Will You Help Me With My Next Film? ...a request from Michael Moore

[jaqeboy]

February 11, 2009

Friends,

I am in the middle of shooting my next movie and I am looking for a few brave people who work on Wall Street or in the financial industry to come forward and share with me what they know. Based on those who have already contacted me, I believe there are a number of you who know "the real deal" about the abuses that have been happening. You have information that the American people need to hear. I am humbly asking you for a moment of courage, to be a hero and help me expose the biggest swindle in American history.

All correspondence with me will be kept confidential. Your identity will be protected and you will decide to what extent you wish to participate in telling the greatest crime story ever told.

The important thing here is for you to step up as an American and do your duty of shedding some light on this financial collapse. A few good people have already come forward, which leads me to believe there are many more of you out there who know what's going on. Here's your chance to let your fellow citizens in on the truth.

If you have any info that would help, please contact me at my private email address: bailout@michaelmoore.com.

For the rest of you on my email list who don't work in the financial industry, you're probably wondering, "What the heck is this all about? I thought he said he was making a romantic comedy!"

Well, I just can't say much right now. I'm sure you can understand why. One thing I can tell you is that you're gonna like this movie when I'm done with it. Oh, yeah...

So, again, if you work for a bank, a brokerage firm or an insurance company -- or if you have seen things or heard things that you believe the American people have a right to know -- please contact me at bailout@michaelmoore.com.

Thank you in advance for your help!

Yours,
Michael Moore
bailout@michaelmoore.com
MichaelMoore.com

[D Stewart]

Typical.  Instead of going after the politicians and government entities which pushed, cajoled, manipulated, threatened and required these companies into making bad decisions, he goes after the businesses.  We used to have a simpler mechanism to go after bad businesses, it was called bankruptcy.

[Russell Kanning]

those businesses are evil .... they give themselves money and then take it from the government, who steals it from people.

I think I might enjoy this movie.

[D Stewart]

But I don't get the impression that he is seeking to make a film about the evils of the government making this money available.  Rather, he says "shedding some light on this financial collapse" which suggests that he is going after all of the financial industry, not just the (admittedly large) segment which chose to benefit directly from the bailout funds.

As to the ones which did take money, it's certainly not a great way to behave, but I haven't seen their shareholders calling extraordinary meetings and demanding that they not take the money.  And most of the folks who have chosen to invest in these firms cannot pretend not to have known the character and caliber of the employees and directors of the firms.

I don't deny that the issues are way more complicated than that, and there is plenty of blame to go around.  But it sure sounds like Michael Moore wants to concentrate his vitriol on those "capitalist pigs" and not on the socialist/fascist/communist government that, depending on your outlook, either caused the crisis or enabled it to come to pass.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Yes, except when he can fuck over Bush.

[Sam A. Robrin]

He's not going to go after the government, because he and his ilk are salivating at the prospect of one day taking it over.

[Lloyd Danforth]

One Day?

[J’raxis 270145]

The problem with most Michael Moore movies is that they reveal legitimate problems, yet then present rabidly statists solutions as the answer. Sorry, I'm not going to help him gather data that he can misrepresent as "failures of the free market" or somesuch, and then use to push socialized <whatever> on us.

[Sam A. Robrin]

Gilbert K. Chesterton said that reformers (as they were then called) are almost always right about what is wrong, and almost always wrong about what is right.

[Lloyd Danforth]

I've read a lot of his fiction.  "The film made in 1956 from his novel "The Man Who Knew Too Much" was a real chiller.  I didn't know about his political stuff.

[dalebert]

The problem with most Michael Moore movies is that they reveal legitimate problems, yet then present rabidly statists solutions as the answer. Sorry, I'm not going to help him gather data that he can misrepresent as "failures of the free market" or somesuch, and then use to push socialized <whatever> on us.

Yeah, that's my impression too. It's far too easy to find problems and reveal them. Throw in a little bit of hard truth along with the B.S. and people will eat it up. It's kind of like people who know just a little bit of science and it's just enough to be easily misled. The HHO people take advantage of the fact that water can be split into O2 and H2, both of which are flammable. Many people know that, but they don't necessarily understand the chemistry enough to realize that you can only get back the energy you put in to split it in the first place, minus losses for inefficiency.

[ColdSoul]

The problem with most Michael Moore movies is that they reveal legitimate problems, yet then present rabidly statists solutions as the answer. Sorry, I'm not going to help him gather data that he can misrepresent as "failures of the free market" or somesuch, and then use to push socialized <whatever> on us.

Yeah, that's my impression too. It's far too easy to find problems and reveal them. Throw in a little bit of hard truth along with the B.S. and people will eat it up. It's kind of like people who know just a little bit of science and it's just enough to be easily misled. The HHO people take advantage of the fact that water can be split into O2 and H2, both of which are flammable. Many people know that, but they don't necessarily understand the chemistry enough to realize that you can only get back the energy you put in to split it in the first place, minus losses for inefficiency.

One of my friend in California was a hard-core HHO go, he and his dad are working on making a machine to turn water into HHO and I got into many many debated with him about just what you said. Of course he continued to think that he was right, and that there was a way to use less energy to split the Hydrogen and the Oxygen, and basically I told him I didn't want to hear anymore about it and that I would ignore him anytime he started talking about it and we had a big fight.

About the MM movie, I agree he is just going to use it to "push the socialist agenda". His most recent movie about the medical industry got me sick to my stomach. The reason being that he refused to show the other side of the socialized medical care. He only showed everyone getting timely service, not being denied any service, and that "everything is free" and look they even give you money for your transportation fee's to get here.

Of course he didn't spend 1 minute of time talking about the long lines in England, the people who are refused treatment due to being to old, the doctors who leave the socialized medical countries and move to places where they can run there own business, the mountains of paperwork that is required to comply with the "free medical care" and thus increasing the costs, the dr's who went to the streets to protest there low wages in the socialized medicine field, or even how in Canada it can take weeks or months to get a MRI for you or I but you can get one for your dog or cat the same day. All because of socialized medicine.

But according to MM if we had socialized medicine the world would be a much better place and everyone would get care and the money would just appear out of no-where, and not be force-ably taken from peoples checks, and pockets.

My friend (the HHO guy) of course is completely for free medical care for some reason and we also disagreed on this point. I even told him about many of the points I listed above but he seemed to think that even if we had medical care for everyone in the US, paid for by the government that it would work out because he thinks people need health care.

And of course once you get the socialized medical care then the government has even more reasons to step in and control your life. Like monitoring your body weight, fate, etc. Monitoring and controlling what you eat because you will increase there health care costs, etc.

It's really strange because my friend is very much for the freedom in most circumstances, but of course he is more into the NWO thing.

[BillKauffman]

I've read a lot of his fiction.  "The film made in 1956 from his novel "The Man Who Knew Too Much" was a real chiller.  I didn't know about his political stuff.

Chesterton is the "father" of an economic philosophy called "distributism" which is based on catholic social doctrine from the Pope's encyclics (letters to the laypeople). It is a critique of both state socialism and state capitalism proposing instead a third way of widely "distributed" property. It is fairly closely aligned with mutualism (free market, anti-capitalism) and geo-libertarianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

excerpt:

Distributism, also known as distributionism and distributivism, is a third-way economic philosophy formulated by such Roman Catholic thinkers as G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc to apply the principles of Catholic Social Teaching articulated by the Roman Catholic Church, especially in Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum and more expansively explained by Pope Pius XI's encyclical Quadragesimo Anno. According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (indirect socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton's statement: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists."

Essentially, distributism distinguishes itself by its distribution of property (not to be confused with redistribution of capital that would be carried out by most socialist ideologies). Distributism holds that, while socialism allows no individuals to own productive property (it all being under state, community, or workers' control), and capitalism allows only a few to own it, distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property. As Hilaire Belloc stated, the distributive state (that is, the state which has implemented distributism) contains "an agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greater number of owners of the means of production." This broader distribution does not extend to all property, but only to productive property; that is, that property which produces wealth, namely, the things needed for man to survive. It includes land, tools, etc.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

My friend (the HHO guy) of course is completely for free medical care for some reason and we also disagreed on this point. I even told him about many of the points I listed above but he seemed to think that even if we had medical care for everyone in the US, paid for by the government that it would work out because he thinks people need health care.

And of course once you get the socialized medical care then the government has even more reasons to step in and control your life. Like monitoring your body weight, fate, etc. Monitoring and controlling what you eat because you will increase there health care costs, etc.

It's really strange because my friend is very much for the freedom in most circumstances, but of course he is more into the NWO thing.

You should have him watch Stossel's Sick in America.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I&feature=channel_page

[ColdSoul]

My friend (the HHO guy) of course is completely for free medical care for some reason and we also disagreed on this point. I even told him about many of the points I listed above but he seemed to think that even if we had medical care for everyone in the US, paid for by the government that it would work out because he thinks people need health care.

And of course once you get the socialized medical care then the government has even more reasons to step in and control your life. Like monitoring your body weight, fate, etc. Monitoring and controlling what you eat because you will increase there health care costs, etc.

It's really strange because my friend is very much for the freedom in most circumstances, but of course he is more into the NWO thing.

You should have him watch Stossel's Sick in America.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I&feature=channel_page

I think I did, but I think he mostly ignored it and started playing a video game or something, it's hard to remember but I just know it didn't change his point of view.