Michael Moore profits from company he attacked
"I don't own a single share of stock!" filmmaker Michael Moore proudly proclaimed.Hmmm, I may just want to check this out, and see for myself just how much of a hypocrite Moore really is. If he thinks he's going to stop Halliburton by investing in their stock, boy is he mistaken.
He's right. He doesn't own a single share. He owns tens of thousands of shares – including nearly 2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 of Sonoco, more than 4,000 of Best Foods, more than 3,000 of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 of Bank One and more than 2,000 of Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in "Fahrenheit 9/11."
If you want to see Moore's own signed Schedule D declaring his capital gains and losses where his stock ownership is listed, it's emblazoned on the cover of Peter Schweizer's new book, "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy."
And Moore's not the only one here who's eye-popping: just look at the following revelation on Noam Chomsky, overlord of anti-Americanism from the inside:
Noam Chomsky has made a reputation for calling America a police state and branding the Pentagon "the most hideous institution on earth," yet his entire academic career, writes Schweizer, has been subsidized by the U.S. military.Oh...my...god.
Plus, Ralph Nader:
Ralph Nader plays the role of the citizen avenger – the populist uninterested in wealth and materialism, pretending to live in a modest apartment. In fact, he lives in fancy homes registered in the names of his siblings.And he's probably got a nice big jacuzzi to boot.
Bizzy Blog's got even more on the subject that's also highly recommended for reading.
Update: Right-Wing of the Gods has a review of the book that's also very good.
Update 2: I'm also posting something I'd found earlier: In a most utterly and arbitrarily biased review of Fahrenheit 9-11, published in the ultra-establishment Durham Independant of South Carolina, a film critic who may be of British descent says this at the end of the article:
"Two words are blazingly missing from Moore's analysis: ideology and Israel. It's impossible, of course, to understand the war on Iraq without examining the plans for it that were drawn up during the 1990s by a small group of mostly Likud-connected U.S. ideologues, now identified as neoconservatives, whose motives included assisting Israel's territorial ambitions and continued subjugation of the Palestinians. But I must give Moore the benefit of the doubt here. I'm sure he knows the history alluded to, but also knows that he stands to lose out if he alienates too much of his core audience (Democrats, Hollywood and media types, Israel backers, etc.) while reaching toward those crucial undecideds."Moore is actually lucky that he didn't go any farther than he already did, and as much as I find him deplorable, it's a real pity that the man who reviewed this documentary, Godfrey Cheshire, wants him to go even farther by villifying a political movement whose idealistics he doesn't agree with.
Most laughable about this is how oblivious Cheshire is to the fact that Ariel Sharon currently goes out of his way to please the viewpoints and desires of people of Cheshire's standing, by making concessions to the PLO, endangering Israel's security in the process, yet Cheshire shows no gratitude in return. What's the whole point in writing that stuff in his review if he's not going to be grateful to this or that person for doing what he so desires?
For the record, here's an interesting reply they got in the mail to Mr. Cheshire's little bias:
"Mr. Cheshire writes in his review of Fahrenheit 9/11 that Mr. Moore fails to examine the plans for the Iraq war drawn up by "a small group of mostly Likud-connected U.S. idealogues [...] whose motives included assisting Israel's territorial ambitions and continued subjugation of the Palestinians." Mr. Cheshire should know that the plan originally was created for and submitted to Benjamin Netanyahu, the head of Likud and at that time the prime minister of Israel. The plan was rejected by the Netanyahu government. So, the Israelis clearly did not view the plan as one which would be of benefit to them. Mr. Cheshire needs to look elsewhere to discover the connection between Israel and the adoption of the neoconservative's plan by the Bush administration: their fundamentalist Christian Zionist views, for example."You can be quite certain that, given the chance, Mr. Cheshire would turn against even the Christian Zionist Congress too, and doubtless he'd see even them as being an "obstacle to peace". Go figure.
For the record, here's one more reply to the article:
The following is a direct quote from Godfrey Cheshire's article ("Moore to the Point") in the June 23, 2004, issue of the Independent Weekly: "Two words are blazingly missing from Moore's analysis: ideology and Israel. It's impossible, of course, to understand the war on Iraq without examining the plans for it that were drawn up during the 1990s by a small group of mostly Likud-connected U.S. ideologues, now identified as neoconservatives, whose motives included assisting Israel's territorial ambitions and continued subjugation of the Palestinians."When reading that article from the Durham Independant, that's what I too am wondering.
And here is a direct quote by Malaysia's prime minister in October 2003 (find it yourself at this site:): "The Europeans killed six million Jews out of twelve million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them."These comments sound rather similar to me. I suspect I could also find similar statements in publications by the Ku Klux Klan. I believe Mr. Cheshire is one of your regular contributors. Is this your paper's official position, then?
Others on the subject include Media Lies, Below the Beltway, Ed Driscoll, The Llama Butchers, Moonbat Central.