Wow! I have never been a fan of Michael Moore, but you made some damned good points here! I actually read...and was INTERESTED IN what you had to say! Thanks.
Thomas
***
I’m in love with you and I don’t even know who the hell you are. Far as I know, you are also a big fat tub o’ lard. But who cares…you hate Moron and so do I.
You can call me Loop.
Lupi
***
What really bothers conservatives is that Moore uses Fox News techniques without proper attribution. With a different bend and a few more pounds he could compete with Rush Limbaugh.
Dale
***
I think it's pretty small immature of you to pick on someone for being fat. if you want to make a point about someone work you should keep it about the work not their size, you might as well go after people races or their gender to make fun of them. you shouldn't allowed to write articles anymore for anyone, because that's pretty low and immature.
Jason
***
How lucky for you that they let a person with such small mindedness write a published article! Congratulations on fooling your editors.
Good thing you have your health insurance - you may want to check on your mental health however as that seems to be lacking. Michael Moore will most likely never read your rants. Fortunately he will, however, continue to be recognized as the intelligent thought provoking film maker he is.
Again, congratulations on your luck to have fooled the few, so that you can benfit and apparantly not be concerned about the millions of americans that do not share the same benefits. Too bad for them- eh?
I guess all you can come up with is his size. Too bad for you that your intelligence isn't also as large.
Caroline
***
Next documentary should be a doc on Michael Moore himself.. "Sucko"
RT
***
I disagree. Some people may go on their merry way but others are doing something about the healthcare crisis.
Ernie
***
I agree with your assessment of American apathy. I wonder what could possibly be done when corporations have highly educated specialists constantly inventing new ways to exploit basic human weaknesses for profit. A $35 charge for sending in my $50 credit card payment one hour late? Leasing me a car that I can't afford for a payment that is half the normal payment? Charging thousands per year for health insurance and then giving me a few hundred back in $25 prescriptions? Selling houses on 30 year mortgages or balloon notes or interest-only notes where the interest is stated as %7.5 interest but actually amounts to 75% of the purchase price of the home, with the interest, of course, 100% front-loaded?
I have often wondered why we can't simplify health insurance and just pay a flat rate based on cost, after taking away all of the bamboozling, deductibles, drug plans, stop-losses, etc. Answer? The fat cats wouldn't get nearly as rich nearly as fast. The smart ones and unscrupulous ones will always take advantage of the sheep. There's no stopping it. Caveat emptor.
Thanks for keeping the discourse honest.
John
***
Thanks for the article. It's going in my save file to share with my students when we discuss what's wrong with critical thinking in our culture. It doesn't matter that you are pro-Moore, or pro-anything, but that you are guilty of the very thing you are critical of in your opposition: name-calling. The truth is, there are very good arguments on both sides of the Michael Moore issue, but you can't rise above insults.
So I'm left wondering ... did you intend to become the worst version of your opposition, or was it an accident? Further, don't you think you could better serve your readership by addresssing the more intelligent points of the debate, and not some conversation that exists somewhere in the basements of your imagination where no one outside your circle of friends has an IQ higher than a very bright toaster?
Just wondering.
Scott
***
The author seems to be, almost accidentally, exposing an interesting sub-plot that undergirds the critical response to Michael Moore films:
That because the American public will ignore inciteful commentary if distracted by poop, fart, and fat jokes such jokes become an easy way for those in control to distract from public outrage at the subjects of Moore's films. The old (paraphrased) adage that Democracy is as meaningful as its citizens are committed to being informed applies in spades here. Ad-Hominem attacks trump substance in our current culture (see Kerry v Bush). Of course its sad, that while noting this, the author of the piece seems to keep up the attack on Moore being fat (which is sad given that Moore has lost a decent amount of weight since the movie was made using a new excercise regime etc).
The larger problem is that the author is moore or less incorrect. The anecdotal evidence that seeing the movie sparked action instead of apathy is pretty strong and has been reported in many places like the New York Times:
I know after I saw the movie I called my Father, a health care expert, to get him to watch the movie and see what he thought (for instance).
I also think Moore has been pretty open in stating that his hope is to induce citizens to "take back government" through his movies. While this has happened at different levels with his different films, the evidence that many Presidential Candidates and Congresspeople want an overhaul of the health care system is fairly overwhelming at the moment.
Finally, I think that the author makes a TON of unsubstantiated claims about the content of Moore's film. Snide asides like:
"Skewed agenda, biased whimsy, and crafty editing aside...."
Seem to apply equally to this author's oddly critical homage to Moore.
Maybe time for your writer to go on the lower ad-hominem diet as well perhaps?
It said..."And the best thing we can do as a people is to wake up and realize it. Self-delusion and benighted dogmatism serve no one well."
Well, I didn't become disillusioned. I became fed up. I was researching New Zealand to see what occupation I could become involved with there. But now that Ron Paul in on the scene, I'm thinking of staying. I may be able to face my european friends and say, "But I'm for Ron Paul." Maybe they will stop laughing. I'm becoming involved now. And judging from my past political involvement with this "cart before the horse" empire, as Jeb Puryer puts it, things are going to change.
Allan
***
Excellent article!
Keep it up.
Jason
***
Thank God there are more people in the media showing they have a brain and the ability to reason.
Jack
***
I'm an african-american who's firmly in support of Ron Paul's campaign for president in '08. I have known about Ron Paul for many years and while he holds some positions that blacks may find offensive (eliminating social programs) he's the last best hope for America.
As the founder of an church based on a theology of liberation, it has been my assertion that our government has done the most to keep blacks and others 'in our place' than any private organization or citizen. Due to stupid business regulations, faux health codes, costly licenses, etc., if I wanted to open a simple hot-dog stand to make a living for my family, there's simply too many hoops to jump through for it to be worthwhile or economically viable.
My only regret about a Ron Paul presidency is that we don't have enough local and state people that believe as he does. When any non-harmful business or social organization has to kowtow to the government, every black person is affected. We've watched at America devolved from a nation of entrepreneurs to a land of subsidized beggars. As a black man and an American, Ron Paul would leave me better off and more free. Racist or not (and I don't believe that he is) any man that will leave me and my property alone deserves my vote. After all, whether Demopublican or Republicrat, the only options left are big government, more control, less personal resources and a possible nuclear war. Thank you for allowing me to respond.
Mark
***
You got it. It is worth something, my vote and my money.
Thanks for bringing some sanity.
Another American Citizen for Ron Paul.
Valerie
***
Good column about Ron Paul. Almost perfect.
Dr. Paul was not a surgeon in the Air Force, he was a Flight Surgeon. It's one of those military terms that mislead; a flight surgeon merely cares for the pilots and their families, as a general practitioner. No real surgery is involved.
But your column was probably the best about Ron Paul I've yet seen.
