
Excerpt: "Filmmaker Michael Moore, facing a US government probe into a recent trip to Cuba, lashed out at the Bush administration on Friday, declaring he did nothing illegal by visiting the communist-ruled island."
Excerpt:"News reports have said Moore took volunteer rescue workers who suffered health problems after September 11 to Cuba, where they received better care than in the US."
The whole thing reminds me of this good documentary about the 9/11 health effects.
His new movie, Sicko, was warmly received at Cannes.
Because of the trip to Cuba I hope it does not get lost in the noise that his film is about the broken health care system in the U.S. and it is getting excellent reviews. I sure hate his title though.
I think Michael Moore's technique of getting publicity is to go out of his way to provoke the right and he seems to do a superb job of it ;<)
What do you dislike about the title, luckydog?
It just doesn't appeal to me. I am not even sure sicko is a word although my spell checker doesn't choke. I haven't seen the movie but I hear it is great and I applaud his motivation. Personally, the title doesn't grab me like it should.
Ok, thanks for explaining.
I've always heard "sicko" used as a derogatory term as in "You, you... sicko"
but I think he is trying to play with that here.
I don't care for Moore, but I thought that journalists were exempt from the Cuban embargo. The other people he took along I'm sure weren't exempt. I do know that if you are an American you cannot buy any Cuban product at all. That means if you're in Canada and want to have a Cuban cigar with some Cuban coffee, you're breaking the law. Harsh isn't it?
On a side note I work with a woman from Venezuela, and she talks about how they all have free health care provided by doctors from Cuba. I suppose it sounds great, but the problem is once you get older you become less of a priority and in turn get less medical attention. It's almost like social Darwinism, once you stop contributing to the country you're disposable.
Please don't get me wrong though. IMO US health care does need reform.
I think journalists can go and do interviews but bringing people with him is what I think got him into trouble.
I just think the idea of taking 9/11 victims to Cuba for health care smacks of his style of propaganda film making, like he has done before.
Do you disagree?
I don't know anything about this and do not have strong feelings one way or the other but it does strike me as strange that these health care workers would go to Cuba unless they felt they were not getting adequate health care here.
I suppose we could look at this as just another form of outsourcing but without a big corporation getting a cut. Maybe that is the problem eh?
I have a little more info now that I saw Moore on Letterman. These health care workers were volunteers at ground zero and not employees so that is why they were not covered when they started getting sick with respiratory issues. Now that is a national disgrace as the EPA did say it was fine to breath the air there and anybody with a lick of sense would have known that was not true.
Here's more about the cover-up regarding the health issues: an interview I did with a documentary maker who did a piece on this topic.
Even employees at ground zero have been told the dust did not cause their ailments.
Cuba would have "gone west" YEARS ago if the US didn't make itself such an easy external enemy for Castro to unite everyone against.
Open doors and trade would have slowly but surely worked. Embargoes have a terribly poor record of success.
As to Moore, I think he often raises some good points then spoils his credibility by raising some hysterical ones.
I don't know what all the fuss is about. The US government sends people to Cuba all the time. A place called Guantanamo.
Some other problems Moore is having.
I just seeded a good rebuttal to Moore.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |