So?

What is the problem?

What kind of question is that? Shouldn't the spouse/children be the ones to receive the funds from a life insurance policy taken out on someone?? But of course, someone who is selfish and greedy wouldn't care about something like that!

Ah, you get what you pay for! The family PAID ZIP, NADA, NOTHING in terms of premiums, so they get NOTHING. That is FAIR except in a welfare world.

The company paid the premiums so they get the payout. Get it amigo?

Take MJ - the company insured the tour, they get the money, not MJ.

Do not be stunned by ANYTHING coming out of the totally FICTICIOUS Moore crap films. Made by a stupid man for stupid people who cannot think on their own and believe anything Moore shoves at them. Moore films deliver more lies per minute than a Gore film or a Obama speech of Health Care.


[B][COLOR=#990030]Should a 400 lb man advise us on the evils of over-consumption?[/COLOR][/B]
Should the resident of a million-dollar apartment claim to be a poster boy of the working class?
[B]Should a person who thought that Enron was a great investment, that Ralph Nader, Wesley Clark and John Kerry would win, and that North Korea's Kim Jong was changing for the better, advise us on ANYTHING?[/B]Michael Moore is a paradox. A millionaire who boasts of wealth as proving his value -- "I'm a millionaire, I'm a multi-millionaire. I'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do. That's pretty good, isn't it?"

He lives in a million-dollar apartment, and boasts of that as well. "I walk among them. I live on the island of Manhattan, a three-mile-wide strip of land that is luxury home and corporate suite to America's elite..... Those who run your life live in my neighborhood. I walk in the streets with them each day" (Michael Moore, Stupid White Men, p. 51). For vacations, he keeps another million-dollar beachfront house in Michigan.

"[I][B]You would think that he's the ultimate common man. But he's money-obsessed," said one associate. [/B][/I]

He sends his child to a private school -- no sense associating with the working class -- and has some trouble associating with them himself. The New York Post reported on a tantrum he threw in London: "Then, on his second-to-last night, [Michael Moore] raged against everyone connected with the Roundhouse and complained that he was being paid a measly $750 a night. 'He completely lost the plot,' a member of the stage crew told the London Evening Standard. 'He stormed around all day screaming at everyone, even the 5 pound-an-hour bar staff, telling them how we were all con men and useless. Then he went on stage and did it in public.[I][B][COLOR=#990030]' At his last appearance, staffers refused to work or even open the theater's doors." NY Post, Jan. 8, 2003.[/COLOR][/B][/I]

He supplements his meager income with speaking tours. No more $750 gigs; on his 2004 pre-election tour he charged Utah Valley State College $40,000, Xavier $25,000, and University of New Mexico $35,000. Not bad for an hour or two's work.
Ah, the joys of capitalism....
One of his former associates summed him up: " You would think that he's the ultimate common man. But he's money-obsessed."

And ....
His major themes are his status as the spokesman of the working class, the evils of capitalism, and the selfishness of (all other) Americans.

It would be easy to denounce Moore as a hypocrite. Many conservatives denounce him as a leftist, when in fact the serious left, [U][I][B][COLOR=#990030]the thinking left, generally finds him appalling[/COLOR][/B][/I][/U]. He is the latest in the modern breed of Limosine Leftists -- individuals who, while personally they share the values of 19th century robber barons, find it flattering to adopt a thin veneer of leftism as a pose, in the same manner they pick a flattering hair style or gown. (A left-leaning critic of Moore summed up the situation very nicely: Moore's appeal lies in his giving wealthy, over-educated, whites an opportunity to laugh at working-class whites.)

But enough on Michael Moore as a person. Let's examine his output.

A consistent theme can be found throughout his work, and that is a theme of deception any time it is useful. Moore fixes upon a conclusion and, when the data do not exist, simply invents them.

Bowling for Columbine

A look at Bowling for Columbine (my main analysis to date). In producing his Oscar-winner, Moore altered history, misled his viewers, and edited the footage and audio in such a way as to reverse the meaning. In one case, [U][I][B][COLOR=#990030]he took a speech of a person he desired to target; the problem was that the speech was in fact conciliatory and mild. So he spliced in footage from another speech, cut out paragraphs, and spliced the beginning of one sentence to the ending of another.[/COLOR][/B][/I][/U] In another, when he wanted to criticize a political advertisement, but it wasn't as pointed as he wanted, he spliced together two different political ads, then added titling which was in neither.

Stupid White Men (ie. Moore)

A short review of his perhaps autobiographical Stupid White Men. Here we learn such shocking things as -- 200,000 Americans are dying of Mad Cow Disease and no one knows it; Bush secretly stole the election by having Florida bar convicted felons (which Moore maintains were great Gore supporters) from voting; Nader did the Demos a big favor by running in 2000; Enron is a great investment. Okay, Mike.

Dude, Where's My Country?

Another of his books --Dude, Where's My Country, (page still under construction.) In this tome we learn "There is no terrorist threat," (p. 95) and Richard Nixon was the last liberal President, (p. 193). (Even more amusingly, in chapter 8 Moore pledges to contribute the limit to whichever Democrat has the best chance of winning (p. 162) and then in chapter 11 tells the reader that the Democrats are "professional losers," that "Democratic Party leaders have told me something they will not admit in public -- that they have basically written off 2004; that they see little chance of defeating George W. Bush" (p. 204) and that they might as well run Oprah Winfrey. (p. 206).)

Fahrenheit 911

A page on Moore's planned Fahrenheit 911 (in preparation).

Musings on the Cult of Moore

A very deep question: Moore is unquestionably popular. Is this a clue as to an interesting but dangerous cultural/emotional development?

Some Notes on Moore's resume' -- a native of Flint? Not quite....

Does Moore have a few fan -- Osama bin Laden?

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11

By Dave Kopel



This report was first posted on the web on the morning of July 1. Since then, I've revised several sections in response to reader requests for clarifications, and have added additional deceits which have been pointed out by readers or journalists. As a result, the number of listed deceits has been raised from 56 to 59. As of October 2, 2004, there have been 1,036,219 page views of the full report.



Thanks to the readers who have written to point out additional deceits or to point out items which need clarification. Also thanks to the readers who have written in defense of Moore. Many such readers have been rational and civil. Moore's reasonable defenders have made two main points:



First, notwithstanding the specific falsehoods, isn't the film as a whole filled with many important truths?



Not really. We can divide the film into three major parts. The first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies. The second, shortest part involves domestic issues and the USA PATRIOT Act. So far, I've identified only one clear falsehood in this segment (Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number). So this part, at least arguably, presents useful information. The third part, on Iraq, has several outright falsehoods--such as the Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with al Qaeda. Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi casualties are innocents, nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation, all the American soldiers are disillusioned, except for the sadists) that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false.

As always, you missed the point. These companies did this without the consent of the individuals they chose to insure, the very least they should do is give at least a portion to the deceased person's spouse and/or children! Now that's FAIR in welfare and/or greedy world. Get it "amigo"?? MJ gave his consent and was well aware that a life insurance policy was taken out on him...is that the best example that you can provide?

You are the one who does not get it. The company insured and assett.

Ah, you get what you pay for! The family PAID ZIP, NADA, NOTHING in terms of premiums, so they get NOTHING. That is FAIR except in a welfare world.

The company paid the premiums so they get the payout. Get it amigo?

Moore may well be lying about his own financial dealings, but this form doesn't prove that the author of Downsize This! owns a single share of stock as part of his private holdings. The allegedly damning document isn't a list of Moore's assets-they're the assets of a tax-exempt foundation established and maintained by Moore and his wife Kathleen Glynn. As Schweizer explains inside the book, "The foundation allows them to donate funds tax free, make money on their investments, and give the proceeds to any cause they see fit." In other words, it's a vehicle to donate money to charitable causes and to roll up that money while it's idling. What it's not is money that Moore could use to buy groceries.

Granted, Moore does derive some indirect benefits from his bread and circuses routine. Schweizer studied the Fahrenheit 9/11 documentarian's charitable contributions and found a few interesting patterns. Apparently, Moore is indeed flinty, as in cheap. He routinely gives away just enough of the foundation's funds to satisfy the IRS's requirements to maintain its charitable status. Publicly, he likes to brag about the foundation's support for first-time filmmakers, women's shelters, soup kitchens, and similar causes. But the actual grants tend to be either mad money for friends or donations to organizations that advance Moore's interests.

In 2000 Moore gave $4,500 to the Film Society of Lincoln Center in New York and $1,000 to the Ann Arbor Film Festival. Both held events to promote his anti-gun documentary Bowling for Columbine. In 2002 he gave $25,000 to the American Library Association, a donation that Schweizer labels "particularly interesting given that Moore credits ALA members with getting HarperCollins to reconsider a decision to cancel his anti-Bush screed Stupid White Men after 9/11." Sometimes philanthropy can be very good for business.

Schweizer huffs that Moore's "hypocrisy runs so deep and the contradictions are so glaring that they border on the pathological." Here's a working-class Man from Flint who actually lives on a large estate on Michigan's Torch Lake and owns a penthouse in New York; a noisy advocate of affirmative action whose own hiring practices are bleached white; a populist down-home Midwesterner who makes millions providing Europeans and America's coastal elites with fuel for their anti-hick instincts. There's plenty of material for Schweizer. He doesn't need to add any exaggerated claims about Moore's assets.

Schweizer claims throughout the book that while accusations of hypocrisy are routinely leveled at conservatives, liberals tend to get a free pass. One can only wonder, Has the man ever listened to talk radio? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and hundreds of other right-wing squawkers all over the dial long ago incorporated criticism of liberal hypocrisy into their normal routines. Hypocrisy accusations are a staple not just of left-wing rhetoric but on the right as well. Turn on Fox News and listen to Fred Barnes or Bill O'Reilly damn those inconsistent liberals. A Google search at the end of last October for the joined terms "liberal" and "hypocrisy" produced 2,570,000 results.

Did you not hear the part of how, except for banks, it's done in secrecy? Did you not also hear how companies have taken a program designed to protect their losing "crucial" executives to a whole new low by finding loopholes to insure the average joe in the company, all without their knowledge? Sometimes I wonder where it is people recieve reality's sounds from. In your case it certainly cannot be the ears.