The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Friday, September 2nd, 2005
Dear Mr. Bush:
Any idea where all our helicopters are? It's Day 5 of Hurricane Katrina and thousands remain stranded in New Orleans and need to be airlifted. Where on earth could you have misplaced all our military choppers? Do you need help finding them? I once lost my car in a Sears parking lot. Man, was that a drag.
Also, any idea where all our national guard soldiers are? We could really use them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do like helping with national disasters. How come they weren't there to begin with?
Last Thursday I was in south Florida and sat outside while the eye of Hurricane Katrina passed over my head. It was only a Category 1 then but it was pretty nasty. Eleven people died and, as of today, there were still homes without power. That night the weatherman said this storm was on its way to New Orleans. That was Thursday! Did anybody tell you? I know you didn't want to interrupt your vacation and I know how you don't like to get bad news. Plus, you had fundraisers to go to and mothers of dead soldiers to ignore and smear. You sure showed her!
I especially like how, the day after the hurricane, instead of flying to Louisiana, you flew to San Diego to party with your business peeps. Don't let people criticize you for this -- after all, the hurricane was over and what the heck could you do, put your finger in the dam? [Edit: this originally said "d!ke". Stupid swear filter...]
And don't listen to those who, in the coming days, will reveal how you specifically reduced the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for New Orleans this summer for the third year in a row. You just tell them that even if you hadn't cut the money to fix those levees, there weren't going to be any Army engineers to fix them anyway because you had a much more important construction job for them -- BUILDING DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ!
On Day 3, when you finally left your vacation home, I have to say I was moved by how you had your Air Force One pilot descend from the clouds as you flew over New Orleans so you could catch a quick look of the disaster. Hey, I know you couldn't stop and grab a bullhorn and stand on some rubble and act like a commander in chief. Been there done that.
There will be those who will try to politicize this tragedy and try to use it against you. Just have your people keep pointing that out. Respond to nothing. Even those pesky scientists who predicted this would happen because the water in the Gulf of Mexico is getting hotter and hotter making a storm like this inevitable. Ignore them and all their global warming Chicken Littles. There is nothing unusual about a hurricane that was so wide it would be like having one F-4 tornado that stretched from New York to Cleveland.
No, Mr. Bush, you just stay the course. It's not your fault that 30 percent of New Orleans lives in poverty or that tens of thousands had no transportation to get out of town. C'mon, they're black! I mean, it's not like this happened to Kennebunkport. Can you imagine leaving white people on their roofs for five days? Don't make me laugh! Race has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with this!
You hang in there, Mr. Bush. Just try to find a few of our Army helicopters and send them there. Pretend the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are near Tikrit.
Yours,
Michael Moore
Dear Mr. Bush:
Any idea where all our helicopters are? It's Day 5 of Hurricane Katrina and thousands remain stranded in New Orleans and need to be airlifted. Where on earth could you have misplaced all our military choppers? Do you need help finding them? I once lost my car in a Sears parking lot. Man, was that a drag.
Also, any idea where all our national guard soldiers are? We could really use them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do like helping with national disasters. How come they weren't there to begin with?
Last Thursday I was in south Florida and sat outside while the eye of Hurricane Katrina passed over my head. It was only a Category 1 then but it was pretty nasty. Eleven people died and, as of today, there were still homes without power. That night the weatherman said this storm was on its way to New Orleans. That was Thursday! Did anybody tell you? I know you didn't want to interrupt your vacation and I know how you don't like to get bad news. Plus, you had fundraisers to go to and mothers of dead soldiers to ignore and smear. You sure showed her!
I especially like how, the day after the hurricane, instead of flying to Louisiana, you flew to San Diego to party with your business peeps. Don't let people criticize you for this -- after all, the hurricane was over and what the heck could you do, put your finger in the dam? [Edit: this originally said "d!ke". Stupid swear filter...]
And don't listen to those who, in the coming days, will reveal how you specifically reduced the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for New Orleans this summer for the third year in a row. You just tell them that even if you hadn't cut the money to fix those levees, there weren't going to be any Army engineers to fix them anyway because you had a much more important construction job for them -- BUILDING DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ!
On Day 3, when you finally left your vacation home, I have to say I was moved by how you had your Air Force One pilot descend from the clouds as you flew over New Orleans so you could catch a quick look of the disaster. Hey, I know you couldn't stop and grab a bullhorn and stand on some rubble and act like a commander in chief. Been there done that.
There will be those who will try to politicize this tragedy and try to use it against you. Just have your people keep pointing that out. Respond to nothing. Even those pesky scientists who predicted this would happen because the water in the Gulf of Mexico is getting hotter and hotter making a storm like this inevitable. Ignore them and all their global warming Chicken Littles. There is nothing unusual about a hurricane that was so wide it would be like having one F-4 tornado that stretched from New York to Cleveland.
No, Mr. Bush, you just stay the course. It's not your fault that 30 percent of New Orleans lives in poverty or that tens of thousands had no transportation to get out of town. C'mon, they're black! I mean, it's not like this happened to Kennebunkport. Can you imagine leaving white people on their roofs for five days? Don't make me laugh! Race has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with this!
You hang in there, Mr. Bush. Just try to find a few of our Army helicopters and send them there. Pretend the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are near Tikrit.
Yours,
Michael Moore
Page:
Your Honour wrote:
> Blimey Light are you going soft? I expected a much more angry tone in
> your reply, but I just wasn't feeling it.... :-)
Heh. I'm making the effort to stick to factual debate. All my "discussions" with Gump and Celeste were nothing more than yelling at dumb, blinkered idiots. And I was carrying that tone over in discussions with others who had done nothing to deserve it; they just wanted to debate.
> Blimey Light are you going soft? I expected a much more angry tone in
> your reply, but I just wasn't feeling it.... :-)
Heh. I'm making the effort to stick to factual debate. All my "discussions" with Gump and Celeste were nothing more than yelling at dumb, blinkered idiots. And I was carrying that tone over in discussions with others who had done nothing to deserve it; they just wanted to debate.
Blimey Light are you going soft? I expected a much more angry tone in your reply, but I just wasn't feeling it.... :-)
Light wrote:
>
> However, I will tell you this; cuts to that budget were made. And tax
> cuts that benefitted the wealthiest 5% of the US were also made. Under
> Clinton, the US ran at a profit. Under Dubya, they have an enormous
> deficit. You do the math.
But Clinton raided pension money in-order to achieve some of it and in the future people will fully feel the effect of this.
>
> However, I will tell you this; cuts to that budget were made. And tax
> cuts that benefitted the wealthiest 5% of the US were also made. Under
> Clinton, the US ran at a profit. Under Dubya, they have an enormous
> deficit. You do the math.
But Clinton raided pension money in-order to achieve some of it and in the future people will fully feel the effect of this.
gerrid wrote:
> I don't really like Michael More and that letter is very sarcastic and
> makes him sound like a smart-assed loser. It's good that people are
> bringing attention to these issues but sarcasm is rarely the way to
> get yourself taken seriously.
Can anyone actually refute what he's saying, or are all the criticisms based solely around "I don't like the way you say this"?
> I don't really like Michael More and that letter is very sarcastic and
> makes him sound like a smart-assed loser. It's good that people are
> bringing attention to these issues but sarcasm is rarely the way to
> get yourself taken seriously.
Can anyone actually refute what he's saying, or are all the criticisms based solely around "I don't like the way you say this"?
ssxpro wrote:
>
> Did anybody tell you? I know you didn't want to interrupt your
> vacation and I know how you don't like to get bad news.
>
> Seriously, eight year old kids sit at school coming up with comments
> like that. His whole letter is littered with sarcastic swipes at
> people who are handling things that he (and most of us) don't fully
> understand.
But if you don't understand it yourself, how can you possibly say as a statement of fact "He doesn't understand"? Aren't you just assuming that, because you're not entirely clear on what has been going on, he isn't?
>
> I think the main reason I don't like him is that he strikes me as the
> kind of guy who, in the event of a nuclear disaster in his own
> country, who stand there like the kid from The Simpsons and shout
> "Haa haa" before dying in a pool of his own melted fat.
Well, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion. I would ask though; have you read anything of his before? Are you aware of the circumstances that generate the anger that punctuates anything he writes or says about Dubya?
>
> Another point would be that he talks about the national guard not
> being ordered in to help people:
>
> Also, any idea where all our national guard soldiers are? We could
> really use them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do
> like helping with national disasters. How come they weren't there to
> begin with?
>
> If they had been there to begin with, the next headlines we would
> have undoubtedly heard could have been along the lines of
> "Eleven soldiers die after being ordered into hurricane by
> President". Mr Moore would then obviously have replied with:
You're assuming an awful lot there. First of all, the National Guard are actually there for dealing with domestic emergencies. That's why they're called the National Guard. However, a huge number of 'em have been deployed to Iraq. Which means there is insufficient resource to deal with disasters like this.
I've no problem with someone being slated for what they did say, but when you're creating things he might have said if circumstances were different...I think that's perhaps a little much.
>
> Further,
>
> And don't listen to those who, in the coming days, will reveal how
> you specifically reduced the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for New
> Orleans this summer for the third year in a row. You just tell them
> that even if you hadn't cut the money to fix those levees, there
> weren't going to be any Army engineers to fix them anyway because
> you
> had a much more important construction job for them -- BUILDING
> DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ!
>
> This could quite possibly be the truth and its a good point, but what
> Mr Moore is apparently incapable of doing is presenting reasons why
> this sort of stuff happens. I can't put much weight on his remark
> because I don't know the reasons why those cuts were made (and
> apparently neither does he). For all we (and he) knows, it was put
> into something that, had this disaster not taken place may have been
> beneficial to the city. Tragically the decision resulted in poor
> defences against the storm and this may have cost lives, but it
> brings things to another point Mr Moore made about global warming.
Well, why don't you look up the reasons why it happened? He's presented a fact. Should it always be up to the person putting forward the argument to spoon-feed you the background?
For the record, he usually does; read one of his books, and you'll find it footnoted to hell with the source of the info.
However, I will tell you this; cuts to that budget were made. And tax cuts that benefitted the wealthiest 5% of the US were also made. Under Clinton, the US ran at a profit. Under Dubya, they have an enormous deficit. You do the math.
>
> There are papers written arguing both sides of the global warming
> debate, some suggesting that global warming is a myth. If it was a
> simple fact that global warming was caused by ... and resulted in ...
> there wouldn't be any need for dicussion anymore. In the same way as
> Tom Cruise blundered into his new Scientology or whatever it was,
> these people believe that reading a few papers is enough to make them
> an expert. Every week I read or scan some of the latest journals in my
> research area and every week you see mistakes. I'm no expert, even in
> my own field, but I know enough to say that people who write these
> papers are still just people and they can make mistakes.
Now this is just utter naivety. You do realise, don't you, that the entire "Global Warming is a myth" lobby is made up of fossil fuel company lobbyists, right? People who have a vested interest (and a LOT of money) in continuing use of fossil fuel? People who co-incidentally funded Dubya's election campaign? Right?
I would remind you that, in the US, no President has yet come out and said that the Government accepts there is a link between Cancer and smoking. So does that mean we should dismiss Lung Cancer research into smokers because, hey, the link isn't accepted by everyone?
Of course it doesn't. I accept your point that the people who say that there IS such a thing as global warming are just people. On the other hand, when the evidence is so overwhelming, and when the President dismisses it on the basis of a small minority of oil company funded scientists...well, don't you feel rather suspicious as to his reasons?
>
> Additionally, does he think that George Bush is the only man with
> power? Decisions like the cuts mentioned above may not even have been
> thoroughly discussed with the president - it could easily have been
> handelled at lower levels or, most likely, by a mixture of Democratic
> and Republican senators, almost out of the hands of the President
> himself.
He's talking about Federal funding. That comes from the Federal Government. The head of which is the President.
He's also head of the Republican Party. Which controls both Senate and Congress. And so has the ultimate say in what legislature goes through.
>
> Oh, also, don't forget the token stabs at the Iraq war. Wouldn't be a
> Michael Moore comment without it. I can't fault his opinion of the
> war, but I think there are plenty of people directly involved in the
> war that wouldn't appreciate the kind of comments Mr Moore comes up
> with.
Really? Do you know them personally?
The comparison is simple; Dubya authorises a war effort that runs like clockwork. He's also head of a government that has the oil revenues of Iraq returning to normal very quickly. However the rebuilding has been dismal, and people are dying. The same holds true in New Orleans. The accusation is that Dubya cares more about oil than people. You may not like that opinion, but I haven't heard you refute it yet.
>
> To summarize: the guy makes sweeping statements based on facts that
> he uncovers without truly seeking out the cause. To make things
> worse, when he doesn't like what he finds, he starts sweating, gets
> red in the face and shouts at the one person he can see in the US
> government, George Bush.
Firstly, the cause is, as I've explained, implied. It's up to you to look into it in more detail if you don't like what you read.
You assume he doesn't like what he finds? Based on what? You're saying he both hasn't looked into it, then that he has and didn't like the result. Which is it?
>
> Did anybody tell you? I know you didn't want to interrupt your
> vacation and I know how you don't like to get bad news.
>
> Seriously, eight year old kids sit at school coming up with comments
> like that. His whole letter is littered with sarcastic swipes at
> people who are handling things that he (and most of us) don't fully
> understand.
But if you don't understand it yourself, how can you possibly say as a statement of fact "He doesn't understand"? Aren't you just assuming that, because you're not entirely clear on what has been going on, he isn't?
>
> I think the main reason I don't like him is that he strikes me as the
> kind of guy who, in the event of a nuclear disaster in his own
> country, who stand there like the kid from The Simpsons and shout
> "Haa haa" before dying in a pool of his own melted fat.
Well, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion. I would ask though; have you read anything of his before? Are you aware of the circumstances that generate the anger that punctuates anything he writes or says about Dubya?
>
> Another point would be that he talks about the national guard not
> being ordered in to help people:
>
> Also, any idea where all our national guard soldiers are? We could
> really use them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do
> like helping with national disasters. How come they weren't there to
> begin with?
>
> If they had been there to begin with, the next headlines we would
> have undoubtedly heard could have been along the lines of
> "Eleven soldiers die after being ordered into hurricane by
> President". Mr Moore would then obviously have replied with:
You're assuming an awful lot there. First of all, the National Guard are actually there for dealing with domestic emergencies. That's why they're called the National Guard. However, a huge number of 'em have been deployed to Iraq. Which means there is insufficient resource to deal with disasters like this.
I've no problem with someone being slated for what they did say, but when you're creating things he might have said if circumstances were different...I think that's perhaps a little much.
>
> Further,
>
> And don't listen to those who, in the coming days, will reveal how
> you specifically reduced the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for New
> Orleans this summer for the third year in a row. You just tell them
> that even if you hadn't cut the money to fix those levees, there
> weren't going to be any Army engineers to fix them anyway because
> you
> had a much more important construction job for them -- BUILDING
> DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ!
>
> This could quite possibly be the truth and its a good point, but what
> Mr Moore is apparently incapable of doing is presenting reasons why
> this sort of stuff happens. I can't put much weight on his remark
> because I don't know the reasons why those cuts were made (and
> apparently neither does he). For all we (and he) knows, it was put
> into something that, had this disaster not taken place may have been
> beneficial to the city. Tragically the decision resulted in poor
> defences against the storm and this may have cost lives, but it
> brings things to another point Mr Moore made about global warming.
Well, why don't you look up the reasons why it happened? He's presented a fact. Should it always be up to the person putting forward the argument to spoon-feed you the background?
For the record, he usually does; read one of his books, and you'll find it footnoted to hell with the source of the info.
However, I will tell you this; cuts to that budget were made. And tax cuts that benefitted the wealthiest 5% of the US were also made. Under Clinton, the US ran at a profit. Under Dubya, they have an enormous deficit. You do the math.
>
> There are papers written arguing both sides of the global warming
> debate, some suggesting that global warming is a myth. If it was a
> simple fact that global warming was caused by ... and resulted in ...
> there wouldn't be any need for dicussion anymore. In the same way as
> Tom Cruise blundered into his new Scientology or whatever it was,
> these people believe that reading a few papers is enough to make them
> an expert. Every week I read or scan some of the latest journals in my
> research area and every week you see mistakes. I'm no expert, even in
> my own field, but I know enough to say that people who write these
> papers are still just people and they can make mistakes.
Now this is just utter naivety. You do realise, don't you, that the entire "Global Warming is a myth" lobby is made up of fossil fuel company lobbyists, right? People who have a vested interest (and a LOT of money) in continuing use of fossil fuel? People who co-incidentally funded Dubya's election campaign? Right?
I would remind you that, in the US, no President has yet come out and said that the Government accepts there is a link between Cancer and smoking. So does that mean we should dismiss Lung Cancer research into smokers because, hey, the link isn't accepted by everyone?
Of course it doesn't. I accept your point that the people who say that there IS such a thing as global warming are just people. On the other hand, when the evidence is so overwhelming, and when the President dismisses it on the basis of a small minority of oil company funded scientists...well, don't you feel rather suspicious as to his reasons?
>
> Additionally, does he think that George Bush is the only man with
> power? Decisions like the cuts mentioned above may not even have been
> thoroughly discussed with the president - it could easily have been
> handelled at lower levels or, most likely, by a mixture of Democratic
> and Republican senators, almost out of the hands of the President
> himself.
He's talking about Federal funding. That comes from the Federal Government. The head of which is the President.
He's also head of the Republican Party. Which controls both Senate and Congress. And so has the ultimate say in what legislature goes through.
>
> Oh, also, don't forget the token stabs at the Iraq war. Wouldn't be a
> Michael Moore comment without it. I can't fault his opinion of the
> war, but I think there are plenty of people directly involved in the
> war that wouldn't appreciate the kind of comments Mr Moore comes up
> with.
Really? Do you know them personally?
The comparison is simple; Dubya authorises a war effort that runs like clockwork. He's also head of a government that has the oil revenues of Iraq returning to normal very quickly. However the rebuilding has been dismal, and people are dying. The same holds true in New Orleans. The accusation is that Dubya cares more about oil than people. You may not like that opinion, but I haven't heard you refute it yet.
>
> To summarize: the guy makes sweeping statements based on facts that
> he uncovers without truly seeking out the cause. To make things
> worse, when he doesn't like what he finds, he starts sweating, gets
> red in the face and shouts at the one person he can see in the US
> government, George Bush.
Firstly, the cause is, as I've explained, implied. It's up to you to look into it in more detail if you don't like what you read.
You assume he doesn't like what he finds? Based on what? You're saying he both hasn't looked into it, then that he has and didn't like the result. Which is it?
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> I never could quite get my head around the whole pretzel shindig.
He was punched by his master (i.e. George senior, the real President).
> I never could quite get my head around the whole pretzel shindig.
He was punched by his master (i.e. George senior, the real President).
Wow..for once I agree with you there gerrid.
I don't really like Michael More and that letter is very sarcastic and makes him sound like a smart-assed loser. It's good that people are bringing attention to these issues but sarcasm is rarely the way to get yourself taken seriously.
Hedfix wrote:
> To be like a child you have to be unable to swallow a pretzel
> properly.
>
> Michael Moore is not a child or, indeed, like one.
> To be like a child you have to be unable to swallow a pretzel
> properly.
>
> Michael Moore is not a child or, indeed, like one.
Light wrote:
> Simple? Childish? Explain please.
Sorry, almost missed that my post had been replied to. Going back to that, its things like this:
> Did anybody tell you? I know you didn't want to interrupt your
> vacation and I know how you don't like to get bad news.
Seriously, eight year old kids sit at school coming up with comments like that. His whole letter is littered with sarcastic swipes at people who are handling things that he (and most of us) don't fully understand.
I think the main reason I don't like him is that he strikes me as the kind of guy who, in the event of a nuclear disaster in his own country, who stand there like the kid from The Simpsons and shout "Haa haa" before dying in a pool of his own melted fat.
Another point would be that he talks about the national guard not being ordered in to help people:
> Also, any idea where all our national guard soldiers are? We could
> really use them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do
> like helping with national disasters. How come they weren't there to
> begin with?
If they had been there to begin with, the next headlines we would have undoubtedly heard could have been along the lines of "Eleven soldiers die after being ordered into hurricane by President". Mr Moore would then obviously have replied with:
> Also, what happened to all our national guard soldiers? We could
> really use them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do
> like helping with national disasters. How come they were put in harm's > way at the beginning?
Further,
> And don't listen to those who, in the coming days, will reveal how
> you specifically reduced the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for New
> Orleans this summer for the third year in a row. You just tell them
> that even if you hadn't cut the money to fix those levees, there
> weren't going to be any Army engineers to fix them anyway because you
> had a much more important construction job for them -- BUILDING
> DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ!
This could quite possibly be the truth and its a good point, but what Mr Moore is apparently incapable of doing is presenting reasons why this sort of stuff happens. I can't put much weight on his remark because I don't know the reasons why those cuts were made (and apparently neither does he). For all we (and he) knows, it was put into something that, had this disaster not taken place may have been beneficial to the city. Tragically the decision resulted in poor defences against the storm and this may have cost lives, but it brings things to another point Mr Moore made about global warming.
There are papers written arguing both sides of the global warming debate, some suggesting that global warming is a myth. If it was a simple fact that global warming was caused by ... and resulted in ... there wouldn't be any need for dicussion anymore. In the same way as Tom Cruise blundered into his new Scientology or whatever it was, these people believe that reading a few papers is enough to make them an expert. Every week I read or scan some of the latest journals in my research area and every week you see mistakes. I'm no expert, even in my own field, but I know enough to say that people who write these papers are still just people and they can make mistakes.
Additionally, does he think that George Bush is the only man with power? Decisions like the cuts mentioned above may not even have been thoroughly discussed with the president - it could easily have been handelled at lower levels or, most likely, by a mixture of Democratic and Republican senators, almost out of the hands of the President himself.
Oh, also, don't forget the token stabs at the Iraq war. Wouldn't be a Michael Moore comment without it. I can't fault his opinion of the war, but I think there are plenty of people directly involved in the war that wouldn't appreciate the kind of comments Mr Moore comes up with.
To summarize: the guy makes sweeping statements based on facts that he uncovers without truly seeking out the cause. To make things worse, when he doesn't like what he finds, he starts sweating, gets red in the face and shouts at the one person he can see in the US government, George Bush.
> Simple? Childish? Explain please.
Sorry, almost missed that my post had been replied to. Going back to that, its things like this:
> Did anybody tell you? I know you didn't want to interrupt your
> vacation and I know how you don't like to get bad news.
Seriously, eight year old kids sit at school coming up with comments like that. His whole letter is littered with sarcastic swipes at people who are handling things that he (and most of us) don't fully understand.
I think the main reason I don't like him is that he strikes me as the kind of guy who, in the event of a nuclear disaster in his own country, who stand there like the kid from The Simpsons and shout "Haa haa" before dying in a pool of his own melted fat.
Another point would be that he talks about the national guard not being ordered in to help people:
> Also, any idea where all our national guard soldiers are? We could
> really use them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do
> like helping with national disasters. How come they weren't there to
> begin with?
If they had been there to begin with, the next headlines we would have undoubtedly heard could have been along the lines of "Eleven soldiers die after being ordered into hurricane by President". Mr Moore would then obviously have replied with:
> Also, what happened to all our national guard soldiers? We could
> really use them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do
> like helping with national disasters. How come they were put in harm's > way at the beginning?
Further,
> And don't listen to those who, in the coming days, will reveal how
> you specifically reduced the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for New
> Orleans this summer for the third year in a row. You just tell them
> that even if you hadn't cut the money to fix those levees, there
> weren't going to be any Army engineers to fix them anyway because you
> had a much more important construction job for them -- BUILDING
> DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ!
This could quite possibly be the truth and its a good point, but what Mr Moore is apparently incapable of doing is presenting reasons why this sort of stuff happens. I can't put much weight on his remark because I don't know the reasons why those cuts were made (and apparently neither does he). For all we (and he) knows, it was put into something that, had this disaster not taken place may have been beneficial to the city. Tragically the decision resulted in poor defences against the storm and this may have cost lives, but it brings things to another point Mr Moore made about global warming.
There are papers written arguing both sides of the global warming debate, some suggesting that global warming is a myth. If it was a simple fact that global warming was caused by ... and resulted in ... there wouldn't be any need for dicussion anymore. In the same way as Tom Cruise blundered into his new Scientology or whatever it was, these people believe that reading a few papers is enough to make them an expert. Every week I read or scan some of the latest journals in my research area and every week you see mistakes. I'm no expert, even in my own field, but I know enough to say that people who write these papers are still just people and they can make mistakes.
Additionally, does he think that George Bush is the only man with power? Decisions like the cuts mentioned above may not even have been thoroughly discussed with the president - it could easily have been handelled at lower levels or, most likely, by a mixture of Democratic and Republican senators, almost out of the hands of the President himself.
Oh, also, don't forget the token stabs at the Iraq war. Wouldn't be a Michael Moore comment without it. I can't fault his opinion of the war, but I think there are plenty of people directly involved in the war that wouldn't appreciate the kind of comments Mr Moore comes up with.
To summarize: the guy makes sweeping statements based on facts that he uncovers without truly seeking out the cause. To make things worse, when he doesn't like what he finds, he starts sweating, gets red in the face and shouts at the one person he can see in the US government, George Bush.
Page: