Fahrenheit 9/11

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I think you will find that the number of deaths per capita in the US is vastly out of proportion with the difference in population. You're not a very populous country by world standards, even if you do tend to take it as an unquestioning assumption that you're tops and best and most wonderful in all things. I think the number in Bowling for Columbine was sixteen thousand odd for the US and under a hundred for the UK, which is a hell of a lot less per capita given that the US only has about four and a half times the population. I am no Moore fan (his total for the US included death by legal intervention, whereas for Canada it famously did not) but I find any defence of the American record on gun control to be ridiculous.

 

For the record, I also happen to believe that the total ban on gun ownership as it exists in the UK is also preposterous (it happened as part of a ridiculous political kneejerk reaction to a single incident wherein the purpetrator should have been denied firearms even under previous legislation), but I think it's at least wise to emplace rules ensuring that most of your handgun deaths won't be by ACCIDENT, for Christ's sake. The odds that a privately held handgun in the US will be used to shoot a burglar are about a fortieth of the chance that it'll be used to shoot your wife, your son, your dog, or yourself in the foot.

 

Phil

[Brad Grimmett]

even if you do tend to take it as an unquestioning assumption that you're tops and best and most wonderful in all things.

Oh, we do? Thanks for clearing up for us what OUR assumptions are. It's always good to get the facts about what Americans are thinking from a Brit. Your opinion on these matters is always welcomed and appreciated!

[cal godot]

As a contradiction to myself, this guy makes a good point.

 

http://www.thetriangle.org/news/2004/05/28...es-683519.shtml

 

"For instance, in China most policemen are allowed to kill whoever they want for any infraction of the law without a trial. So, technically, every time a person is killed with a firearm, it's an "execution" and not a "murder." Yet according to Moore, China is a safer place than America, because China has zero gun-related murders a year."

That's simply and laughably untrue and irrelevant. While China is certainly not the most free country on earth, even if all their policeman were executing people on a whim it would not come close to the civilian gun violence in the US. (Nothing like the web page of a gun nut - entertaining rants from well-armed peole always wake me up inthe morning.)

 

Which is what Moore is talking about. Not cops killing civilians, but civilians killing civilians. In China, if you get shot, it won't be by your neighbor who is peeved you called the police on his loud party. It won't be a car of teenagers cruising and blasting for thrills on a Saturday night. You won't be standing on a sidewalk talking to your neighbor and then suddenly felled by a bullet that was fired into the air during a Fourth of July party seven miles away. You won't be filled with buckshot by a 16-year old who is tired of being bullied at school. That's the kind of gun violence (and gun/violent culture) Moore was talking about.

 

As an exiled Southerner, long-time gun owner, and former decades-long member of the NRA (I withdrew when they backed armor-piercing ammo for automatic weapons, a.k.a cop killers), I'd love to see one pro-gun anti-Moore argument that stuck to facts. But instead pro-gun people often become unwound at the slightest hint that their "Constitutional rights" might be violated in the slightest. Pry my gun from my cold dead hand and all that. Which is not Moore's point, nor even suggested in the film: it's an inquiry, without many answers, into the question, "Why do we Americans seem more violent that comparable cultures?" (I'm not even sure comparing us to China, with its vastly different history and culture, is apropos, but comparisons to Canada and Britain and Australia are.)

 

I liked "Bowling for Columbine," and I believe in private gun ownership. But we've got a problem in the US, and it doesn't appear to be going away on its own.

[Matt Pacini]

... pro-gun people often become unwound at the slightest hint that their "Constitutional rights" might be violated in the slightest...

I think the fact that the anti-gun people in this country have made no secret of the fact they would like to completely and totally bad all guns, makes the fight to uphold our 2nd ammendment rights NOT a trivial thing!

 

The problem is, you cannot un-invent guns, and regardless of how many accidental deaths and intentional deaths there are in the US from guns, outlawying them is only going to assure that THE BAD GUYS END UP WITH ALL THE GUNS!

There are something like 200 million guns in the US.

Passing gun-control laws, is NOT the same thing as getting rid of the guns.

Seems obvious, but you gun control people make broad assumptions like this, without thinking through the real implications of these things.

Yes, I wish there were no such thing as guns, nuclear weapons, etc., but guess what?

They're here, and the only thing you can do is make sure the good guys have more of them than the bad guys!

If that statement is wrong, then why do we all agree that police should be armed?

What is a cop, anyway? A good guy with a gun, right?

 

(I hate to repeat this oft-repeated phrase, but it's true):

If you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have the guns.

 

People who don't give a rat's ass about laws prohibiting MURDER, are not suddenly going to get a guilty consience about the fact they have a gun in their closet, which if they're a felon, is already illegal!

So what you end up with is only law-abiding citizens giving up their guns.

These are the people who are not the problem to begin with.

 

And another fact that is not mentioned here, is that there is a huge number of crimes that are stopped by common armed citizens.

Crimes against others, and crimes against themselves.

In the last few weeks, there have been 3 home invasions here in Sacramento, where the homeowners shot the intruder.

Two were killed, and the third was wouned and took off, only to be caught later.

All the intruders were armed, so one can only imagine what would have happened if the law abiding citizens would have been unarmed.

Keep in mind, if you outlaw all the guns here, then the bad guys KNOW everyone but them is unarmed.

(And by the way, I'd rather live in a country where I may have to defend myself from a fellow citizen, and be able to, than to defend my self from my government, and be totally helpless and defenseless. Just ask the Jews living in Germany in the 30's how safe they felt, not being armed.)

 

And to end my ranting, I really don't care how convincing any of the arguments either way:

This is one of my constitutional rights, and it shouldn't be violated, period.

We live in a time, where people think it's OK to argue against certain constitutional rights, as long as it fits in with their personal political beliefs, not realizing that the end result of this being that ALL rights will be up for debate.

 

I think what's going on with things like the Patriot Act prooves this.

We have the government arguing that it's OK to lock people up indefinitely without access to lawyers, a trial, etc., even if they're not even a suspect!

This is CLEARLY unconstitutional.

 

I can think of all kinds of reasons why "saying" particular things has negative outcomes, but everyone agrees here that the first ammendment right of free speech is sacred.

 

No matter how much sense it seems to make, give up one right, and all the others are up for grabs.

 

Matt Pacini

[David Mullen ASC]

There are restrictions on freedom of speech for the public good -- you can't cry "fire" in a crowded movie house, you can't slander or libel people, etc.

 

Gun control laws are NOT the same thing as banning guns outright.

[Rob Belics]

The real problem is bullets. And if I'm elected President, I'll make sure everyone has plenty of guns but we'll lock up all the bullets. --Pat Paulsen

[Brad Grimmett]

I think the fact that the anti-gun people in this country have made no secret of the fact they would like to completely and totally bad all guns, makes the fight to uphold our 2nd ammendment rights NOT a trivial thing!

Matt,

I understand your argument, but it really has no place in a debate about Michael Moore. His point is that gun violence in this country is way out of hand. I don't think he's ever said we need to get rid of all the guns in this country, or make it illegal to own a gun. As a matter of fact, in Bowling for Columbine he compares us to Canada (which has a very high number of gun owners) and asks the question, "why does the U.S. have so much more gun violence than Canada". He doesn't have a definitive answer to this question (and he certainly didn't say that all guns should be banned), he's asking it to get people thinking, and hopefully to change things. I don't know why so many people are threatened by this. More and more I find that most of the "anti-Moore" people have never seen any of his films and that's why their arguments against him are so off kilter. Have you seen Bowling for Columbine Matt? Or any of his other films?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Also compare the fact that it's more or less impossible to own a gun in the UK (except for very small .22 target pistols in some cases) and we actually don't have a huge level of gun crime from people who know nobody's going to shoot back. I happen to agree that there shouldn't be an overall ban, but the criminalising-means-only-criminals-carry thing doesn't seem to have happened. Of course it helps that most people know if you carry a gun in London you are very likely to be blown away by armed response units of the metropolitan police, who really don't like the idea of that kind of firearms escalation.

 

Phil

[Tony Brown]

I'm struggling to understand why none of you seem to want a total ban. I'd ban the bastard things tomorrow if it was my decision. :angry:

[cal godot]

I don't know whether to question your honesty, your sanity or your intelligence, Matt Pacini. You continually refer to "you anti-gun people." I'm not anti-gun. I'm a former gun owner and former NRA member. I sold my guns because I didn't use them or have need of them any more. I left the NRA because they took the wrong position, in my view, on things like armor-piercing ammo and automatic weapons. I do not and have never advocated a total ban on guns - I don't even advocate a total ban on "assault weapons" - just very strict controls, which the NRA opposes. (If it was up to the NRA, a would-be terrorist could buy his guns and ammo from a coin operated vending machine.) Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can read my post and discern these facts, as they are plainly stated. It's tragic that you feel the need to misstate my views or struggle with straw men to make your point. I'd find it insulting if I cared.

[Matt Pacini]

I don't know whether to question your honesty, your sanity or your intelligence, Matt Pacini. You continually refer to "you anti-gun people." ..."

Just look at Brad & Tony's posts above to see what I'm talking about.

 

(By the way, I love you guys and respect you, so I hope nobody gets all hot and bothered because we disagree on this topic.)

 

And David, you're right, gun control laws are not the same as total banning of guns, but my point is, that the people in charge of "the movement" and lots of the general population (see Tony's post above) have as their stated purpose, the total banning of guns.

Knowing they will not be successful trying to pass one all-encompassing law banning guns, they've taken the very effective approach of chipping away, one at a time.

As soon as one of these laws gets gets passed, they instantly put up the next one.

 

I've gotten in quite a few arguments with people saying that's nonsense, but then that very same person agrees with the pro-choice leadership, who are against banning partial-birth abortions, for instance, saying if we let the pro-life crowd get ANY ABORTION PROCEDURES AT ALL banned, eventually they will all be banned.

 

The very same logic applies here, but it's even more extreme in the abortion debate.

For instance, I'm not saying citizens should be able to buy tanks and RPG's, so I think I'm being pretty reasonable here.

But many of the pro-choice people think we shouldn't keep people from reaching in and puncturing the skull of a full 9-month term baby, who in literally minutes could be a healthy, normally delivered live birth, because banning ANY abortion procedure is violating the rights of a woman to have abortions.

Same logic, right?

And by the way, there's absolutely zero cases where "partial birth abortion" is required "for the safety of the mother".

If you have a late term pregnancy that has complications, you get a cesearian section, not an abortion, and I've heard many doctors confirm this as just a ridiculous excuse justifying the procedure.

Let's not forget that abortions are fairly quick and easy (and therefore lucrative) procedures.

 

And it's all just silly politics anyway, because abortion will never again be outlawed in the US, so it's just a ploy for the left to get votes by scaring women so they'll vote for Democrats.

The US Supreme Court is stacked full of Reagan and Bush appointees, and the pro-choice leadership has gone ballistic every time one is appointed, screaming that these guys are going to outlaw abortion, yet they've had three chances to hear Roe-vs-Wade, and have not done it.

I'm just always amazed at how the same old tactics are drug out time and again, and seem to work, without the general population saying "hey, wait a minute, if these people were right, abortion would have been banned 20 years ago! Maybe they're full of crap and this is all just politics".

 

Matt

[Matt Pacini]

By the way, just to clarify, I DO think gun violence in America is way out of hand.

One of the best things that my father did, was enroll my brothers and I in a gun safety class when we were about 12 years old.

I think this should be mandatory in all schools, and it's been proposed before, but again, the gun control advocates screamed loudly, thinking this would be a bunch of "gun nuts" teaching kids how cool guns are.

On the contrary; this class made me respect and even fear guns, and the damage they can cause, for my entire life.

And by the way, there were no guns there. It wasn't a "hands on" course on how to shoot, etc., it told you gun safety, and just like those old drivers ed films they used to show, you got the crap scared out of you hearing all the nighmare gun accident stories the teacher told.

I'm obsessed with gun safety, and I think it's absolutely insane how many unsafe and ignorant people are out there buying guns.

 

But to keep things in perspective, in the US, more children die from drowning in buckets of water, than die by gun deaths.

Still, I agree there's a huge problem that needs to be dealt with.

Maybe we could start by actually having criminals finish their sentences in prison?

In California, you AUTOMATICALLY serve only 1/2 your sentence, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with "time off for good behavior". That's additional time off.

 

My disrespect for Michael Moore stems from the fact he plays fast & loose with his "facts", and that I don't believe he's trying to get people "thinking about the issues" as much as he is trying to get people to believe exactly as he believes.

That, and his obvious ego. What other documentary filmmakers make sure they're in almost every frame of their films?

Have you ever seen Ken Burns in one of his films?

He makes sure he's in front of the camera, so he can interpret the information to get a particular opinion from his audience, and puts just enough of "the other viewpoint" just to make it "kinda" seem like it's a balanced viewpoint he's putting forth.

Making a big deal out of how he used to belong to the NRA, etc., is as irrelevant as the fact that Ronald Reagan was once a liberal Democrat.

 

Matt Pacini

[Jason Maeda]

guys,

 

you're all too hung up on discussing michael moore as if he were wiseman. there isn't a serious intellectual in the country, liberal or conservative, who takes moore seriously as a "documentarian". he is an entertainer and, in my opinion, a talented one. his editing style is a clinic for students of film in the techniques of audience manipulation, a word that comes with negative implications but in this case should be read quite literally.

 

the debate over gun violence in the US is a complicated one, and one that i think we all agree should be left alone on this website. the work of michael moore as a filmmaker, however, is fascinating and worthy of our scrutiny. but please lets all keep away from arguing over his integrity as a "journalist" or whatever: that debate was laid to rest years ago.

 

jk :ph34r:

[Brad Grimmett]

I don't know whether to question your honesty, your sanity or your intelligence, Matt Pacini. You continually refer to "you anti-gun people." ..."

Just look at Brad & Tony's posts above to see what I'm talking about.

Now wait a minute. You reference my post to point out that I'm one of the "anti-gun people"? You must not have read my post. I'm "anti-death of innocent human beings", not necessarily anti-gun. In my opinion, if you're going to be completely anti-gun then you have to be anti-knife and anti-anything else that could possibly kill or hurt someone. That's not me, and if you think it is then you are mistaken. I think we should look at the REAL cause/causes of why there is so much violence in this country, whether it be perpetrated with a gun or a knife or fists or whatever......

If you want to lump all of the people that feel the same way I do into some "anti-gun" group in your own mind then that's your problem. You're only ignoring the real problem.

As far as the rest of your rant about abortion.....it doesn't belong in this discussion. It's a much different isssue, and one that can't be compared to gun violence.

[Brad Grimmett]

I'm obsessed with gun safety, and I think it's absolutely insane how many unsafe and ignorant people are out there buying guns.

 

But to keep things in perspective, in the US, more children die from drowning in buckets of water, than die by gun deaths.

To address your first point: I agree. It is insanse how many unsafe and ignorant people there are buying guns. So why is it you oppose any gun laws being made? It seems like you'd want to implement some kind of control over the sale of guns so that the "unsafe and ignorant" people couldn't buy a gun so easily.

 

On your second point: Could you please point me to where you got the statistics that say, "in the US, more children die from drowning in buckets of water, than die by gun deaths." I would really like to see these numbers.

Thanks.

[Tony Brown]

PLEASE put me firmly in the anti gun / ban guns folder. I?ll very happily be "you anti gun people" all by myself and be very proud of it.

 

You can say I?m naïve, ill informed, not thought through the arguments, what ever you wish. I really would be very honoured to be in a one man club on this issue. My daughter was U14 British Pentathlon champion, mainly thanks to her incredible ability to shoot, but I still don?t ?get it?. I?ve fired guns in the UK, US and in South Africa. If I owned a gun, I?d have used it to kill on at least one occasion, and I consider myself fairly level headed and rational. That scared me more than having one pointed at me.

 

I see absolutely no possible justification for any member of the public to own a gun. None.

 

Better ban those nasty buckets too....

 

Good luck to Moore, when the watchers know they are being watched it can only be a better place.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Well there's no reason for people to be allowed to own lots of things, and in many cases many reasons to ban them (fireworks spring to mind.) On the other hand what's life all about? Given the opportunity I would probably target shoot out of an interest in the skill of it and the fine engineering involved (which is probably the same thing which draws me to things like motion picture cameras.) I would obsessively take the most comprehensive training and safety instruction possible and it would stay locked in the secure storage at the facility in question. I don't see what the problem is with that - and this is, I think the kind of gun ownership that the NRA likes to think they promote, even if they are a thinly disguised front for... no, let's not go there.

 

But you see what I mean?

 

Phil

[Brad Grimmett]

I see absolutely no possible justification for any member of the public to own a gun. None.

 

Better ban those nasty buckets too....

 

Good luck to Moore, when the watchers know they are being watched it can only be a better place.

Tony,

I'll agree with you on your buckets point!

I disagree though about there being no justification for any member of the public to own a gun. I went to college in southwest Virginia, which is a very rural part of the country. I met many people up there who hunt for food. I'm not talking about hunting for food just for kicks (although there are plenty of those as well), but people that are so poor that they HAVE to hunt for food. It's either that or beg for money. I even had a friend that was from that area that would hunt deer to give to underpriveled families. I know this is a rare exception to why most people own guns, but this is the case in some circumstances. I also have enjoyed skeet shooting in the past and think people should have the right to shoot skeet and targets. Of course assault rifles and the like are a totally different issue. They have no use in either hunting or target shooting and should be banned.

Thinking about this issue more just now I realized something: The people on both sides of this issue are generally not the problem. The people that are the problem wouldn't argue it either way. They don't care. They're not informed enough to care. They leave their guns laying around the house where their kids can get to them and don't bother to teach the kid anything about the gun. How could we expect them to care what the laws are when they wouldn't follow them anyway? Sad, but true.

[cal godot]

One of the best things that my father did, was enroll my brothers and I in a gun safety class when we were about 12 years old. I think this should be mandatory in all schools,

 

If you believe people should be required to learn gun safety in order to own a firearm, then you do agree with some form of gun control.

 

No reason to make it mandatory for everyone - it would be a waste on the "anti-gun" people, after all. And why make the taxpayers pay for it via mandatory public education?

 

If you want a gun, you gotta take a gun safety course. And that, buddy, is gun control.

 

I'm obsessed with gun safety, and I think it's absolutely insane how many unsafe and ignorant people are out there buying guns.

 

Requiring people to be safe (like locking them in cabinets away from children) with their guns is also gun control.

 

But to keep things in perspective, in the US, more children die from drowning in buckets of water, than die by gun deaths.

 

If you are going to present statistics to make a point, present the actual numbers. Otherwise this "data" is as reliable as your critical judgment of a film you have not seen.

 

(BTW, avoid the NRA numbers - they ignore accidental gun deaths. Stick with federal government numbers, which are about as close to accurate as you can get because the federal agenda changes.)

 

Still, I agree there's a huge problem that needs to be dealt with.

 

Then you must desire some form of gun control. Or maybe the safe gun owners can shoot all the unsafe gun owners. That would solve the problem. Theoretically the safe gun owners would have better aim, so they'd be at the advantage during the gun fight. We can hire all the homeless people to clean up the dead damn unsafe gun owners. And then we've got a whole pile of guns for the safe gun owners, since gun owners for some odd reason tend to own far more than just one gun. I guess they've got a lot of enemies, or need a variety of choices when hunting big game in Sacramento or some such place.

 

Of course even safe gun owners have accidents. So we'd have to keep shooting people when they accidentally shot their kids, wife, etc. And nobody can keep curious kids from finding the key or picking the lock to a gun cabinet, so we'd have to shoot the unsafe kid and his unsafe parents, who probably should have been home with their kids instad of out trying to makes ends meet.

 

Maybe we could start by actually having criminals finish their sentences in prison?

 

How can imprisoned criminals be the problem with guns on the streets?

 

What other documentary filmmakers make sure they're in almost every frame of their films?

 

By all reliable accounts I've read or heard (several of my friends attended the LA premiere), Moore does not appear often in the new film. By many accounts, he is more vigilant with his facts in this film.

 

I wonder: How can you criticize a movie that you haven't seen? Don't you have just a wee bit more integrity than that?

 

Making a big deal out of how he used to belong to the NRA, etc., is as irrelevant as the fact that Ronald Reagan was once a liberal Democrat.

 

Incorrect. Since gun rights advocates tend to claim that gun control advocates have no experience with firearms or are effete liberals who never went hunting, Moore's previous experience with guns and the NRA is highly relevant to his opinions about guns and gun safety.

[Matt Pacini]

Read my post again.

They're not IN prison, when they're getting out in less than 1/2 their sentences!

In California, murder get's you 15 years to life.

It's not uncommon for convicted murderers in California, to be back out in 7.5 years.

 

Also, I never said I was against ANY gun control. Like I said, I don't think people should be allowed to own tanks & RPG's, for instance.

 

And to clarify, banning guns is not the same as getting rid of guns.

If you have a total gun ban, EVERY gun is still out there!

 

And by the way, our forefathers didn't write the second ammendment just so people could hunt.

It was also so the citizen could protect themselves from their own government should it ever become as oppressive as England had gotten.

 

To put it in perspective, you have to remember that deaths in the US from car accidents absolutely DWARFS gun deaths.

 

If you've been the victim of a crime (like I have) and had the cops come casually rolling in, 45 minutes after the crime, then you have a sense of the need I'm talking about.

If not, then you're living in this "TV world" fantasy, where as soon as you hang up the phone after dialing 911, you hear sirens as the cops come screeching up to get the bad guy.

In reality, most of what cops do is just take police reports LONG after the criminal has done his deed, and you have been victimized.

 

My mother and brother owned 7-11 stores, and the cops don't even show up for armed robberies. They just take a report over the phone!!!!

 

Perhaps I'm a bit biased, given the fact that I've had to actually pull out a shotgun to defend myself and my mother from a violent, marauding gang that was taking over the 7-11 store.

They stabbed a guy in the parking lot, and completely trashed & stole damn near anything that wasn't nailed down, and the only thing that got them running and saved our a**es was me coming out of the back room with a shotgun waving it at them like some kind of maniac, which I'm not!

Being nice, pleading, and repeatedly calling 911 did not help (the cops showed 30 mintues later and took a report, after about 10 calls from us, and repeated calls from people driving by who saw what was going on).

Nobody was arrested, nobody went to jail.

But at least I didn't have to watch my mom bleed to death like the guy in front of the store.

 

Matt Pacini

[Nate Downes]

@Matt

 

This reminds me of a story my father always told me. His brother's first job was overnight at a 24-hour convenience store. One night, some local farm hands were drunk, so they robbed the place. The next morning, my uncle brought in his 44 magnum. Next guy that tried to rob the place ended up insead missing part of his arm.

 

You know what happened next? My grandmother called up, and told him "you are quitting that job now." My uncle then responded with the same sentance that all of my fathers siblings state when their mother told them something, "Yes ma'am."

 

And noone has robbed that store since.

[Brad Grimmett]

Also, I never said I was against ANY gun control. Like I said, I don't think people should be allowed to own tanks & RPG's, for instance.

 

To put it in perspective, you have to remember that deaths in the US from car accidents absolutely DWARFS gun deaths.

Oh good, you're against tanks and R.P.G.'s! You really are against gun control! As long as the tanks are off the streets I won't worry about the Mac 9's and Uzi's floating around!

And what's your point about death's in car accidents? People die from all sorts of things...they get struck by lighting, they fall out of window's, they have heart attacks, cancer......

What does this have to do with guns or violence? What kind of logic are you using if you're comparing people that die because they were shot to death and people that die because they crashed their car? :huh:

[Matt Pacini]

The correlation is, the statistics of gun related deaths is always used in these arguments to justify banning guns.

My point is, that there are many, many things that we as a society accept certain dangers for, including risk of death, for the benefits from that device or action.

 

Driving cars is one of them.

 

Protecting yourself from an oppressive government, and/or protecting yourself from criminals WHO ALREADY ILLEGALLY OWN THEIR GUNS is another.

(Remember, you can't own a gun in the U.S. if you're a convicted felon).

 

THAT'S what it has to do with deaths from people wh die crashing their cars. We accept that there's an upside to driving cars, so we don't ban the device, because we're willing to take that risk.

 

And something you may want to think about, is the fact that the states with the toughest gun control have the highest per-capita death-by-gun rates.

In Washington DC and New York City, it's damn near illegal for anyone to own a gun, and it's like a freakin' war zone in DC.

Since they loosened up the gun permit laws in Florida (after so many tourists were getting killed in car jackings, etc.) the crime rate went down drastically.

Same thing in Texas.

I know, you're gonna say it doesn't make sense, but it's the truth.

Are you going to rob a restaurant, if you're pretty sure 40% of the patrons are packing a pistol?

I think not!

 

Matt Pacini

[Bill DiPietra]

Getting back to Michael Moore...

 

Did anyone else see him on Letterman? I thought he came off quite sincere. That is what I would like to see more of in his films.

 

Just an observation.

[Bill DiPietra]

Getting back to Michael Moore...

 

Did anyone else see him on Letterman? I thought he came off quite sincere. That is what I would like to see more of in his films.

 

Just an observation.