Quantcast

Michael Moore is a big, fat capitalist

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
:p

Michael Moore Owned Halliburton, Defense Stocks
Jim Meyers
Friday, Nov. 4, 2005


Filmmaker Michael Moore has made a career out of trashing corporations and said he doesn't own any stocks due to moral principle.

How then did author Peter Schweizer uncover IRS documents showing that Moore's very own foundation has bought stocks in some of America's largest corporations – including Halliburton, other defense contractors and some of the same companies he has attacked?

his blockbuster new book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," Hoover Fellow Schweizer reveals the glaring contradictions between the public stances and real-life behavior of prominent liberals including Al Franken, Ralph Nader, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.

But he reserves some of his sharpest barbs for Moore.

In his first documentary "Roger & Me," Moore skewered General Motors, Schweizer points out.

In "The Big One," he went after Nike and PayDay candy bars.

"Bowling for Columbine" was an attack on the American gun industry.

Oil companies played a major role in "Fahrenheit 911."

His upcoming film "Sicko" pillories drug companies and HMOs.

On his television shows "TV Nation" and "The Awful Truth," he criticized HMOs and defense contractors.

He once said that major defense contractor Halliburton was run by a bunch of "thugs," and suggested that for every American killed in the Iraq war, "I would like Halliburton to slay one mid-level executive."

Publicly, Moore has claimed he wants no part of these companies and won't own stock.

In his book "Stupid White Men," he wrote: "I don't own a single share of stock."

He repeated the claim in a 1997 letter to the online magazine Salon, saying: "I don't own any stock."

Privately, however, he tells the IRS a different story, Schweizer discloses in his book.

The year that Moore claimed in "Stupid White Men" that he didn't own any stock, he told the IRS that a foundation totally controlled by Moore and his wife had more than $280,000 in corporate stock and nearly $100,000 in corporate bonds.

Over the past five years, Moore's holdings have "included such evil pharmaceutical and medical companies as Pfizer, Merck, Genzyme, Elan PLC, Eli Lilly, Becton Dickinson and Boston Scientific," writes Schweizer, whose earlier works include "The Bushes" and "Reagan's War."

"Moore's supposedly nonexistent portfolio also includes big bad energy giants like Sunoco, Noble Energy, Schlumberger, Williams Companies, Transocean Sedco Forex and Anadarko, all firms that 'deplete irreplaceable fossil fuels in the name of profit' as he put it in ‘Dude, Where's My Country?'

"And in perhaps the ultimate irony, he also has owned shares in Halliburton. According to IRS filings, Moore sold Halliburton for a 15 percent profit and bought shares in Noble, Ford, General Electric (another defense contractor), AOL Time Warner (evil corporate media) and McDonald's.

"Also on Moore's investment menu: defense contractors Honeywell, Boeing and Loral."

Does Moore share the stock proceeds of his "foundation" with charitable causes, you might ask?

Schweizer found that "for a man who by 2002 had a net worth in eight figures, he gave away a modest $36,000 through the foundation, much of it to his friends in the film business or tony cultural organizations that later provided him with venues to promote his books and film."

Moore's hypocrisy doesn't end with his financial holdings.

He has criticized the journalism industry and Hollywood for their lack of African-Americans in prominent positions, and in 1998 he said he personally wanted to hire minorities "who come from the working class."

In "Stupid White Men," he proclaimed his plans to "hire only black people."

But when Schweizer checked the senior credits for Moore's latest film "Fahrenheit 911," he found that of the movie's 14 producers, three editors, production manager and production coordinator, all 19 were white. So were all three cameramen and the two people who did the original music.

On "Bowling for Columbine," 13 of the 14 producers were white, as were the two executives in charge of production, the cameramen, the film editor and the music composer.

His show "TV Nation" had 13 producers, four film editors and 10 writers – but not a single African-American among them.

And as for Moore's insistence on portraying himself as "working class" and an "average Joe," Schweizer recounts this anecdote:

"When Moore flew to London to visit people at the BBC or promote a film, he took the Concorde and stayed at the Ritz. But he also allegedly booked a room at a cheap hotel down the street where he could meet with journalists and pose as a ‘man of humble circumstances.'"
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
I ask because I used to work for a charity that was questioned over its holding of stock in weapons manufacturing companies - the charity was bound by UK law which ruled that it had to invest in areas of maximum return to retain its charitable status.
 

Tenchiro

Attention K Mart Shoppers
Jul 19, 2002
5,407
0
New England
I view Michael Moore in the same light as Rush Limbaugh. They are both self serving, one sided propagandists.
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,965
35
Echo said:
Liberals view Michael Moore much like conservatives view N8, it seems :D
Actually N8 does more to unite liberals than Moore does.

Thanks N8!
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,411
0
SF
Tenchiro said:
I view Michael Moore in the same light as Rush Limbaugh. They are both self serving, one sided propagandists.
1. I have seen Michael Moore's interviews, and they are from the common man perspective. Limbaugh is either on the radio or on the paid talk circuit.

2. People don't always handle their own stock trades. I am curious to know if he bought Halliburton stock or the money manager had.
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,965
35
sanjuro said:
2. People don't always handle their own stock trades. I am curious to know if he bought Halliburton stock or the money manager had.
You pick your stocks by proxy by picking your broker. He should have known to dig a little into what he was buying if this was the case.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
H8R said:
You pick your stocks by proxy by picking your broker. He should have known to dig a little into what he was buying if this was the case.
The situation can be more complicated than that. I noticed that there was very little (in fact no) information in the article about Michael Moore's foundation, a common tactic when seeking to push an agenda (and one Moore uses too).
 

rooftest

Monkey
Jul 10, 2005
612
0
OC, CA
sanjuro said:
2. People don't always handle their own stock trades. I am curious to know if he bought Halliburton stock or the money manager had.
If he only has $280,000 in stocks and gave a broker discretionary authority, he's a frickin' moron.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
29,198
2,895
fluff said:
The situation can be more complicated than that. I noticed that there was very little (in fact no) information in the article about Michael Moore's foundation, a common tactic when seeking to push an agenda (and one Moore uses too).
:stupid:
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
10,408
455
chez moi
Moore doesn't own the stocks....his foundation does. So he doesn't own stocks like Clinton didn't have sex and like the Bush administration never intended to connect Saddam Hussein with 9/11 in the public consciousness.

Moore rides a razor's edge to keep his nose technically clean on a lot of issues, just like the rest of the world's hypocrites.

Most of what he says/publishes/films is drivel on its own merits (or complete lack thereof...). Stuff like this is kind of window-dressing.

Sanjuro, if by 'common man perspective' you mean 'populist demagoguery,' you're right on the mark.

MD

Edit: By the way, I'm sure, if pressed, he'd consider making money off the stock market a form of righteous 'bleeding of the beast' (to use the term anti-American Mormon fundamentalists employ as they apply for welfare and other benefits from the gov't while hoping and working for its downfall and flouting our laws) in which he's turning the evil corporations' money against them. He's concerned about transient image...he knows his listening populace is the easily swayed, forgetful, non-analytical masses, so consistency doesn't matter if you've got a good line for the moment. (Sound like anyone else you know?)
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
24,352
3,381
In my pants
MikeD said:
Moore rides a razor's edge to keep his nose technically clean on a lot of issues, just like the rest of the world's hypocrites.
Yeah you'd think the self proclaimed voice de resistance would be a little more careful. Even though the stocks aren't in his name it leaves him open to this kind of stuff.

Remember the disney release letter where he tried to make it sound like he was being censored?:monkey:
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,411
0
SF
MikeD said:
Sanjuro, if by 'common man perspective' you mean 'populist demagoguery,' you're right on the mark.

Edit: By the way, I'm sure, if pressed, he'd consider making money off the stock market a form of righteous 'bleeding of the beast' (to use the term anti-American Mormon fundamentalists employ as they apply for welfare and other benefits from the gov't while hoping and working for its downfall and flouting our laws) in which he's turning the evil corporations' money against them. He's concerned about transient image...he knows his listening populace is the easily swayed, forgetful, non-analytical masses, so consistency doesn't matter if you've got a good line for the moment. (Sound like anyone else you know?)
Well, I have to admit Moore is not everyone's cup of tea. I saw his movies, and they made me think. Am I part of the "easily swayed, forgetful, non-analytical masses"? I guess so.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
10,408
455
chez moi
sanjuro said:
Well, I have to admit Moore is not everyone's cup of tea. I saw his movies, and they made me think. Am I part of the "easily swayed, forgetful, non-analytical masses"? I guess so.
Obviously, just seeing his movies doesn't make you a moron...heck, I wouldn't feel confortable smearing them if I hadn't seen them myself. (Then again, maybe my own pseudo-intellect isn't a good standard to measure by...I've been thought a moron or worse by lots of people most of my life.)

Hell, I went eagerly to Bowling for Columbine (my first Moore experience), expecting to see solid documentary, based on his reputation...I just left feeling insulted, swindled and slightly dirty. Been through the 'why' of that on at least 5 threads here, so I won't get into the details. (Most of the threads ended up deleted; I know my original thread, which doesn't contain my most refined thoughts on the issue, honed through subsequent months of argument, still exists...)

I've said many times, too, that the "Well, it made me think" response I hear from people who refuse to acknowledge or criticize the massive and obvious hype of emotion to trump any coherence in his films is disturbing and sad. Lots of things make us think; you should think with or without his movies. If, however, you're thinking during them (at least the two I've seen), you're likely to end up disappointed at best and angry at worst. And this isn't because of his views or conclusions...it's because of his methods. I hate them as cinema and I hate them as hypocrisy and I hate them as facile propoganda of the lowest order masquerading as insight...I don't hate them as politics per se or because of the opinions he holds in and of themselves.

MD
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,846
0
Orange County, CA
MikeD said:
And this isn't because of his views or conclusions...it's because of his methods. I hate them as cinema and I hate them as hypocrisy and I hate them as facile propoganda of the lowest order masquerading as insight...I don't hate them as politics per se or because of the opinions he holds in and of themselves.

MD
Agreed, with what was above as well.

One problem I can't get around though: If you use methods that are sane, sober, and rational (like write a well cited book) you simply get ignored.

That leaves a huge void for Moore and Coulter and Chomsky and every right wing Christian lawyer (I couldn't think of an appropriate right wing intellectual. Hugh Hewitt and his ilk will have to stand in. This is in no way a commentary on Chomsky's linguistic works, and it certainly doesn't imply that Hugh Hewitt is an intellectual either) a huge hole to walk into and fill. They are the intellectual equivalent of junk food, and much like our actual diets, we tend to eat much more than we need.

And then we bitch when we get fat...
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
10,408
455
chez moi
Silver said:
Agreed, with what was above as well.

One problem I can't get around though: If you use methods that are sane, sober, and rational (like write a well cited book) you simply get ignored.

You know, I even liked Moveon.org's "Uncovered: Truth About the War in Iraq," which was a real snoozer. It's obviously a movie with a predesignated agenda and not an exploration of a topic, but it's at least free of too much overt pandering and certainly not using technique to mask a lack of substance (at least I HOPE they weren't trying for that, because it's certainly not slick...)

Silver said:
That leaves a huge void for Moore and Coulter and Chomsky and every right wing Christian lawyer (I couldn't think of an appropriate right wing intellectual. Hugh Hewitt and his ilk will have to stand in. This is in no way a commentary on Chomsky's linguistic works, and it certainly doesn't imply that Hugh Hewitt is an intellectual either) a huge hole to walk into and fill. They are the intellectual equivalent of junk food, and much like our actual diets, we tend to eat much more than we need.

And then we bitch when we get fat...
I don't throw Chomsky in with that bunch. He's become a bit of a pop-culture reference, but I find him intellectually fairly solid even if he's sort of off his rocker with his worldview sometimes (IMHO only...)

But he's someone that doesn't make me cringe when referenced with "at least he made me think..." He's extreme, but he's rigorous, and he poses some tough questions and makes some hard answers.

MD
 

ZoRo

Turbo Monkey
Sep 28, 2004
1,226
8
MTL
Also heard he drives his daughter to private school from his Soho loft in the latest Mercedes Benz SUV...
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
10,408
455
chez moi
Silver said:
So...maybe Chomsky and Fukuyama would have been better?

I propose a substitution: Ward Churchill.
Funny thing about WC (hah! although have you read Hitchens on Winston Churchill? It's an eye-opener...) is that the thermonuclear 'little eichmanns' comment wasn't really offensive in context...could even be considered insightful if you're looking to understand Al-Queada's worldview...yet the guy is a complete showboat and fraud nonetheless.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,846
0
Orange County, CA
MikeD said:
Funny thing about WC (hah! although have you read Hitchens on Winston Churchill? It's an eye-opener...) is that the thermonuclear 'little eichmanns' comment wasn't really offensive in context...could even be considered insightful if you're looking to understand Al-Queada's worldview...yet the guy is a complete showboat and fraud nonetheless.
Haven't read the Hitchen's piece (as an aside on Hitchens: I still can't figure out why he didn't know better. Just because Cheney tells you it will be sugarplum fairies and oil for all doesn't make it so. Now he's in too deep to admit that while the stated goal was admirable on a certain level, it may have been an impossible dream, and was doomed to failure with the people who decided to carry it out) but I'll look for it.

How many people know who Eichmann was? They know he was a Nazi, and that's why the comment made people scream. But, in Churchill's defense (and to his point, I guess) you have to ask if the guy who is sitting in his office sourcing clothes that he knows are made by a kid in Pakistan or prison labor in China in miserable conditions is truly innocent. Banality of evil again, I guess.

Edit: You meant Ward, not Winston, correct?
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
10,408
455
chez moi
Silver said:
How many people know who Eichmann was? They know he was a Nazi, and that's why the comment made people scream. But, in Churchill's defense (and to his point, I guess) you have to ask if the guy who is sitting in his office sourcing clothes that he knows are made by a kid in Pakistan or prison labor in China in miserable conditions is truly innocent. Banality of evil again, I guess.

Well, his comment was not made to say that the WTC victims WERE Eichmann-esque in an absolute sense, but that Al-Queada viewed them as such with an internally legitimate and consistent logic.

Then again, I *bet* he said it with relish and venom, and I also wager he personally agrees with Al-Queada, which I DO find offensive and even traitorous...but the comment itself is not invalid. I find understanding the opposition to being a key to combating it.


Ed: oh, and as for Hitchens, he's foremost an anti-tyranny thinker, so he's always wanted Hussein to go down. Where he's been noticably silent since is on the actual prosecution of the war and the aftermath...and in his usual laser-cutting to the core of ulterior motives and furtive manipulations.

Edit: No, I meant Winston. Came to mind because I used Ward Churchill's initials and realized it almost sounded like I was speaking of Winston.

MD
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,846
0
Orange County, CA
MikeD said:
Well, his comment was not made to say that the WTC victims WERE Eichmann-esque in an absolute sense, but that Al-Queada viewed them as such with an internally legitimate and consistent logic.

Then again, I *bet* he said it with relish and venom, and I also wager he personally agrees with Al-Queada, which I DO find offensive and even traitorous...but the comment itself is not invalid. I find understanding the opposition to being a key to combating it.
I can't find that essay right now (anyone have a link to it? There is so much useless blog commentary that I can't find the kernal of crap in the crap) but I don't remember him doing it from an al-Qaeda point of view.

I also don't remember him getting around to dealing with who made Osama judge, jury, and executioner. Personally, combating an atrocity by commiting an atrocity seems to be a bad idea to me.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
10,408
455
chez moi
Silver said:
I also don't remember him getting around to dealing with who made Osama judge, jury, and executioner. Personally, combating an atrocity by commiting an atrocity seems to be a bad idea to me.
Yeah, I'd put 9/11 as a classic bad idea...but it was a pretty good idea to the guys that engineered it.


And you're right. Maybe I was remembering some blog commentary myself...here's his quote, and it's straight from his own heart:

Ward Churchill said:
Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.
I stand, not unhappily, corrected. What a douche. He's living amidst this thing he despises, and making money off it directly himself. If he was in a cave in Afghanistan (or Montana) with an AK47, I might cede him a shred of ironic dignity, but there's just no excuse for this...especially when you're an unchastened plagarist (he's copied paintings that I've seen and sold them at high prices...don't know much firsthand of any literary or academic plagarism, but the tales abound) and a fraud, turning a dollar off the systems you're decrying.

MD
 

stevew

unique white person
Sep 21, 2001
33,752
4,253
Silver said:
So...maybe Chomsky and Fukuyama would have been better?

I propose a substitution: Ward Churchill.
A name I had hoped to escape and never hear of again when I moved from CO.