Michael Moore

America, You Must Not Look Away (How to Finish Off the NRA)

2013-03-13T08:12:31-04:00

The year was 1955. Emmett Till was a young African-American boy from Chicago visiting relatives in Mississippi. One day Emmett was seen "flirting" with a white woman in town, and for that he was mutilated and murdered at the age of fourteen. He was found with part of a cotton gin tied around his neck with a string of barbed wire. His killers, two white men, had shot him in the head before they dumped him in the river.

Emmett Till's body was found and returned to Chicago. To the shock of many, his mother insisted on an open casket at his funeral so that the public could see what happens to a little boy's body when bigots decide he is less than human. She wanted photographers to take pictures of her mutilated son and freely publish them. More than 10,000 mourners came to the funeral home, and the photo of Emmett Till appeared in newspapers and magazines across the nation.

"I just wanted the world to see," she said. "I just wanted the world to see."

The world did see, and nothing was ever the same again for the white supremacists of the United States of America. Because of Emmett Till, because of that shocking photograph of this little dead boy, just a few months later, "the revolt officially began on December 1, 1955" (from Eyes on the Prize) when Rosa Parks decided not to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. The historic bus boycott began and, with the images of Emmett Till still fresh in the minds of many Americans, there was no turning back.

In March of 1965, the police of Selma, Alabama, brutally beat, hosed and tear-gassed a group of African Americans for simply trying to cross a bridge during a protest march. The nation was shocked by images of blacks viciously maimed and injured. So, too, was the President. Just one week later, Lyndon Johnson called for a gathering of the U.S. Congress and he went and stood before them in joint session and told them to pass a bill he was introducing that night – the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And, just five months later, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law.

In March, 1968, U.S. soldiers massacred 500 civilians at My Lai in Vietnam. A year and a half later, the world finally saw the photographs – of mounds of dead peasants covered in blood, a terrified toddler seconds before he was gunned down, and a woman with her brains literally blown out of her head. (These photos would join other Vietnam War photos, including a naked girl burned by napalm running down the road, and a South Vietnamese general walking up to a handcuffed suspect, taking out his handgun, and blowing the guy's brains out on the NBC Nightly News.)

With this avalanche of horrid images, the American public turned against the Vietnam War. Our realization of what we were capable of rattled us so deeply it became very hard for future presidents (until George W. Bush) to outright invade a sovereign nation and go to war there for a decade.

Bush was able to pull it off because his handlers, Misters Cheney and Rumsfeld, knew that the most important thing to do from the get-go was to control the images of the war, to guarantee that nothing like a My Lai-style photograph ever appeared in the U.S. press.

And that is why you never see a picture any more of the kind of death and destruction that might make you get up off your couch and run out of the house screaming bloody murder at those responsible for these atrocities.

That is why now, after the children's massacre in Newtown, the absolute last thing the National Rifle Association wants out there in the public domain is ANY images of what happened that tragic day.

But I have a prediction. I believe someone in Newtown, Connecticut – a grieving parent, an upset law enforcement officer, a citizen who has seen enough of this carnage in our country – somebody, someday soon, is going to leak the crime scene photos of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. And when the American people see what bullets from an assault rifle fired at close range do to a little child's body, that's the day the jig will be up for the NRA. It will be the day the debate on gun control will come to an end. There will be nothing left to argue over. It will just be over. And every sane American will demand action.

Of course, there will be a sanctimonious hue and cry from the pundits who will decry the publication of these gruesome pictures. Those who do publish or post them will be called "shameful" and "disgraceful" and "sick." How could a media outlet be so insensitive to the families of the dead children! Someone will then start a boycott of the magazine or website that publishes them.

But this will be a false outrage. Because the real truth is this: We do not want to be confronted with what the actual results of a violent society looks like. Of what a society that starts illegal wars, that executes criminals (or supposed criminals), that strikes or beats one of its women every 15 seconds, and shoots 30 of its own citizens every single day looks like. Oh, no, please – DO NOT MAKE US LOOK AT THAT!

Because if we were to seriously look at the 20 slaughtered children – I mean really look at them, with their bodies blown apart, many of them so unrecognizable the only way their parents could identify them was by the clothes they were wearing – what would be our excuse not to act? Now. Right now. This very instant! How on earth could anyone not spring into action the very next moment after seeing the bullet-riddled bodies of these little boys and girls?

We don't know exactly what those Newtown photographs show. But I want you – yes, you, the person reading this right now – to think about what we do know:

The six- and seven-year-old children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School were each hit up to eleven times by a Bushmaster AR-15 semi-automatic weapon. The muzzle velocity of a rifle like the AR-15 is about three times that of a handgun. And because the kinetic energy of a bullet equals one-half of the bullet's mass multiplied by its velocity squared, the potential destructive power of a bullet fired from a rifle is about nine times more than that of a similar bullet fired from a handgun.

Nine times more. I spoke to Dr. Victor Weedn, chairman of the Department of Forensic Sciences at George Washington University, who told me that chest x-rays of a person shot with a rifle will often look like a "snowstorm" because their bones will have been shattered into fragments. This happens not just because of the bullet's direct impact, but because each bullet sends a shock wave through the body's soft organs – one so powerful it can break bones even when the bullet didn't hit them. A video here shows what the shock wave looks like in the "ballistic gelatin" used by experts to simulate human tissue. (Would Gabby Giffords have survived if shot by a rifle rather than a Glock pistol? Probably not, says Dr. Weedn; the shock wave would have damaged the most critical parts of her brain.)

As horrifying as this is, there's more; much more. Dr. Cyril Wecht, past president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, told me this:

The kind of ammunition used by the Newtown killer would have produced very extensive, severe and mutilating injuries of the head and face in these small victims. Depending on the number of shots striking a child’s head, substantial portions of the head would be literally blasted away. The underlying brain tissue would be extensively lacerated with portions of hemorrhagic brain tissue protruding through the fractured calvarium and basilar skull, some of which would remain on portions of the face... actual physical identification of each child would have been extremely difficult, and in many instances impossible, even by the parents of any particular child.

We also know this, according to Dr. Wecht:

In one case, the parents have commented publicly upon the damage to their child, reporting that his chin and left hand were missing. Most probably, this child had brought his hand up to his face in shock and for protection and had the hand blasted away along with the lower part of his face.

Veronique Pozner, the mother of Noah, the six-year-old boy described by Dr. Wecht, insisted that the governor of Connecticut look at Noah in an open casket. "I needed it to be real to him," she said. The governor wept.

The pictures showing all this exist right now, somewhere in the police and medical examiner's files in Connecticut. And as of right now, we've somehow all decided together that we don't need to look, that in some way we're okay with what's in those pictures (after all, over 2,600 Americans have been killed by guns since Newtown) – just as long as we don't have to look at the pictures ourselves.

But I am telling you now, that moment will come with the Newtown photos – and you will have to look. You will have to look at who and what we are, and what we've allowed to happen. At the end of World War II, General Eisenhower ordered that thousands of German civilians be forced to march through the concentration camps so they could witness what was happening just down the road from them during the years that they turned their gaze away, or didn't ask, or didn't do anything to stop the murder of millions.

We've done nothing since Columbine – nothing – and as a result there have been over 30 other mass shootings since then. Our inaction means that we are all, on some level, responsible – and therefore, because of our burying our heads in the sand, we must be forced to look at the 20 dead children at Sandy Hook Elementary.

The people we've voted for since Columbine – with the exception of Michael Bloomberg – almost none of them, Democrat or Republican, dared to speak out against the NRA before Newtown – and yet we, the people, continued to vote for them. And for that we are responsible, and that is why we must look at the 20 dead children.

Most of us continue to say we "support the Second Amendment" as if it were written by God (or we're just afraid of being seen as anti-American). But this amendment was written by the same white men who thought a Negro was only 3/5 human. We've done nothing to revise or repeal this – and that makes us responsible, and that is why we must look at the pictures of the 20 dead children laying with what's left of their bodies on the classroom floor in Newtown, Connecticut.

And while you're looking at the heinous photographs, try saying those words out loud: "I support the Second Amendment!" Something, I'm guessing, won't feel right.

Yes, someday a Sandy Hook mother – or a Columbine mother, or an Aurora mother, or a mother from massacres yet to come – will say, like the mother of Emmett Till, "I just want the world to see." And then nothing about guns in this country will ever be the same again.

Pack your bags, NRA – you're about to be shown the door. Because we refuse to let another child die in this manner. Got it? I hope so.

All you can do now is hope no one releases those photos.

My Final Word on BuzzFeed and Emad Burnat's Detention at LAX

2013-02-27T08:39:32-05:00

Thanks to everyone for bearing with me as I spend so much time on what happened to Emad Burnat. It's important to me because he's my friend, and he's being bullied. In the U.S., being Palestinian = Easy Target. It's not right.

If you haven't been following this since the beginning, you can read my first post here about how Emad was detained at LAX with his wife and son while on his way to the Oscars. Then there's BuzzFeed's first story, my response, and BuzzFeed's follow up.

What's truly important here is Emad and Guy Davidi's beautiful film, 5 Broken Cameras. If you haven't watched it yet (you can stream it on Netflix or Hulu Plus) please do before reading any of this.

I like BuzzFeed, and I understand the pressure that online reporters are under. But I think everyone agrees that, despite all the awesome kitten gifs, they're still obligated to be skeptical of government officials and ask the right questions.

So I hope BuzzFeed's readers (and reporters and editors) will take these points seriously:

1. Why on earth would Emad stage a "publicity stunt" last Tuesday? Emad was already nominated for an Oscar. The theatrical release of 5 Broken Cameras was over. The voting for Best Documentary had closed. Just to sell more DVDs? I wish the world were different, but let's face it, Palestinian documentaries don't post amazing DVD sales even with the best publicity stunts on earth.

So the claims of BuzzFeed's single anonymous government official made no sense from the start. On the other hand, the TSA is notorious for detaining Arabs and Arab Americans. And Indians with Muslim names. And American students carrying English-Arabic flashcards. And filmmakers from the Middle East.

2. There are multiple interrogation areas at LAX where people like Emad and his family can be held by the Customs and Border Patrol during the process of being detained. If the government officials are telling the truth – that Emad was held at the "secondary" area for exactly 23 minutes, does that mean they were held for 23 minutes total? No. He was first detained while in line at the Customs desk. Then he was moved to an initial interrogation area. When that was done, he was moved to the "secondary" interrogation room. Did the unnamed government officials give BuzzFeed documentation for the total time Emad and his family were held in these three areas? Nope. Just the final area, where they kept him for those 23 minutes.

3. In the original article, BuzzFeed quoted its source as saying Emad "was not racially profiled." Did BuzzFeed ask its source whether any of the dozens of non-Palestinian foreigners coming to the Oscars were pulled out of line and held with their families? Did BuzzFeed reach out directly to any of the foreign Oscar nominees? There were a lot of accents on stage Sunday.

4. BuzzFeed's anonymous sources seem to have changed their story between article #1 and article #2. But BuzzFeed apparently didn't notice or care.

In article #1, Emad couldn't produce what the Homeland Security officers wanted to see "on the spot," so he was sent to the "secondary inspection area." In version #2, he could produce it on the spot, because it was on his smart phone. So… why was he sent to the secondary inspection area at all?

Maybe there's some way these two versions of events can fit together. But BuzzFeed should have asked these questions itself, not left it to readers to guess.

5. Finally, in the first article, BuzzFeed quoted the Customs and Border Patrol as saying "Due to privacy laws, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is prohibited from discussing specific cases." So the source in the original article clearly broke these laws. In the second article, five CBP officials happily broke the law.

Does their willingness to violate their own policies (about privacy) say something about their credibility – especially when they're claiming they didn't violate their own policies (about holding foreigners coming to the U.S.)? Shouldn't BuzzFeed ask whether CBP is going to launch an investigation into this rampant lawbreaking? And if they're not going to launch an investigation, isn't that the most important story here? Call me crazy, but I'd like it if the people in charge of keeping terrorists out of the U.S. would, you know, follow the law themselves, rather than spending all their time covering their own ass.

Beyond that, consider how many times over the past 10 years that journalists have handed out anonymity to government officials who have then used that anonymity to lie with impunity. (We're exactly 10 years from the start of the Iraq war.) I don't think Tessa Stuart and BuzzFeed want to become the Judy Miller/New York Times of 2013. So I wish they had been able to take a step back and be skeptical of the "official story."

What's hilarious is that the Feds and BuzzFeed seem to find it unthinkable that a Palestinian and his hijab-wearing wife would be held and harassed by Homeland Security! It's so unlikely that Michael Moore and his Arab buddy would have to make the whole thing up! Haha! Good luck, Mike, trying to convince the American public that our Border Patrol would detain a brown man!

Again, I know it takes BuzzFeed time to write all the articles about 17 Celebrity Puppies You Didn't Know Are Bisexual. (I'm not judging, I just clicked on that myself.) But it would be great if they could find some time in the day for journalism too.

La experiencia de Emad Nurnat, candidato a un Oscar, retenido y amenazado con la deportación en Los Ángeles

2013-02-24T04:00:24-05:00

Hace unos días se celebró en Beverly Hills la cena organizada por la Academia de Cine en honor de los directores y productores de las cinco películas nominadas este año para el Oscar al Mejor Documental. La cena era una tradición que mi esposa y yo comenzamos hace seis años cuando invitamos a los otros candidatos (nosotros lo éramos por Sicko) para conocernos mejor. A la Academia le gustó la idea, y este año ha organizado cenas durante la semana de los Oscars para los nominados de cada uno de los apartados de los premios.

Por eso, la otra noche, los tres gobernadores del apartado de documentales -Michael Apted, Rob Epstein y yo- habíamos convocado la cena para los directores de las películas finalistas. Pero faltaba uno de ellos: Emad Burnat, codirector del documental 5 Broken Cameras (Cinco cámaras rotas). Este excepcional y galardonado film, sobre cómo la aldea de Emad, en Cisjordania, empleó la no violencia para oponerse a la decisión del gobierno israelí de construir un muro que atravesaba sus granjas y sus calles, para acabar viendo (y captando con la cámara) a soldados israelíes mientras disparaban contra civiles palestinos desarmados, es el primer documental palestino jamás nominado por la Academia.

Mientras esperábamos que Emad llegara del aeropuerto -su familia y él ya habían tenido que pasar casi seis horas en un puesto de control israelí cuando intentaban llegar a Ammán para coger su avión-, recibí un mensaje de texto urgente que había escrito desde una habitación en la comisaría del Aeropuerto Internacional de Los Ángeles.

Esto es lo que decía, en un lenguaje algo entrecortado:

"Urgente -- Estoy en el aeropuerto LA necesitan más información por qué vengo aquí
invitación o algo.
Puedes ayudar nos enviarán de vuelta
si tardas. Emad"

Me apresuré a responderle y le dije que enseguida iría alguien a ayudarle. Contestó que los agentes de Inmigración y Aduanas les estaban reteniendo a él, su mujer, Soraya, y su hijo de ocho años, Gibreel (la "estrella" de la película) en una sala de la comisaría del aeropuerto. Que no le habían creído cuando les había dicho que era director de cine, estaba nominado para un Oscar y venía a asistir a la ceremonia del domingo y a los actos que se celebran en Los Ángeles en los días anteriores. Teniendo en cuenta, además, que es palestino, y que cultiva olivos, se ve que todo eso era demasiado para que lo comprendieran los del Departamento de Seguridad Interior.

"Dicen que nos van a subir al próximo avión que salga para Ammán", me contestó.

Inmediatamente me puse en contacto con la consejera delegada de la Academia, Dawn Hudson, y con el director de operaciones, Ric Robertson, que a su vez se lo dijo al presidente de la institución, Hawk Koch. Ellos llamaron al abogado de la Academia, que es socio de un importante abogado especializado en inmigración, y pusieron manos a la obra. Yo llamé al Departamento de Estado, en Washington.

Le dije a Emad que diera a la gente de Interior mi nombre y mi número de móvil, y que me llamaran cuanto antes para que yo pudiera explicarles quién era él y por qué debían dejarle en libertad.

Después de retenerle durante una o dos horas, con repetidas insinuaciones de que a lo mejor no iba a poder entrar en el país y le iban a enviar de vuelta a casa, las autoridades cedieron y dejaron a Emad y su familia en libertad.

Le envié un mensaje para decirle que no empezaríamos a cenar hasta que no llegara. Cuando apareció, estaba muy alterado y disgustado.

Nos dijo que está acostumbrado a un trato así "a diario, con la ocupación". Pronunció un elocuente y conmovedor discurso improvisado, con su suave voz habitual, ante los demás nominados. Dijo que, debido al documental, este era su sexto viaje a Estados Unidos en este año, y era la primera vez que le habían detenido. Que le habían pedido algún "documento oficial" que demostrara que era de verdad un candidato. Le pregunté: "¿Es que Inmigración no puede buscar en Google?"

Los estadounidenses presentes en el comedor se disculparon ante Emad por el trato que había recibido de nuestro Gobierno y su policía de seguridad. Después nos sentamos a cenar un rico asado típicamente americano.

Traducción de María Luisa Rodríguez Tapia.

How My Friend and Current Oscar Nominee Emad Burnat Was Held and Threatened with Deportation Last Night at LAX

2013-02-20T15:33:05-05:00

Last night was the Motion Picture Academy-sponsored dinner in Beverly Hills honoring the directors and producers of this year's five nominated films for Best Documentary. The dinner was an occasional tradition my wife and I started six years ago when we took our fellow nominees (we were nominated for Sicko) out for a meal to get to know each other. The Academy liked the idea, so this year it is holding dinners during Oscar Week for each of the separate branches' Oscar nominees.

Thus, last night, as an elected Governor of the Documentary Branch, I and my fellow Governors – Michael Apted and Rob Epstein – were co-hosting the nominee dinner for the documentary filmmakers. But one of the nominated directors was not there – Emad Burnat, the co-director of the Oscar-nominated 5 Broken Cameras. This exceptional, award-winning movie about how Emad's village in the West Bank used non-violence to oppose the Israeli's government's decision to build a wall straight through their farms and village – only to see (and capture on camera) Israeli soldiers shooting unarmed Palestinian civilians – had become the first Palestinian documentary ever to be nominated by the Academy.

While we awaited Emad's arrival from the airport – he and his family had already spent nearly six hours at an Israeli checkpoint as he was attempting to drive to Amman to catch their plane – I received an urgent text from Emad, written to me from a holding pen at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX).

Here is what it said, in somewhat broken English:

"Urgent -- I am in the air port la they need more information why I come here
Invitation or some thing
Can you help they will send us back
If you late
Emad"

I quickly texted him back and told him that help was on the way. He wrote back to say Immigration and Customs was holding him, his wife, Soraya, and their 8-year old son (and "star" of the movie) Gibreel in a detention room at LAX. He said they would not believe him when he told them he was an Oscar-nominated director on his way to this Sunday's Oscars and to the events in LA leading up to the ceremony. He is also a Palestinian. And a olive farmer. Apparently that was too much for Homeland Security to wrap its head around.

"They are saying they are going to put us on the next plane back to Amman," he told me.

I immediately contacted the Academy CEO Dawn Hudson and COO Ric Robertson, who in turn told Academy President Hawk Koch. They got ahold of the Academy's attorney who is also partners with a top immigration attorney and they went to work on it. I called the State Department in D.C.

I told Emad to give the Homeland Security people my name and cell number and to have them call me ASAP so I could explain who he was and why they should let him go.

After being held for somewhere between one and two hours, with repeated suggestions that the U.S. may not let him into the country – saying that they may send him back home – the authorities relented and released Emad and his family.

I texted him to say we would not start the dinner until he arrived. When he got there, he was fairly shaken and upset.

He told us that this sort of treatment is something he is used to "on a daily basis under Occupation." He gave an eloquent and moving impromptu speech, in his usual soft-spoken voice, to his fellow nominees. He said this was his sixth trip with his film to the U.S. this year and that this was the first time he was detained. He said they wanted to see some "official document" that he was an actual nominee. I said, "Doesn't Immigration have Google?"

The Americans in the dining room apologized to Emad for the way our government and its security police treated him. We then sat down and ate some good ol' American roast beef.

(Tonight at 7:30 p.m. in the Academy's theater on Wilshire Boulevard, I will host a discussion on stage with all the documentary nominees and show clips of their films. Emad Burnat will be there. The event is open to the public.)

WATCH:

In Defense of Zero Dark Thirty

2013-01-25T08:26:55-05:00

There comes a point about two-thirds of the way through Zero Dark Thirty where it is clear something, or someone, on high has changed. The mood at the CIA has shifted, become subdued. It appears that the torture-approving guy who's been president for the past eight years seems to be, well, gone. And, just as a fish rots from the head down, the stench also seems to be gone. Word then comes down that -- get this! -- we can't torture any more! The CIA agents seem a bit disgruntled and dumbfounded. I mean, torture has worked soooo well these past eight years! Why can't we torture any more???

The answer is provided on a TV screen in the background where you see a black man (who apparently is the new president) and he's saying, in plain English, that America's torturing days are over, done, finished. There's an "aw, shit" look on their faces and then some new boss comes into the meeting room, slams his fist on the table and says, essentially, you've had eight years to find bin Laden -- and all you've got to show for it are a bunch of photos of naked Arab men peeing on themselves and wearing dog collars and black hoods. Well, he shouts, those days are over! There's no secret group up on the top floor looking for bin Laden, you're it, and goddammit do your job and find him.

He is there to put the fear of God in them, probably because his boss, the new president, has (as we can presume) on his first day in office, ordered that bin Laden be found and killed. Unlike his frat boy predecessor who had little interest in finding bin Laden (even to the point of joking that "I really just don't spend that much time on him"), this new president was not an imbecile and all about business. Go find bin Laden -- and don't use torture. Torture is morally wrong. Torture is the coward's way. C'mon -- we're smart, we're the USA, and you're telling me we can't find a six-and-a-half-foot tall Saudi who's got a $25 million bounty on his head? Use your brains (like I do) and, goddammit, get to work!

And then, as the movie shows, the CIA abruptly shifts from torture porn to -- are you sitting down? -- detective work. Like cops do to find killers. Bin Laden was a killer -- a mass killer -- not a general of an army of soldiers, or the head of a country call Terrorstan. He was a crazed religious fanatic, a multi-millionaire, and a punk who was part of the anti-Soviet mujahideen whom we trained, armed and funded in Afghanistan back in the '80s. But he was a godsend and a very useful tool to the Dick Cheneys and Don Rumsfields of the world. They could hold him up to a frightened American public and scare the bejesus out of everyone -- and everyone (well, most everyone) would then get behind the effort to declare war on, um ... well ... Who exactly do we declare war against? Oh, right -- terrorism! The War on Terrorism! So skilled were the men from Halliburton, et al. that they convinced the Congress and the public to go to war against a noun. Terrorism. People fell for it, and these rich men and their friends made billions of dollars from "contracting" and armaments and a Burger King on every Iraqi base. Billions more were made creating a massive internal spying apparatus called "Homeland Security." Business was very, very good, and as long as the bogeyman (Osama) was alive, the citizenry would not complain one bit.

I think you know what happens next. In the final third of Zero Dark Thirty, the agents switch from torture to detective work -- and guess what happens? We find bin Laden! Eight years of torture -- no bin Laden. Two years of detective work -- boom! Bin Laden!

And that really should be the main takeaway from Zero Dark Thirty: That good detective work can bring fruitful results -- and that torture is wrong.

Much of the discussion and controversy around the film has centered on the belief that the movie shows, or is trying to say, that torture works. They torture a guy for years and finally, while having a friendly lunch with him one day, they ask him if he would tell them the name of bin Laden's courier. Either that, or go back and be tortured some more. He says he doesn't know the guy but he knows his fake name and he gives them that name. The name turns out to be correct. Torture works!

But then we learn a piece of news: The CIA has had the name of this guy all along! For ten years! And how did they get this name ten years ago? From "a tip." A random tip! No torture involved. But, as was the rule during those years of incompetency and no desire to find bin Laden, the tip was filed away somewhere in some room -- and not discovered until 2010. So, instead of torturing hundreds for eight years to find this important morsel of intelligence, they could have found it in their own CIA file cabinet in about eight minutes. Yeah, torture works.

In the movie, after they have the name of the courier, they then believe if they find him, they find bin Laden. So how do they find him? They bribe a Kuwaiti informant with a new car. That's right, they find the number of the courier's family by giving the guy a Lamborghini. And what do they do when they find the courier's mother? Do they kidnap and torture her to find out where her son is? Nope, they just listen in on his weekly call home to Mom, and through that, they trace him to Pakistan and then hire a bunch of undercover Pakistani Joe Fridays to follow this guy's every move -- which, then, leads them to the infamous compound in Abbottabad where the Saudi punk has holed up.

Nice police work, boys!

Oh -- and girl. 'Zero Dark Thirty -- a movie made by a woman (Kathryn Bigelow), produced by a woman (Megan Ellison), distributed by a woman (Amy Pascal, the co-chairman of Sony Pictures), and starring a woman (Jessica Chastain) is really about how an agency of mostly men are dismissive of a woman who is on the right path to finding bin Laden. Yes, guys, this is a movie about how we don't listen to women, how hard it is for them to have their voice heard even in these enlightened times. You could say this is a 21st century chick flick -- and it would do you well to see it.

But back to the controversy and the torture. I guess where I part with most of my friends who are upset at this film is that they are allowing the wrong debate to take place. You should NEVER engage in a debate where the other side defines the terms of the debate -- namely, in this case, to debate "whether torture works." You should refuse to participate in that discussion because the real question should be, simply, "is torture wrong?" And, after watching the brutal behavior of CIA agents for the first 45 minutes of the film, I can't believe anyone of conscience would conclude anything other than that this is morally NOT right. You will be repulsed by these torture scenes because, make no mistake about it, this has been done in your name and mine and with our tax dollars. We funded this.

If you allow the question to be "did torture work?" then you'll lose because yes, if you torture someone who actually has the information, they will eventually give it to you. The problem is, the other 99 who don't know anything will also tell you anything to get you to stop torturing - but their information is wrong. How do you know which one of the 100 is the man with the goods? You don't.

But let's grant the other side that maybe, occasionally, torture "works." Here's what else will work: castrating pedophiles. Why don't we do that? Probably because we think it's morally wrong. The death penalty sure works. Put a murderer in a gas chamber and I can guarantee you he'll never murder again. But is it right? Do we accomplish the ends we seek by becoming the murderers ourselves? That should be our only question.

After I saw Zero Dark Thirty, a friend asked me, "During the torture scenes, who did you feel empathy for the most -- the American torturer or the Arab suspect?" That was easy to answer. "Oh, God, the poor guy being waterboarded. The torturer was a sadist."

"Yes, that's the answer everyone gives me afterward. The movie actually makes you care for the tortured guys who may have, in fact, been part of 9/11. Like rooting for the Germans on the submarine to make it back to port in Das Boot, that's the sign of some great filmmaking when the writer and director are able to get you to empathize with the person you've been told everywhere else to hate."

Zero Dark Thirty is a disturbing, fantastically-made movie. It will make you hate torture. And it will make you happy you voted for a man who stopped all that barbarity -- and who asked that the people over at Langley, like him, use their brains.

And that's what worked.

P.S. One final thought. I've heard fellow lefties say that even if the filmmakers didn't intend to endorse torture (Bigelow called torture "reprehensible" on Colbert the other night), the average person watching the movie is going to take it the wrong way. I believe it is the responsibility of the filmmaker attempting to communicate something that they do so clearly and skillfully (and you can decide for yourself if Bigelow and Boal did so. For me, they did.). But I never blame the artist for failing to dumb down their work so that the lesser minds among us "get it." Should Springsteen not have named his album Born in the USA because some took it to be as a salute to patriotism (Reagan wanted to use it in his 1984 reelection campaign but Bruce said no)?

This story appears in the special Oscar issue of our weekly iPad magazine, Huffington, in the iTunes App store, available Friday, Feb. 8.

WATCH MICHAEL MOORE ON HUFFPOST LIVE:

Ce futur secrétaire de la défense américain qui avait osé dénoncer la guerre en Irak

2013-01-08T10:00:09-05:00

Ce billet a été initialement publié sur michaelmoore.com, puis sur The HuffPost Politics

Vu avez pu entendre parler récemment de l'ancien sénateur Chuck Hagel, ce républicain du Nebraska que le Président Obama veut nommer Secrétaire de la Défense.

Mais ce qui vous a probablement échappé -principalement parce que tout le monde l'a oublié-, c'est qu'en 2007, ce même Chuck Hagel dérapait, et avouait ainsi la sombre vérité à propos de l'invasion américaine en Irak. Voici ce qu'il avait alors déclaré:

"Les gens disent que nous ne nous battons pas pour le pétrole. Il est pourtant évident que c'est ce que nous sommes en train de faire! Ils parlent de l'intérêt national de l'Amérique. Que pensez-vous que ça peut bien être? Nous n'allons pas en guerre pour leurs figues!"

Eh bien! Ne serait-ce pas là une jolie image que de pouvoir se lever le cœur léger tous les matins, d'aller lire les informations et d'y voir écrit le nom d'Hagel? S'il est capable de dire cela à propos de l'Irak, qui sait ce qu'il pourrait laisser échapper ensuite! Il pourrait avouer que le ciel est bleu, que deux plus deux font quatre... ou même que nous devrions rétablir le nom initial du Département de la Défense, celui qu'il portait avant la seconde Guerre Mondiale: le Département de la Guerre.

Attention. Je ne dis pas qu'Hagel est le plus à même de devenir Secrétaire de la Défense (Andrew Bacevich serait en effet plus qualifié). Je ne dis même pas qu'il est le plus qualifié des sénateurs ou ex-sénateurs (ils sont 19 à avoir survécu au rejet de l'invasion de l'Irak à l'automne 2002, alors qu'Hagel avait voté pour).

Mais ce que je dis c'est tout simplement: merci, Chuck Hagel. Nous ne seront peut-être pas d'accord sur beaucoup de choses, mais nous nous retrouveront toujours sur le fait que les politiques devraient dire la vérité à propos de la guerre et de la paix, de la vie et de la mort. Nous vous sommes tous redevables pour ça -principalement parce que lorsqu'il fut question de l'Irak ou du pétrole, le premier Secrétaire de la Défense républicain de l'administration Obama, Robert Gates, n'avait pas réussi à s'en sortir.

Ce futur secrétaire de la défense américain qui avait osé dénoncer la guerre en Irak

2013-01-08T00:00:09-05:00

Ce billet a été initialement publié sur michaelmoore.com, puis sur The HuffPost Politics

ÉTATS-UNIS - Vu avez pu entendre parler récemment de l'ancien sénateur Chuck Hagel, ce républicain du Nebraska que le Président Obama veut nommer Secrétaire de la Défense.

Mais ce qui vous a probablement échappé -principalement parce que tout le monde l'a oublié-, c'est qu'en 2007, ce même Chuck Hagel dérapait, et avouait ainsi la sombre vérité à propos de l'invasion américaine en Irak. Voici ce qu'il avait alors déclaré:

"Les gens disent que nous ne nous battons pas pour le pétrole. Il est pourtant évident que c'est ce que nous sommes en train de faire! Ils parlent de l'intérêt national de l'Amérique. Que pensez-vous que ça peut bien être? Nous n'allons pas en guerre pour leurs figues!"

Ce futur secrétaire de la défense américain qui avait osé dénoncer la guerre en Irak

2013-01-08T00:00:09-05:00

"Les gens disent que nous ne nous battons pas pour le pétrole. Il est pourtant évident que c'est ce que nous sommes en train de faire! Ils parlent de l'intérêt national de l'Amérique. Que pensez-vous que ça peut bien être? Nous n'allons pas en guerre pour leurs figues!"

Dear Bill Kristol: More People Than You Thought Are Vulgar, Disgusting and Far-Left

2013-01-06T11:14:59-05:00

I just sent this to Bill Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard magazine and one of the most influential advocates of our invasion of Iraq. He posted something this weekend about my post where I found an old quote from Chuck Hagel about how the Iraq War is all about the oil. I'll let you know when Bill gets back to me. (If you don't know much about Bill, you can find a good introduction here about his pre-war debate with Daniel Ellsberg.)

Dear Bill,

Thanks for your post mentioning me! I didn't realize you visited my website so early on Saturday mornings. Man, I wish we had cleaned up after the party last night.

Anyway, I see you're mad that back in 2007 former Sen. Chuck Hagel said that we were obviously "fighting for oil" in Iraq. You explain this was "vulgar and disgusting" and "could be the straw that breaks the back of Hagel's chances" to be Obama's next Defense Secretary.

Since you feel so strongly about this, I wanted to make sure you heard about four other prominent people who've said the same thing. (I should have mentioned them yesterday with the Chuck Hagel stuff, I apologize.)

• "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." - Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, in his 2007 memoir. (Read about it here. Greenspan then lamely tried to walk this back, when he found out just how politically inconvenient it was...while admitting a Bush White House official told him "unfortunately, we can't talk about oil.")

• "Of course we should go to war for oil. It's like saying, you're going to war just for oxygen, just for food. We need oil. That's a good reason to go to war." - Ann Coulter, author, April 11, 2011. (Watch her say that here at 37:30.)

• "Of course it's about oil, it's very much about oil, and we can't really deny that. From the standpoint of a solider who's now fought in the middle east for six years - my son-in-law's fought there for four years, my daughter's been over there, my son has served the nation - my family has been fighting for a long time." - Gen. John Abizaid, former commander of CENTCOM, October 13, 2007. (Watch Abizaid say this here.)

• "We're not in the middle east to bring sweetness and light to the whole world. That's nonsense. We're in the middle east because we and our European friends and our European non-friends depend on something that comes from the middle east, namely oil." - Midge Decter, author, May 21, 2004. (Listen here, at 35:55.)

I like to think the best about people. I know all you're looking for is an open, honest debate about Chuck Hagel's qualifications - with absolutely no smears or bullying. And because you feel that way, I'm sure you'll want to update what you wrote about Hagel with these quotes, and explain that Alan Greenspan and Ann Coulter and John Abizaid and Midge Decter are vulgar and disgusting and far-left too.

Obviously you don't need any incentive to do the right thing. But let me know the second you add them all to that post, and I'll send $1000 to any charity of your choice.

Say hi to Fred "I Read the Iliad" Barnes for me,

Michael Moore

P.S. You probably meet a lot of people, so maybe you don't remember Midge Decter. You can look her up here (speaking at an event honoring your dad), here (signing the founding "Statement of Principles" of your organization Project for the New American Century) and here (where you talked about how "so many of us" have followed "in Midge's footsteps"). Oh, by the way, you were on the 2004 radio program with her when she said the above quote.

Cross-posted from MichaelMoore.com.

Sei anni fa, Chuck Hagel ha detto la verità sull'Iraq

2013-01-06T03:07:26-05:00

Forse saprete che il prossimo lunedì il Presidente Obama probabilmente affiderà all'ex senatore Chuck Hagel, un repubblicano del Nebraska, la carica di Segretario della Difesa.

Quello che forse non sapete - perché tutti l'hanno dimenticato - è che nel 2007 Chuck Hagel è impazzito e ha detto la verità sull'invasione americana dell'Iraq. Ecco cosa ha dichiarato:

"Dicono che non combattiamo per il petrolio. Invece è ovvio che è così. Parlano dell'interesse nazionale dell'America. Di cosa diavolo pensate che parlino? Non siamo certo lì per i fichi."

Caspita! Non vi esalta l'idea di leggere le notizie ogni mattina e vedere il nome di Hagel? Se è disposto ad affermare una cosa del genere sull'Iraq, chissà che cosa tirerà fuori in futuro! Potrebbe dichiarare che il cielo è azzurro, o che due più due fa quattro... o persino che dovremmo cambiare nome al Dipartimento della Difesa e tornare al nome che aveva prima della Seconda guerra mondiale: il Dipartimento della Guerra.

Ora, non intendo dire che Hagel sia l'uomo più qualificato per il Dipartimento della Difesa. (Lo sarebbe Andrew Bacevich). E nemmeno intendo dire che sia il più qualificato tra i senatori o gli ex senatori (Sono rimasti 19 dei senatori che hanno votato contro l'invasione dell'Iraq nell'autunno 2002. Hagel ha votato a favore).

Quello che intendo dire è: grazie, Chuck Hagel. Non siamo d'accordo su molte cose, ma siamo d'accordo sul fatto che i politici dovrebbero dire la verità sulla guerra e la pace, sulla vita e la morte. Le siamo tutti debitori per questo, specialmente dal momento che, sull'Iraq e il petrolio, il primo Segretario repubblicano della Difesa sotto la presidenza Obama, Robert Gates, non ci è riuscito.

Questo post è uscito in precedenza su michaelmoore.com

Six Years Ago, Chuck Hagel Told the Truth About Iraq

2013-01-05T07:59:24-05:00

You might have seen that on Monday President Obama will likely nominate former Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, to be Secretary of Defense.

But what you probably haven't seen -- because everyone has forgotten -- is that back in 2007, Chuck Hagel went totally crazy and told the truth about our invasion of Iraq. Here's what he said:

People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs.

Whew! Wouldn't it put a spring in your step to read the news each morning and see Hagel's name? If he's willing to say that about Iraq, who knows what he'll bust out with next! He might mention that the sky is blue, or two plus two equals four... or even that we should change the name of the Department of Defense back to what it was before World War II -- the Department of War.

Now, I'm not saying Hagel is the best qualified choice for Secretary of Defense. (That would be Andrew Bacevich.) I'm not even saying he's the best qualified senator or ex-senator. (There are 19 of those -- the surviving senators who voted against invading Iraq in the fall of 2002. Hagel voted yes.)

But what I am saying is: thank you, Chuck Hagel. We may not agree on much, but we agree that politicians should tell the truth about war and peace and life and death. We're all in your debt for that -- especially since, when it comes to Iraq and oil, President Obama's first Republican Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, couldn't manage it.

This post first appeared on michaelmoore.com

Those Who Say 'I Support the Troops' Really Don't

2013-01-03T11:23:22-05:00

I don't support the troops, America, and neither do you. I am tired of the ruse we are playing on these brave citizens in our armed forces. And guess what -- a lot of these soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines see right through the bullshit of those words, "I support the troops!," spoken by Americans with such false sincerity -- false because our actions don't match our words. These young men and women sign up to risk their very lives to protect us -- and this is what they get in return:

1. They get sent off to wars that have NOTHING to do with defending America or saving our lives. They are used as pawns so that the military-industrial complex can make billions of dollars and the rich here can expand their empire. By "supporting the troops," that means I'm supposed to shut up, don't ask questions, do nothing to stop the madness, and sit by and watch thousands of them die? Well, I've done an awful lot to try and end this. But the only way you can honestly say you support the troops is to work night and day to get them out of these hell holes they've been sent to. And what have I done this week to bring the troops home? Nothing. So if I say "I support the troops," don't believe me -- I clearly don't support the troops because I've got more important things to do today, like return an iPhone that doesn't work and take my car in for a tune up.

2. While the troops we claim to "support" are serving their country, bankers who say they too "support the troops," foreclose on the actual homes of these soldiers and evict their families while they are overseas! Have I gone and stood in front of the sheriff's deputy as he is throwing a military family out of their home? No. And there's your proof that I don't "support the troops," because if I did, I would organize mass sit-ins to block the doors of these homes. Instead, I'm having Chilean sea bass tonight.

3. How many of you who say you "support the troops" have visited a VA hospital to bring aid and comfort to the sick and wounded? I haven't. How many of you have any clue what it's like to deal with the VA? I don't. Therefore, you would be safe to say that I don't "support the troops," and neither do you.

4. Who amongst you big enthusiastic "supporters of the troops" can tell me the approximate number of service women who have been raped while in the military? Answer: 19,000 (mostly) female troops are estimated to be raped or sexually assaulted every year by fellow American troops. What have you or I done to bring these criminals to justice? What's that, you say -- out of sight, out of mind? These women have suffered, and I've done nothing. So don't ever let me get away with telling you I "support the troops" because, sadly, I don't. And neither do you.

5. Help a homeless vet today? How 'bout yesterday? Last week? Last year? Ever? But I thought you "support the troops!"? The number of homeless veterans is staggering -- on any given night, at least 60,000 veterans are sleeping on the streets of the country that proudly "supports the troops." This is disgraceful and shameful, isn't it? And it exposes all those "troop supporters" who always vote against social programs that would help these veterans. Tonight there are at least 12,700 Iraq/Afghanistan veterans homeless and sleeping on the street. I've never lent a helping hand to one of the many vets I've seen sleeping on the street. I can't bear to look, and I walk past them very quickly. That's called not "supporting the troops," which, I guess, I don't -- and neither do you.

6. And you know, the beautiful thing about all this "support" you and I have been giving the troops -- they feel this love and support so much, a record number of them are killing themselves every single week. In fact, there are now more soldiers killing themselves than soldiers being killed in combat (323 suicides in 2012 through November vs. about 210 combat deaths). Yes, you are more likely to die by your own hand in the United States military than by al Qaeda or the Taliban. And an estimated eighteen veterans kill themselves each day, or one in five of all U.S. suicides -- though no one really knows because we don't bother to keep track. Now, that's what I call support! These troops are really feeling the love, people! Lemme hear you say it again: "I support the troops!" Louder! "I SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!" There, that's better. I'm sure they heard us. Don't forget to fly our flag, wear your flag lapel pin, and never, ever let a service member pass you by without saying, "Thank you for your service!" I'm sure that's all they need to keep from putting a bullet in their heads. Do your best to keep your "support" up for the troops because, God knows, I certainly can't any longer.

I don't "support the troops" or any of those other hollow and hypocritical platitudes uttered by Republicans and frightened Democrats. Here's what I do support: I support them coming home. I support them being treated well. I support peace, and I beg any young person reading this who's thinking of joining the armed forces to please reconsider. Our war department has done little to show you they won't recklessly put your young life in harm's way for a cause that has nothing to do with what you signed up for. They will not help you once they've used you and spit you back into society. If you're a woman, they will not protect you from rapists in their ranks. And because you have a conscience and you know right from wrong, you do not want yourself being used to kill civilians in other countries who never did anything to hurt us. We are currently involved in at least a half-dozen military actions around the world. Don't become the next statistic so that General Electric can post another record profit -- while paying no taxes -- taxes that otherwise would be paying for the artificial leg that they've kept you waiting for months to receive.

I support you, and will try to do more to be there for you. And the best way you can support me -- and the ideals our country says it believes in -- is to get out of the military as soon as you can and never look back.

And please, next time some "supporter of the troops" says to you with that concerned look on their face, "I thank you for your service," you have my permission to punch their lights out (figuratively speaking, of course).

(There is something I've done to support the troops -- other than help lead the effort to stop these senseless wars. At the movie theater I run in Michigan, I became the first person in town to institute an affirmative action plan for hiring returning Iraq/Afghanistan vets. I am working to get more businesses in town to join with me in this effort to find jobs for these returning soldiers. I also let all service members in to the movies for free, every day.)

My New Year's Resolutions

2012-12-31T18:03:13-05:00

Happy New Year! Have you made your resolutions for 2013? Here are mine:

1. Learn the names of the people two doors down from me and invite them over for dinner.

2. Learn how to make dinner.

3. Buy a gun. Stroke it. Squeeze it. Hold it. Love it. Shoot it! Ahhhh... Buy more guns... Stroke them...

4. Stop saying, "I support the troops." I don't. I used to. I understand why so many enlisted after 9/11. Sadly, many of them were then trapped and sent off to invade Iraq. I felt for all of them. I understood those who joined because of a lousy economy. But at some point all individuals must answer for their actions, and now that we know our military leaders do things that have nothing to do with defending our lives, why would anyone sign up for this rogue organization?

5. Apologize for No. 4. I have enormous respect for anyone who would offer to sacrifice their life to defend my right to live. Is there any greater gift one can give another? It's not the troops' fault they're sent to invade other countries for dubious reasons and outright lies. It's OUR responsibility to prevent this, to elect representatives who believe in peace, and to only put our troops in harm's way when it's absolutely necessary. My uncle was killed in World War II. Today would have been his 90th birthday. My dad still misses him. Our family has served this country in the military since the Revolutionary War. None of them watch Fox News.

6. Drink more water.

7. Wear color.

8. Find the best person who can run for and win the governor's chair here in Michigan in 2014. Work every day to win back the Michigan House and Senate from its Republican majority.

9. Read more fiction. Support my local indie bookstore. Help people create Little Free Libraries and put one up in front of our theater in Traverse City. Don't use glowing screens to read books. Write the next one.

10. Keep walking, dude!

That's my list. Send me yours via Twitter and Facebook. Click here to join me on the walks. Let's be kind to each other in the coming year. And let's encourage Obama to ACT, to make history, and to be remembered as one of our greatest presidents.

Here's hoping for a peaceful 2013.

Celebrating the Prince of Peace in the Land of Guns

2012-12-24T09:00:12-05:00

After watching the deranged, delusional National Rifle Association press conference on Friday, it was clear that the Mayan prophecy had come true. Except the only world that was ending was the NRA's. Their bullying power to set gun policy in this country is over. The nation is repulsed by the massacre in Connecticut, and the signs are everywhere: a basketball coach at a post-game press conference; the Republican Joe Scarborough; a pawn shop owner in Florida; a gun buy-back program in New Jersey; a singing contest show on TV, and the conservative gun-owning judge who sentenced Jared Loughner.

So here's my little bit of holiday cheer for you:

These gun massacres aren't going to end any time soon.

I'm sorry to say this. But deep down we both know it's true. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep pushing forward -- after all, the momentum is on our side. I know all of us -- including me -- would love to see the president and Congress enact stronger gun laws. We need a ban on automatic AND semiautomatic weapons and magazine clips that hold more than 7 bullets. We need better background checks and more mental health services. We need to regulate the ammo, too.

But, friends, I would like to propose that while all of the above will certainly reduce gun deaths (ask Mayor Bloomberg -- it is virtually impossible to buy a handgun in New York City and the result is the number of murders per year has gone from 2,200 to under 400), it won't really bring about an end to these mass slayings and it will not address the core problem we have. Connecticut had one of the strongest gun laws in the country. That did nothing to prevent the murders of 20 small children on December 14th.

In fact, let's be clear about Newtown: the killer had no criminal record so he would never have shown up on a background check. All of the guns he used were legally purchased. None fit the legal description of an "assault" weapon. The killer seemed to have mental problems and his mother had him seek help, but that was worthless. As for security measures, the Sandy Hook school was locked down and buttoned up BEFORE the killer showed up that morning. Drills had been held for just such an incident. A lot of good that did.

And here's the dirty little fact none of us liberals want to discuss: The killer only ceased his slaughter when he saw that cops were swarming onto the school grounds -- i.e, the men with the guns. When he saw the guns a-coming, he stopped the bloodshed and killed himself. Guns on police officers prevented another 20 or 40 or 100 deaths from happening. Guns sometimes work. (Then again, there was an armed deputy sheriff at Columbine High School the day of that massacre and he couldn't/didn't stop it.)

I am sorry to offer this reality check on our much-needed march toward a bunch of well-intended, necessary -- but ultimately, mostly cosmetic-- changes to our gun laws. The sad facts are these: Other countries that have guns (like Canada, which has 7 million guns -- mostly hunting guns -- in their 12 million households) have a low murder rate. Kids in Japan watch the same violent movies and kids in Australia play the same violent video games (Grand Theft Auto was created by a British company; the UK had 58 gun murders last year in a nation of 63 million people). They simply don't kill each other at the rate that we do. Why is that? THAT is the question we should be exploring while we are banning and restricting guns: Who are we?

I'd like to try to answer that question.

We are a country whose leaders officially sanction and carry out acts of violence as a means to often an immoral end. We invade countries who didn't attack us. We're currently using drones in a half-dozen countries, often killing civilians.

This probably shouldn't come as a surprise to us as we are a nation founded on genocide and built on the backs of slaves. We slaughtered 600,000 of each other in a civil war. We "tamed the Wild West with a six-shooter," and we rape and beat and kill our women without mercy and at a staggering rate: every three hours a women is murdered in the USA (half the time by an ex or a current); every three minutes a woman is raped in the USA; and every 15 seconds a woman is beaten in the USA.

We belong to an illustrious group of nations that still have the death penalty (North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran). We think nothing of letting tens of thousands of our own citizens die each year because they are uninsured and thus don't see a doctor until it's too late.

Why do we do this? One theory is simply "because we can." There is a level of arrogance in the otherwise friendly American spirit, conning ourselves into believing there's something exceptional about us that separates us from all those "other" countries (there are indeed many good things about us; the same could also be said of Belgium, New Zealand, France, Germany, etc.). We think we're #1 in everything when the truth is our students are 17th in science and 25th in math, and we're 35th in life expectancy. We believe we have the greatest democracy but we have the lowest voting turnout of any western democracy. We're biggest and the bestest at everything and we demand and take what we want.

And sometimes we have to be violent m*****f*****s to get it. But if one of us goes off-message and shows the utterly psychotic nature and brutal results of violence in a Newtown or an Aurora or a Virginia Tech, then we get all "sad" and "our hearts go out to the families" and presidents promise to take "meaningful action." Well, maybe this president means it this time. He'd better. An angry mob of millions is not going to let this drop.

While we are discussing and demanding what to do, may I respectfully ask that we stop and take a look at what I believe are the three extenuating factors that may answer the question of why we Americans have more violence than most anyone else:

1. POVERTY. If there's one thing that separates us from the rest of the developed world, it's this. 50 million of our people live in poverty. One in five Americans goes hungry at some point during the year. The majority of those who aren't poor are living from paycheck to paycheck. There's no doubt this creates more crime. Middle class jobs prevent crime and violence. (If you don't believe that, ask yourself this: If your neighbor has a job and is making $50,000/year, what are the chances he's going to break into your home, shoot you and take your TV? Nil.)

2. FEAR/RACISM. We're an awfully fearful country considering that, unlike most nations, we've never been invaded. (No, 1812 wasn't an invasion. We started it.) Why on earth would we need 300 million guns in our homes? I get why the Russians might be a little spooked (over 20 million of them died in World War II). But what's our excuse? Worried that the Indians from the casino may go on the warpath? Concerned that the Canadians seem to be amassing too many Tim Horton's donut shops on both sides of the border?

No. It's because too many white people are afraid of black people. Period. The vast majority of the guns in the U.S. are sold to white people who live in the suburbs or the country. When we fantasize about being mugged or home invaded, what's the image of the perpetrator in our heads? Is it the freckled-face kid from down the street -- or is it someone who is, if not black, at least poor?

I think it would be worth it to a) do our best to eradicate poverty and re-create the middle class we used to have, and b) stop promoting the image of the black man as the boogeyman out to hurt you. Calm down, white people, and put away your guns.

3. THE "ME" SOCIETY. I think it's the every-man-for-himself ethos of this country that has put us in this mess and I believe it's been our undoing. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps! You're not my problem! This is mine!

Clearly, we are no longer our brother's and sister's keeper. You get sick and can't afford the operation? Not my problem. The bank has foreclosed on your home? Not my problem. Can't afford to go to college? Not my problem.

And yet, it all sooner or later becomes our problem, doesn't it? Take away too many safety nets and everyone starts to feel the impact. Do you want to live in that kind of society, one where you will then have a legitimate reason to be in fear? I don't.

I'm not saying it's perfect anywhere else, but I have noticed, in my travels, that other civilized countries see a national benefit to taking care of each other. Free medical care, free or low-cost college, mental health help. And I wonder -- why can't we do that? I think it's because in many other countries people see each other not as separate and alone but rather together, on the path of life, with each person existing as an integral part of the whole. And you help them when they're in need, not punish them because they've had some misfortune or bad break. I have to believe one of the reasons gun murders in other countries are so rare is because there's less of the lone wolf mentality amongst their citizens. Most are raised with a sense of connection, if not outright solidarity. And that makes it harder to kill one another.

Well, there's some food for thought as we head home for the holidays. Don't forget to say hi to your conservative brother-in-law for me. Even he will tell you that, if you can't nail a deer in three shots -- and claim you need a clip of 30 rounds -- you're not a hunter my friend, and you have no business owning a gun.

Have a wonderful Christmas or a beautiful December 25th!

An Open Letter to President Obama

2012-11-19T11:20:40-05:00

Dear President Obama:

Good luck on your journeys overseas this week, and congratulations on decisively winning your second term as our president! The first time you won four years ago, most of us couldn't contain our joy and found ourselves literally in tears over your victory.

This time, it was more like breathing a huge sigh of relief. But, like the smooth guy you are, you scored the highest percentage of the vote of any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson, and you racked up the most votes for a Democratic president in the history of the United States (the only one to receive more votes than you was... you, in '08!). You are the first Democrat to get more than 50 percent of the vote twice in a row since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

This was truly another historic election and I would like to take a few minutes of your time to respectfully ask that your second term not resemble your first term.

It's not that you didn't get anything done. You got A LOT done. But there are some very huge issues that have been left unresolved and, dammit, we need you to get some fight in you. Wall Street and the uber-rich have been conducting a bloody class war for over 30 years and it's about time they were stopped.

I know it is not in your nature to be aggressive or confrontational. But, please, Barack -- DO NOT listen to the pundits who are telling you to make the "grand compromise" or move to the "center" (FYI -- you're already there). Your fellow citizens have spoken and we have rejected the crazed ideology of this Republican Party and we insist that you forcefully proceed in bringing about profound change that will improve the lives of the 99 percent. We're done hoping. We want real change. And if we can't get it in the second term of a great and good man like you, then really -- what's the use? Why are we even bothering? Yes, we're that discouraged and disenchanted.

At your first post-election press conference last Wednesday you were on fire. The way you went all Taxi Driver on McCain and company ("You talkin' to me?") was so brilliant and breathtaking I had to play it back a dozen times just to maintain the contact high. Jesus, that look -- for a second I thought laser beams would be shooting out of your eyes! MORE OF THAT!! PLEASE!!

In the weeks after your first election you celebrated by hiring the Goldman Sachs boys and Wall Street darlings to run our economy. Talk about a buzzkill that I never fully recovered from. Please -- not this time. This time take a stand for all the rest of us -- and if you do, tens of millions of us will not only have your back, we will swoop down on Congress in a force so large they won't know what hit them (that's right, McConnell -- you're on the retirement list we've put together for 2014).

BUT-- first you have to do the job we elected you to do. You have to take your massive 126-electoral vote margin and just go for it.

Here are my suggestions:

1. DRIVE THE RICH RIGHT OFF THEIR FISCAL CLIFF. The "fiscal cliff" is a ruse, an invention by the right and the rich, to try and keep their huge tax breaks. On December 31, let ALL the tax cuts expire. Then, on January 1, put forth a bill that restores the tax cuts for 98 percent of the public. I dare the Republicans to vote against that! They can't and they won't. As for the spending cuts, the 2011 agreement states that, for every domestic program dollar the Republicans want to cut, a Pentagon dollar must also be cut. See, you are a genius! No way will the right vote against the masters of war. And if by some chance they do, you can immediately put forth legislation to restore all the programs we, the majority, approve of. And for God's sake, man -- declare Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid untouchable. They're not bankrupt or anywhere near it. If the rich paid the same percentage of Social Security tax on their entire income -- the same exact rate everyone else pays &-- then there will suddenly be enough money in Social Security to last til at least the year 2080!

2. END ALL THE WARS NOW. Do not continue the war in Afghanistan (a thoroughly losing proposition if ever there was one) for two full more years! Why should one single more person have to die FOR NO REASON? Stop it. You know it's wrong. Bin Laden's dead, al Qaeda is decimated and the Afghans have to work out their own problems. Also, end the drone strikes and other covert military activities you are conducting in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Colombia and God knows where else. You think history is going to remember the United States as a great democracy? No, they're going to think of us as a nation that became addicted to war. They'll call us warlords. They'll say that in the 21st century America was so in need of oil that we'd kill anyone to get it. You know that's where this is going. This has to stop. Now.

3. END THE DRUG WAR. It is not only an abysmal failure, it has returned us to the days of slavery. We have locked up millions of African Americans and Latinos and now fund a private prison-industrial complex that makes billions for a few lucky rich people. There are other ways to deal with the drugs that do cause harm -- ways built around a sense of decency and compassion. We look like a bunch of sadistic racists. Stop it.

4. DECLARE A MORATORIUM ON HOME FORECLOSURES AND EVICTIONS. Millions of people are facing homelessness because of a crooked system enacted by the major banks and Wall Street firms. Put a pause on this and take 12 months to work out a different way (like, restructuring families' mortgages to reflect the true worth of their homes).

5. GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS. You already know this one. The public is sick of it. Now's the time to act.

6. EXPAND OBAMACARE. Your health care law doesn't cover everyone. It is a cash cow for the insurance industry. Push for a single-payer system -- Medicare for All -- and include dentistry and mental health. This is the single biggest thing you could do to reduce the country's deficit.

7. RESTORE GLASS-STEAGALL. You must put back all the rigid controls on Wall Street that Reagan, Clinton and the Bushes removed -- or else we face the possibility of another, much worse, crash. If they break the law, prosecute them the way you currently go after whistleblowers and medical marijuana dispensaries.

8. REDUCE STUDENT LOAN DEBT. No 22-year-old should have to enter the real world already in a virtual debtors' prison. This is cruel and no other democracy does this like we do. You were right to eliminate the banks as the profit-gouging lenders, but now you have to bring us back to the days when you and I were of college age and a good education cost us little or next to nothing. A few less wars would go a long to way to being able to afford this.

9. FREE BRADLEY MANNING. End the persecution and prosecution of an American hero. Bush and Cheney lied to a nation to convince us to go to war. Manning allegedly hacked the war criminals' files and then shared them with the American public (and the world) so that we could learn the truth about Iraq and Afghanistan. Our history is full of such people who "break the law" for the greater good of humanity. Army Specialist Bradley Manning deserves a medal, not prison.

10. ASK US TO DO SOMETHING. One thing is clear: none of the above is going to happen if you don't immediately mobilize the 63,500,000 who voted for you (and the other 40 million who are for you but didn't vote). You can't go this alone. You need an army of everyday Americans who will fight alongside you to make this a more just and peaceful nation. In your 2008 campaign, you were a pioneer in using social media to win the election. Over 15 million of us gave you our cell numbers or email addresses so you could send us texts and emails telling us what needed to be done to win the election. Then, as soon as you won, it was as if you hit the delete button. We never heard from you again. (Until this past year when you kept texting us to send you $25. Inspiring.) Whoever your Internet and social media people were should have been given their own office in the West Wing -- and we should have heard from you. Constantly. Need a bill passed? Text us and we will mobilize! The Republicans are filibustering? We can stop them! They won't approve your choice for Secretary of State? We'll see about that! You say you were a community organizer. Please -- start acting like one.

The next four years can be one of those presidential terms that changed the course of America. I'm sure you will want to be judged on how you stood up for us, restored the middle class, ended the s***ting on the poor and made us a friend to the rest of the world instead of a threat. You can do this. We can do it with you. All that stands in the way is your understandable desire to sing "Kumbaya" with the Republicans. Don't waste your breath. Their professed love of America is negated by their profound hatred of you. Don't waste a minute on them. Fix the sad mess we're in. Go back and read this month's election results. We're with you.

P.S. President Obama -- my cell number to text me at is 810-522-8398 and my email is MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com. I await my first assignment!