Newsgroup: it.arti.cinema
Titolo: Michael Moore to Wesley Clark: Run!


A Citizen's Appeal to a General in a Time of War (at
Home)
September 12, 2003
Dear General Wesley Clark,
I've been meaning to write to you for some time. Two
days after the Oscars, when I felt very alone and
somewhat frightened by the level of hatred toward me for
daring to suggest that we were being led into war for
"fictitious reasons," one person stuck his neck out and
came to my defense on national television.
And that person was you.
Aaron Brown had just finished interviewing me by
satellite on CNN, and I had made a crack about me being
"the only non-general allowed on CNN all week." He ended
the interview and then turned to you, as you were
sitting at the desk with him. He asked you what you
thought of this crazy guy, Michael Moore. And, although
we were still in Week One of the war, you boldly said
that my dissent was necessary and welcome, and you
pointed out that I was against Bush and his "policies,"
not the kids in the service. I sat in Flint with the
earpiece still in my ear and I was floored -- a GENERAL
standing up for me and, in effect, for all the millions
who were opposed to the war but had been bullied into
silence.
Since that night, I have spent a lot of time checking
you out. And what I've learned about you corresponds to
my experience with you back in March. You seem to be a
man of integrity. You seem not afraid to speak the
truth. I liked your answer when you were asked your
position on gun control: 'If you are the type of person
who likes assault weapons, there is a place for you --
the United States Army. We have them.'
In addition to being first in your class at West Point,
a four star general from Arkansas, and the former
Supreme Commander of NATO -- enough right there that
should give pause to any peace-loving person -- I have
discovered that...
1. You oppose the Patriot Act and would fight the
expansion of its powers.
2. You are firmly pro-choice.
3. You filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in
support of the University of Michigan's affirmative
action case.
4. You would get rid of the Bush tax "cut" and make the
rich pay their fair share.
5. You respect the views of our allies and want to work
with them and with the rest of the international
community.
6. And you oppose war. You have said that war should
always be the "last resort" and that it is military men
such as yourself who are the most for peace because it
is YOU and your soldiers who have to do the dying. You
find something unsettling about a commander-in-chief who
dons a flight suit and pretends to be Top Gun, a stunt
that dishonored those who have died in that flight suit
in the service of their country.
General Clark, last night I finally got to meet you in
person. I would like to share with others what I said to
you privately: You may be the person who can defeat
George W. Bush in next year's election.
This is not an endorsement. For me, it's too early for
that. I have liked Howard Dean (in spite of his flawed
positions in support of some capital punishment, his
grade "A" rating from the NRA, and his opposition to
cutting the Pentagon budget). And Dennis Kucinich is so
committed to all the right stuff. We need candidates in
this race who will say the things that need to be said,
to push the pathetically lame Democratic Party into have
a backbone -- or get out of the way and let us have a
REAL second party on the ballot.
But right now, for the sake and survival of our very
country, we need someone who is going to get The Job
done, period. And that job, no matter whom I speak to
across America -- be they leftie Green or conservative
Democrat, and even many disgusted Republicans --
EVERYONE is of one mind as to what that job is:
Bush Must Go.
This is war, General, and it's Bush & Co.'s war on us.
It's their war on the middle class, the poor, the
environment, their war on women and their war against
anyone around the world who doesn't accept total
American domination. Yes, it's a war -- and we, the
people, need a general to beat back those who have
abused our Constitution and our basic sense of decency.
The General vs. the Texas Air National Guard deserter! I
want to see that debate, and I know who the winner is
going to be.
The other night, when you were on Bill Maher's show, he
began by reading to you a quote from Howard Dean where
he (Dean) tried to run away from the word "liberal."
Maher said to you, so, General, do you want to run away
from that word? Without missing a beat, you said "No!"
and you reminded everyone that America was founded as a
"liberal democracy." The audience went wild with
applause.
That is what we have needed for a long time on our side
-- guts. I am sure there are things you and I don't see
eye to eye on, but now is the time for all good people
from the far left to the middle of the road to bury the
damn hatchet and get together behind someone who is not
only good on the issues but can beat George W. Bush. And
where I come from in the Midwest, General, I know you
are the kind of candidate that the average American will
vote for.
Michael Moore likes a general? I never thought I'd write
these words. But desperate times call for desperate
measures. I want to know more about you. I want your
voice heard. I would like to see you in these debates.
Then let the chips fall where they may -- and we'll all
have a better idea of what to do. If you sit it out,
then I think we all know what we are left with.
I am asking everyone I know to send an email to you now
to encourage you to run, even if they aren't sure they
would vote for you. (Wesley Clark's email address is:
in...@leadershipforamerica.org
). None of us truly know
how we will vote five months from now or a year from
now. But we do know that this race needs a jolt -- and
Bush needs to know that there is one person he won't be
able to Dukakisize.
Take the plunge, General Clark. At the very least, the
nation needs to hear what you know about what was really
behind this invasion of Iraq and your fresh ideas of how
we can live in a more peaceful world. Yes, your country
needs you to perform one more act of brave service -- to
help defeat an enemy from within, at 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, an address that used to belong to "we, the
people."
Yours,
Michael Moore
Lottery # 275, U.S. military draft, 1972
Conscientious Objector applicant
mmf...@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com

 in a Time of War (at Home)
Alla fine le persone si rivelano per ciò che sono!
Ecco un altro artista che profitta della sua notorietà per fare
volgare campagna elettorale. Sicché il suo Bowling For Columbine in
fondo non voleva essere il contributo di un artista ad ampliare il
punto di vista dell'americano medio. Chissà quanto è stato manipolato
quel documento! Chissà se in fondo è poi vero che i canadesi dormono
con le porte aperte! Chissà fino a che punto si è spinta la
mistificazione, pur di ottenere un solo e unico risultato: "Bush Must
Go"!
E pensare che ci abbiamo perso del tempo a discuterne...
Bleah!
M®

 mistificazione, pur di ottenere un solo e unico risultato
in fondo anche Charlto Eston e' un attore, chissa' quanto ha voluto per
recitare cosi' bene il ruolo del rimbambito amante delle armi.

E pensare che ci abbiamo perso del tempo a discuterne...
E' la terza volta che ti leggo e la terza volta che leggo cazzate.
Chiunque dica a Bush, il presidente più disastroso che gli USA abbiano avuto dal
dopoguerra e forse anche prima, che se ne deve andare, ha solo ragione.
Guglielmo.
"I'm not joking, Tess,"
"I'm not laughing, Danny."

 solo ragione.
Augh!
Amen.
Ipse dixit.
Tel dighe mì.
Ma va' a cagare!
M®


Insulti gratuitamente.


 Insulti gratuitamente.
Oh, scusami... screanzato che sono! In effetti non occorreva essere
una cima per capire che "č la terza volta che ti leggo e la terza
volta che leggo cazzate" intendeva essere invece un complimento!
Da ridere
MŽ

volta che leggo cazzate" intendeva essere invece un complimento!
Era peggio se era la terza volta che ti leggevo e la sesta che leggevo cazzate.


volta che leggo cazzate" intendeva essere invece un complimento!
Io ho avuto l'impressione che ti stesse chiedendo dei soldi...!!?
--
 
Mimì
Inviato da 
www.mynewsgate.net

Era peggio se era la terza volta che ti leggevo e la sesta che 
leggevo cazzate.
Pensa che io non ti leggo praticamente mai ma ho sempre la 
certezza che scrivi cazzate.
Ciao,
mAx
--
La mentalita' del branco solleva gli individui dal 
dover distinguere fra giusto e sbagliato. Il 
branco e' la volontaria regressione dell'uomo a 
livello della bestia.
Inviato da 
www.mynewsgate.net

certezza che scrivi cazzate.
Si, ma tu, Allock, Rinaldo e Ubik  non fate testo.


volgare campagna elettorale. 
Difendere e promuovere le proprie idee č cosa nobile e meritoria.
Altro che volgaritą.
adamski
-- 
"Tits are great!"
(Bob Crane)
www.actuals.supereva.it


A parte un grosso scandalo o assassinio, Wesley Clark farà parte del ticket
democratico del prossimo anno, o come candidato alla Presidenza o alla
VicePresidenza.
Dato che le primarie di partito sono dominate dai convinti, liberal o
conservatori, Clark ha bisogno di maggiori appoggi fra i liberal: da questo
punto di vista l'elogio da parte di Moore può essere significativo.
Moore si è evidentemente pentito dell'appoggio a Nader nel 2000, non perchè
Nader non se lo meritasse, ma perchè i voti che Nader ha sottratto a Gore
hanno permesso ai Repubblicani di rubare l'elezione; in seguito Nader ha
perso interesse e non si è sviluppato alcun Green Party nazionale. Così
Moore ed altri sono tornati al principio base del bipartitismo: 'anyone who
can win' o 'anyone who can beat Bush' - che è ovviamente l'unica cosa
intelligente da fare nelle circostanze: non per niente Moore è stato
attaccato come ipocrita, segno sicuro che ha detto qualcosa di intelligente.
Gli amici degli Stati Uniti (e non gli adoratori che hanno trasferito sugli
USA l'adorazione che avevano per il Duce, il Fuher o l'Unione Sovietica)
dovrebbero PREGARE perchè George W.Bush sia battuto nel 2004: l'Alleanza
Atlantica e l'economia mondiale non potrebbero reggere ad altri quattro anni
di ideologia, menzogna, arroganza e pessima amministrazione. Ma gli
adoratori dell'America sono ben contenti che il sangue dei soldati americani
che ogni giorno muoiono in Irak ricada sulle loro teste: probabilmente
pensano che sia uno shampoo.
La verità è che oggi come oggi il partito Repubblicano è fortemente
ideologizzato e quello Democratico no. Il partito Repubblicano è dominata da
una cricca di ideologi e interessi privati disposti ad usare le forze armate
per guadagni privati; il partito Democratico rappresenta invece molti
interessi e punti di vista differenti.
Un uomo come Clark rappresenterebbe la tradizione centrista e pragmatica: è,
enfaticamente, un membro dell'establishment con tanto di borsa di studio
Rhodes, come Clinton. Una sua presidenza non sarebbe certo di sinistra ma
almeno non sarebbe fanatica e truffaldina.
Allo stesso modo, quanti odiano gli USA dovrebbero pregare per una elezione
di George W.Bush.
Moritz Benedikt
'Life is not short enough'


The possibility that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark might
enter the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has
been the subject of furious speculation in the media. But while recent
coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the
various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media's
"anti-war" label is inaccurate.
Many media accounts state that Clark, who led the 1999 NATO campaign
against Yugoslavia, was outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of
Iraq. The Boston Globe (9/14/03) noted that Clark is "a former NATO
commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war." "Face it:
The only anti-war candidate America is ever going to elect is one who
is a four-star general," wrote Michael Wolff in New York magazine
(9/22/03). Salon.com called Clark a "fervent critic of the war with
Iraq" (9/5/03).
To some political reporters, Clark's supposed anti-war stance could
spell trouble for some of the other candidates. According to
Newsweek's Howard Fineman (9/8/03) Clark "is as anti-war as Dean,"
suggesting that the general would therefore be a "credible
alternative" to a candidate whom "many Democrats" think "would lead to
a disaster." A September 15 Associated Press report claimed that Clark
"has been critical of the Iraq war and Bush's postwar efforts,
positions that would put him alongside announced candidates Howard
Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as
the most vocal anti-war candidates." The Washington Post (9/11/03)
reported that Clark and Dean "both opposed the war in Iraq, and both
are generating excitement on the Internet and with grass-roots
activists."
Hearing Clark talking to CNN's Paula Zahn (7/16/03), it would be
understandable to think he was an opponent of the war. "From the
beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula," he said.
"And I have shared them previously on CNN." But a review of his
statements before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has
taken a range of positions-- from expressing doubts about diplomatic
and military strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. "victory" in
a column declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony
Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt"
(London Times, 4/10/03).
Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine
(10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-
argument to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time."
Before the war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient
number of troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international
support.
As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark
explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably
wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just
assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the
president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the
allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The
credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein
has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do
this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has
got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of
the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so
this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United
Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who
they line up with."
On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark
seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles
O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction."
When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was
resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he
had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think
they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."
After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the
wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand.
Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice,
erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a
London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the
air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was
exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third
of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to
attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait
until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right
call."
Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the
region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from
a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express.
Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards
Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime
Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of
so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who
questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily
silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the
"opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably
does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in
that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory
celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and
down Constitution Avenue."
In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed
up the lessons of the war this way: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates
the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if
there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military
power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually
unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris,
it's just plain fact."
Another "plain fact" is this: While political reporters might welcome
Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views
"anti-war" is to render the term meaningless.


Beh, stiamo parlando del generale che diresse la guerra in Kossovo.
Fa decisamente parte del gruppo Clinton. Lo si può definire liberal per
essere un generale, ma non molto di più.
Altri possono pensarla diversamente, ma io, conservatore che sono, lo
voterei di corsa. Gli USA avrebbero un Presidente centrista invece di uno di
estrema destra e sarebbe una buona cosa per tutti.


 meritoria. Altro che volgarità.
Ah, detta così non fa una grinza... Se fossimo stati al Maurizio
Costanzo Show, sai quanti applausi ti avrebbero tributato!
:-)
Resta il fatto - ma questa è una mia personalissima opinione - che
sarebbe più elegante che un artista (sia esso regista, scrittore,
cabarettista, pittore, musicista, non importa) le promuovesse
*attraverso* la propria arte, non in virtù della riconoscibilità che
da essa gli deriva. Sul Moore che mostra impavidamente ciò che pensa
con BFC, niente da dire. Sulla stessa persona che si prodiga in un
/pompino/ pre-elettorale invece ho delle riserve. Ma in fondo è solo
una questione di sensibilità individuali: per te "promozione delle
proprie idee" e "campagna elettorale" sembrano essere concetti
equivalenti, per me non lo sono. Tutto qui.
Prosit!
M®

equivalenti, per me non lo sono. Tutto qui.
E' che trovo un po' qualunquista dire che uno che gode di notorietą
non dovrebbe sfruttarla a fini politico elettorali. Dipende da quali
sono questi fini, tutto qui.


 uno di estrema destra e sarebbe una buona cosa per tutti.
Da una mailist, alcuni estratti:
I just sent this to Michael Moore, wonder if I'll get a
reply.
Mike
There is just one problem with your support of Wesley
Clark. I am a bit perplexed about why you would gloss
over the fact that he is considered by many to be a war
criminal for his actions as a commander in Serbia and
Yugoslavia. He authorized use of cluster bombs, and
bombing civilian sites which are illegal in
international law. He was also in charge of our
"actions" in Panama and Latin America.
I think this informatiuon should be described in your
messages of interest and support for this guy. And, to
pick up on a thread you yourself started in "Bowling",
while Clark and Clinton were bombing Serbia, using
cluster bombs, killing civilians, guess what happened on
the worst day of that slaughter? Columbine! So, since
you tie Lockheed to Columbine, why not Clark too?
Peace
============
Dr Dan Jordan
1) Clark bombed Yugoslavia for eighty days when there
wasn't a thing in the world that country could do to the
American people. The Nuremberg trials long since
established that "I was just following orders" is no
excuse. What Clinton wanted was a) to advance the
process, still going on, of moving American military
might as close as possible to Russia from all
directions; b) to clear the way for an Albanian terminus
for a pipeline to carry Caucasus oil, long since
developed by the Soviet Union, across the Balkans from a
port in Bulgaria, to which tankers would take it across
the Black Sea. Oil money has NEVER gone to one party
only. Albania demanded that Kosovo be taken from
Yugoslavia (where Yugoslavia was historically born,
although by 1999 its population was majority Albanian,
and today it is "pure") as its price for agreeing to the
pipeline. 2) Clark had absolute control of the skies.
There was nothing to disturb the technological pinpoint
accuracy of the bombings. He bombed the Chinese Embassy,
killing occupants, to tell China we didn't like its
opposition to the Yugoslav War. 3) Clark didn't give a
hoot about the welfare of the countries that have always
made massive use of the Danube for trade, including
Germany, Austria, and the downstream countries like
Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria. He bombed the Danube
bridges, preventing every conceivable kind of bulk
commodity, from grain and coal on and up, from moving in
either direction, causing all those countries great
losses, plus hunger, cold, and electricity shortages in
the poorer ones. 4) Clark personally ordered the
commander of the British forces under him to drive the
Russians from the Pristina airport, to which the
Englishman replied (he has since made this public): "I
am not going to start World War III to satisfy your
ego." I see Dean as, in many ways, an FDR. Neither had
an ideology. Both were/are aristocrats with specific
purposes. (Dean is the son of the extremely wealthy Dean
of Dean, Witter). FDR was out to save American
capitalism, and made any and all political alliances a)
to get elected, b) to get his legislation passed, and c)
to stay in office (replacing Henry Wallace with Harry
Truman as vice-president for his last term). He did not
know have a theory about how to save capitalism, but
simply made concessions to those segments of the
population that had to be mollified to keep them from
giving up on this system, and handled it so it looked
like it came from the president. Dean's purpose is to
reverse the policy, which he deems hopeless, and harmful
to us, of U.S. efforts to rule the world single-handed.
Everything else: alliances, tactics, measures, promises,
will be secondary to that end. If Dean gets Clark as
v.p. candidate, I'll vote for him, and hope he survives
his two terms. Of course Kucinich is the man I want, but
he's running a steady one per cent. William Mandel
===
Gen. Wesley Clark -- War Criminal, Don't Be Fooled
Gen. Wesley Clark is a major war criminal. Please don't
be fooled by the current well-orchestrated push to
nominate Clark as Democratic Party nominee for
president, at trap which Michael Moore has apparently
fallen into as well as a number of other well-meaning
peace people.
Gen. Wesley Clark was in charge of refugee camps in the
1980s and 1990s where Haitian refugees who were fleeing
first Baby Doc Duvalier (and later the new regime
installed by the US following the overthrowal of the
elected Aristide government in the early 1990s), were
packed, under appalling conditions condemned by the
Center for Constitutional Rights, among many others. In
the 1980s, many Haitian male refugees incarcerated at
Krome (in Miami), and Fort Allen (in Puerto Rico)
reported a strange condition called gyneacomastia, a
situation in which they developed full female breasts.
Ira Kurzban, attorney for the Haitian Refugee Center,
managed to pry free government documents via a lawsuit
on behalf of the refugees. These contained the startling
information that prison officials had ordered the
refugees sprayed repeatedly with highly toxic chemicals
never designed for such generic use. The officer in
charge of the refugee camp? None other than Gen. Wesley
Clark, chief of operations at the US Navy internment
camp at Guantanamo, and later head of NATO forces
bombing Yugoslavia. The documents go on to say that
lengthy exposure to the particular chemicals can cause
hormonal changes that induce development of female
breasts. Medical studies of female Haitian refugees in
New York revealed that they had a much higher rate of
cervical cancer than the rest of the female population.
Half a decade later, Gen Welsey Clark was supreme NATO
commander in Yugoslavia. He presided over the massive
use of depeleted uranium weapons there which poisoned
Yugoslavia's water supply and agriculture,  leading to
an extremely high rate of miscarriages and childhood
cancers.
Clark was in charge of NATO's "spin" in the Yugoslavia
bombardment. Clark called the destruction of a Yugoslav
train filled with civilians by a NATO missile "an
uncanny accident." He said the same each time that NATO
bombed civilian targets, which happened frequently.
Paul Watson reported in the San Francisco Chronicle that
"NATO bombers scored several direct hits here in
Kosovo's capital yesterday - including a graveyard, a
bus station, and a children's basketball court." (April
14) A Spanish pilot flying missions for NATO, Capt.
Martin de la Hoz, stated that on a number of occasions
his supervising colonel protested to NATO about their
bombing of non-military, civilian targets. "Once there
was a coded order from the North American military that
we should drop anti-personnel bombs over Pristina and
Nis. All of the missions that we flew, all and each one,
were planned in detail, including attacking planes,
targets and type of ammunition, by US high-ranking
military authorities. ... They are destroying the
country," the Spanish F-18 pilot continued, "bombing it
with novel weapons, toxic nerve gasses, surface mines
dropped by parachute, bombs containing uranium, black
napalm, sterilization chemicals, sprayings to poison
crops, and weapons of which even we still know nothing
about." (quoted in "Articulo 20," a Spanish weekly
newspaper, June 14, 1999)
Clark defended all of these bombings, and was an
integral part of the Clinton team's "spin" operation in
Yugoslavia.
- Mitchel Cohen
===

Moore si è evidentemente pentito dell'appoggio a Nader nel 2000,
Questa non òla sapevo.
Una gran bella responsabilità politica, pero, cazzo...



Ma il libro è del 2001, ancor prima degli attentati. Da allora parecchie
cose appaiono diverse, a noi come a Moore.
Quando Moore dimostra quanto simili siano democratici e repubblicani ha
molte ragioni: ma gli eventi degli ultimi due anni hanno messo in evidenza
le differenze.
L'articolo di cui stiamo parlando lo dimostra ampiamente.


 
Quindi quando Vianello fece quella sviolinata per Berlusconi (un sacco di 
anni fa) la cosa era giustificata...


Insomma, si rientra sempre nel solito dilemma: č giusto scegliere il meno
peggio? Di quanto si deve abbassare i propri standard per vincere? E se li
si abbassa tanto e non si vince? E se li abbassa tanto che la vittoria
finisce per perdere significato?
Personalmente sarei disposto a pagare di mio per un Presidente clintoniano -
e Clark č di quel genere, apparentemente - come sarei disposto a votare
praticamente chiunque purchč possa battere B. Se uno accetta di votare in un
sistema bipartitico la logica č quella ed č ineluttabile.
Se avessi la certezza che Clark possa governare non dico come un liberal ma
come un centrista prudente legato all'establishment lo voterei di corsa non
mi farei troppe domande sul passato.
Ma capisco anche l'altro lato della faccenda: anche il compromesso ed il
pragmatismo devono avere dei limiti. Vedremo.


 anni fa) la cosa era giustificata...
Quello era un lavoratore dipendente che leccava il culo al suo padrone;
Moore non dipende da Clark.
Mi rendo conto che per voi militanti sia impossibile immaginare rapporti
politici diversi da quelli dell'adorazione del capo e della rinuncia a
qualsiasi autonomia di pensiero, ma c'è chi si comporta diversamente.


 qualsiasi autonomia di pensiero, ma c'Š chi si comporta diversamente.
Aggiungo le seguenti considerazioni
1) Tieni difficolta' a capire la differenza tra una provocazione e 
qualcos'altro. 
2) Il fatto che dica qualcosa che non ti piace non significa che io sia 
un militante del CDL (e infatti non lo sono), questo modo di fare e' 
molto simile a quello di B. che vede comunisti in chiunque gli fa una 
piccola contestazione. Forse hai piu' tratti in comune con lui di quanto 
pensi...
3) Ho avuto modo di sentire quanto ha detto Moore sia alla serata degli 
oscar sia in seguito in alcune interviste e mi sono sempre trovato 
d'accordo con lui. Quest'ultima intervista pero' non mi e' piaciuta e 
credo che sara' controproducente. I fatti in Iraq danno torto a bush, 
anche i sassi se ne stanno rendendo conto, ma questo approccio troppo 
schierato rischia di mettere in imbarazzo proprio chi dovrebbe 
combatterlo nelle prossime elezioni, allontanando l'elettorato piu' 
moderato. Non tutti hanno applaudito Moore quella notte e alcuni di loro 
probabilmente votavano per i democratici.

anni fa) la cosa era giustificata...
Evidentemente non mi sono spiegato bene. Ho detto che dipende da quali
sono questi fini. Favorire la campagna elettorale del nano malefico
non è certo un degno scopo. Quindi Vianello ha fatto male.
E poi, come detto da Moritz, c'è differenza tra perorare una causa e
leccare il culo al proprio padrone. Se non la vedi è perché sei
drogato di cazzate.
Ciao,


 
Magari Vianello credeva e crede in B, cosi' come Moore crede nel generale 
Clark. Personalmente non credo che avesse bisogno di cosi' grandi favori 
da dover fare quella sparata, cosi' come non credo che ne necessitasse 
Enzo Biagi quando qualche anno dopo fece il supporter di Prodi nella 
trasmissione il Fatto. Non ho difficolta' a credere che entrabi 
credessero in quello che dicevano.
Da come parli sembrerebbe che per perorare una causa occorre essere di SX 
mentre per lecchinare occorre essere di DX. E' questa la tua misura? 
Dimmi di no, non insultare ulteriormente il tuo intelletto. Personalmente 
non mi interessa portare avanti delle idee che non mi appartengono e 
difendere delle persone che non mi piacciono, ma come ho gia' detto a 
Moritz siete voi a schierare chiunque vi contraddica dall'altra parte 
della barricata, esattamente come fa B.

 probabilmente votavano per i democratici.
Nomi?


Quello era un lavoratore dipendente che leccava il culo al suo padrone;
Quindi un dipendente di un partito non può fare una dichiarazione a
favore di esso?
E teoricamente Vianello doveva licenziarsi per parlar bene di
Berlusconi?


E teoricamente Moore doveva entrare alle dipendenze del generale Clark per
parlarne bene?
(e intanto abbiamo scoperto un nuovo crimine di cui non si sospettava
l'esistenza: vilipendio di Raimondo Vianello)



Pluto Topolino e Pippo.
che cazzo di domande, ma al posto del cervello hai forse un orologio a cucu'
o ti è venuta cosi'?
Rude (che sta usando un altro computer)


A te risulta che l'uscita di Michael Moore abbia provocato un aumento di
simpatie per il Presidente? Su quali dati ti basi? Sondaggi?


della barricata, esattamente come fa B.
In questo momento stai accomunando due persone (me e Moritz) che non
so quanti punti in comune possano avere, a parte la passione per i
fuochi d'artificio. Nessuna delle due, mi pare, è un convinto
sostenitore del centrosinistra.


favore di esso?
Bene, sei d'accordo, quindi, che Forza Italia e Mediaset siano una
cosa sola. Meno male.


My letter to Michael Moore,
Dear Michael Moore and Friends of Mike,
The Democratic Primaries work in such a bizzare way that the
likelyhood of
them choosing a candidate that can beat Bush, in this fragemented
race, is
very low.
I've spoken to Dr. Steven Brams, one of the nation's foremost experts
in
voting theory, and political theory.
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/brams/brams_home.html
If we urged a political theorist and mathematician, such as Steven, to
design an alternate Democratic ballot and counting system, we could
really
get at the "candidate that is most likely to get voted for over bush
in the
general election".  I encourage Michael to call him and visit him. 
He's in
the neighborhood.
From my conversations with him, the question you'd ask voters on the
ballot
is something like this:
"How many of the following candidates would you support in the General
Election against George Bush?"
This is how you find the candidate that the majority of voters would
support
over Bush.... not "pick one".   Pick one can result in split votes
among
centrist candidates, like Dean, Kerry and Clark.  In fact, with Clark
running - Lieberman is now looking like he's got a chance in this
race.
"Pick one" frequently throws the vote to a candidate with a strong
special
interest, rather than a person who can beat Bush.
The results of the MoveON poll give you an idea of how this is done:
http://moveonpac.org/moveonpac/report.html
Detailed info on election methods that you should read if you want to
get
involved in politics:
http://www.electionmethods.org/
Approval voting in primaries:
http://www.approvalvoting.com/primaries.html
Instead of endorsing a candidate that will split the centrist vote,
you may want to consider endorsing a system that will result in the
candidate that can win.
- Erik Aroesty
  ZoneEdit, Inc.
 
http://www.documentroot.com/


Non e' un problema di sondaggi. Quanto ha fatto durante la premiazione degli
oscar e' stato fenomenale e quasi irripetibile. Il problema e' l'ultima
lettera aperta al generale Clarck. Molti americani credono che la guerra in
Iraq abbia un fondamento, e non parlano di una guerra sbagliata in partenza,
ma pianificata male. Gli americani hanno un modo di vivere la democrazia
diversa dal nostro, e l'appoggio di un personaggio come Moore a mio giudizio
non e' un vantaggio. Secondo me questa lettera aperta rende problematica la
scelta del Democratico che dovra' competere con il presidente guerrafondaio.

l'esistenza: vilipendio di Raimondo Vianello)
Si sta scherzando.
Ma sei Sgarbi che parli al plurale?

fuochi d'artificio. 
A me non piacciono, mi sembrano uno spettacolo noioso e volgare,
perchè tu lo apprezzi?

cosa sola. Meno male.
Non proprio, ma passiamo pure oltre.