN NewYorkTimes, WashingtonPost et al. would flog the outrage for a month. However, when a left-wing radical darling pukes racist, stereotypical falsehoods, he gets a pass? It is sufficiently reprehensible to gag maggots."

And you're right, Michael Moore is a major league hypocrite. But you won't get agreement from me that he makes "sense", not by any tortured twisting of the definition of the word.

posted June 05, 2003 04:04 PM              

I've been reading these "Global Unity"
posts for weeks now, enjoying the controversy, but also wondering how jwhop can continue criticizing people for hurling insults when that seems to be his/her greatest talent - using the tactic of insult to malign and criticize all who do not agree or choose to think in a different direction. I've been looking back over recent posts, and I'm really not sure how this sort of disrespectful attitude is allowed to continue on what is supposed to be a loving and peaceful site.

I've met this sort of adversary before, so I know I'm probably next on the list for attack. I don't mean this as a personal slight, jwhop, I'm just trying to understand and also to let you know that some of the things you say are hurtful to me because they debase and dismiss as irrational points of view I strongly believe in. Perhaps there is a way you can state your strong opinions without negating or insulting the thoughts of others.

Not to offend you further, but I truly wonder why you are on Linda's site, especially because she was extremely "conspiracy-minded" herself and in tune with all sorts of things your posts would lead me to believe you disdain.

Whew - just had to get that off my chest, jwhop. Anyway, I enjoy hearing both sides, but after all this time I had to write today because that link bashing Michael Moore had a link of its own - to support the president by buying that "deck of cards" and other pro-Bush paraphernalia. Of course they are bashing Michael Moore! How funny.

posted June 07, 2003 12:57 AM            

Hurling insults seems to be the only thing the left has left---no pun intended. Point after point, their allegations have been proven false. Conspiracy theories abound but where's the proof?

Politics is a rough and tumble affair. Perhaps you should stay out of the fray if you can't back up what you think or say. It's easy for me to prove Michael Moore is a hypocrite. His own actions belie what he preaches. Here's a man supposedly championing the cause of the so called common man/woman who doesn't live on their level but hurls his insults from a penthouse and sends his child to an exclusive private school. Public school is for the commoners don't you see and not good enough for Moore's child, but Moore would be aghast at school vouchers so every child could receive a quality education. Michael Moore is a common fraud. His public antics are geared to making him money while at the same time pulling the wool over the eyes of those who think with their emotions, those who have forsaken reason and logic.

I admit, I hate hypocrisy. Michael Moore goes to the top of the list, along with those who claim they are antiwar but who stood by when Clinton bombed Iraq and the Balkans and never uttered a peep of dissent. There are no greater hypocrites than those who practice situational ethics, situational morality or situational spirituality.

As for why I'm here, I'm here because I choose to be and that's reason enough. Linda Goodman was an Aries and a realist. I think she hated hypocrisy as much as I do and I admired her very much. In any event, I don't have to justify my presence here to you. I also think you very much are opposed to hearing both sides of issues and gravitate towards those who validate your conspiracy view of world events. It's the leftists among us who can't stand dissent, be it in the Universities, political parties, the press or Hollywood, they are hell bent to shut those up who disagree with them because the leftist view can't stand scrutiny and crumbles under any logical examination. On the other hand, I welcome opposing viewpoints, just don't try coming at me with emotional arguments or outright lies.

True, Michael Moore is on one of the cards in the deck of Weasels, an honor he richly deserves.
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/5/13/111356

In summery, there are those who are easily led by pressing their hot buttons. I'm not one of those. It takes facts to sway my opinion, facts, the basic ingredient the leftists in our society are lacking.

Now, let me compliment you on your sentence structure, punctuation and syntax. Seldom do I see someone from, say Korea with such a command of the English language. Of course, I am a little puzzled that you claim to be from Korea, a nation that doesn't exist. People living on the Korean peninsula almost always know they live in North Korea or South Korea but never in Seoul Korea. You see, it's Seoul, South Korea. Yikes, indeed!

jwhop

posted June 09, 2003 01:11 AM            

I've had political discussions on other sites that were intended to be reasoned and focused on issues. At some point, those on the other side resorted to personal attacks on the person under discussion or author of the particular policy being discussed. I can play it either way.

I didn't mean to suggest you don't have the perfect right to discuss your opinions, here or anyplace else. You had indicated some of what I said hurt your feelings. It's not my intention to be dismissive of people or their ideas. I know what I think and why I think it. Seems everyone should have some factual information supporting their positions or it mostly winds up being what someone else says or thinks and is subject to all the misinformation and outright lies spread all over the Internet.

I never said the Friends of Bill list indicated Bill had people killed. What I said is that there's a very high "suicide" index amongst the "Friends of Bill" and a lot of dead people connected to him in one way or the other.

So, do you have anything in particular you want to discuss?

posted June 10, 2003 01:33 PM            

His other claim to fame was once winning about $10,000 on Wheel of Fortune!

posted June 10, 2003 10:58 PM            

Dr. Alan Lichtman, is he the one who proved bumblebees couldn't fly and curve balls don't really curve but are optical illusions? He sounds like a real joy. History is only alive because there are those who for what ever reason, having nothing to do with reality, attempt to twist it to suit their preconceived ideas with constant revisionism. Which is not to say that as new factual information becomes available that disproves old theories, it shouldn't be. What I object to is so called academics looking at the same factual data and putting their own spin on it to prove some pet theory, usually political. Most American universities are very liberal.

Well, I guess winning 10K on Wheel of Fortune is one way to establish intellectual credentials

I don't consider myself an astrologer trillian. There are some really good astrologers on the site but I'm not one of them. Sometimes a question will be asked that isn't responded to and I take a shot at it.