Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

He's slamming Bush & Friends, this time over his new movie, "Sicko". Moore took a group of 9/11 rescue workers to Cuba for medical treatment while making his new film. This is in violation of the 45-year-old US embargo limiting trade and travel to Cuba.

The guy violated the embargo, therefore an investigation against him is completely justified. This has nothing to do with the content

_________________

it's only slightly related, but the embargo against cuba is the dumbest thing ever. there is no principle behind it and it only serves to make an impoverished country more destitute. i don't care if ralph nader opens a mcdonalds in cuba, or satan throws hundred dollar bills over there. it's not a justifable foreign policy.

Eh, whether is is justifiable or not, the law is the law. He broke the law. He needs to face the music (whatever that music may be).

Perhaps he should work on trying to get the embargo lifted, if he can. Blaming this on the Bush administration is pretty stupid. Sadly, people will probably march lock-step with him on this, especially since this embargo and pretty much every bad thing ever did not exist before 20 January of 2001.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

To be perfectly frank, I'm all for opposing and even blatantly ignoring the embargo. I've always been a fan of civil disobedience, as long as it's well-reasoned and not just stupid whining for attention.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

A friend of mine took a trip to Cuba last summer with a group of socialists and super-liberals he hangs around with. While he was there, he got a free dental exam and cleaning.

(Well the free dental exam came after the cost of a flight from New Mexico to Canada, then from Canada to Cuba, then back again.)

Also, stupid laws should be broken.

_________________
Listen to the Black Crowes.

The concept of "stupid laws should be broken" is just dumb. If you're just going to follow your own ideas of what should and shouldn't be illegal, then there's no point in having laws at all, because everyone is answerable to themselves instead of a higher authority. We have a system in the United States for changing with bad laws, and it doesn't involve breaking them.

_________________

I strongly disagree. Sometimes the only way to get the law changed is by bringing attention to the law's stupidity, and sometimes the only way to do that is to go ahead and break it. You say we have a system for changing bad laws, but why are so many bad laws still on the books?

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

Maybe it's because so many people don't bother to try changing the law, and instead choose to break it. Participation in government is so low in this country it's absurd.

By simply ignoring what you believe to be bad laws, you are setting yourself up as the ultimate authority of right and wrong. Like it or not, when you live in a country, the government of that country has authority over you.

_________________

Well, the matter is one thing when it's downloading MP3s and such, but it's another thing when a good cause is involved. Rosa Parks broke the law, but most reasonable people side with her, and we'd like to think we'd have done the same thing if we were in her shoes. Now, you could argue that this isn't the same thing, and you'd be right: it isn't. But it does refute the idea that breaking the law is always wrong.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

Yeah, but that's just it. This is Michael Moore we're talking about. Pretty much everything he does can be classified as stupid whining for attention. And let's face it: there's a huge difference between Rosa Parks, who was taking a pretty big risk in what she did, and Michael Moore, who stands to make millions off this stunt.

Incidentally, I download mp3's all the time. From sites that artists use to promote their music and allow it, that is. And I do feel that the music industry is really bad both for consumers and artists, so I deliberately look outside the boundaries of what the industry fosters on me as "good music" and enjoy what I really want to hear. One of my sigs (I forget which one) will actually take you to one of my favorite sites for that.

_________________

That's a fair argument. But as you said, that situation was different. That was a matter of basic civil rights, and laws that were unconstitutional. That doesn't excuse things like breaking the Cuban embargo, or downloading MP3s illegally, just because you think the laws are wrong. I for one, believe that it's wrong to download MP3's illegally. It's stealing, the same as if you shoplifted the CD from a store. But that's an argument for another thread. The point is, one person's view of right and wrong may differ drastically from another's, so there has to be a higher authority than individuals. That's what the law is for.

_________________

Why are you lumping downloading MP3s in with the Cuban embargo? My whole argument was that those are two very different situations. Removing that embargo is arguably a good cause. Illegally downloading MP3s is just selfish (though that doesn't stop me from doing it ).

Now, when I say I'm all for ignoring the embargo, I'm not talking about Michael Moore in particular, I'm talking about in general. That embargo doesn't benefit anybody, it only hurts Cuba... not just the government, but the people. Why must the people suffer because of the actions of their idiot leader? I don't think Castro necessarily represents the interests of the Cuban people. And as long as he's in power, he probably doesn't even give a crap about whether there's a trade embargo or not.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

I agree with you about the embargo, I don't believe it's right either. But that doesn't mean we have a right to break the law. Instead, people should work to change the law.

_________________

So when is it right to break the law and when is it wrong?

_________________
404 sig not found

As I said before, the Rosa Parks example was about more than just it being a "good cause". The law she was disobeying was against basic civil rights. The Cuban embargo is not. And since the law was unconstitutional, it was right for her to disobey it, because the Constitution is a higher authority than the law she disobeyed.

_________________

The concept of "the concept of 'the stupid laws should be broken' is just dumb" is just dumb. All the protests, writing to your representatives, and petitioning the president doesn't do jack crap anymore, especially when it's important. Voting a new party into office doesn't change a darn thing either. The leaders of this country are bought and paid for by special interets. The motivation for these people is to stay in power. By breaking stupid laws, we can live our lives the way we should live them without having to wait for an issue to become "sexy" before it gets any attention.

That being said, there are consequences for breaking stupid laws, just like there are consequences for breaking "smart" laws. Don't be suprised if you are tossed in the clink for it. But the way I understand it, many laws have been changed through the courts after somebody has broken some stupid law. Sodomy laws, anti-miscegenation laws, and segregation laws should all be filed under "stupid laws" and were rightfully disobeyed.

At this point, I have no opinion one way or another on the embargo, so I don't know if this is a "stupid" law that I would want to break. And I don't much worry about what happens to Michael Moore. He can afford all the "justice" he wants.

_________________
Listen to the Black Crowes.

My understanding is that the current embargo policies have not been changed at all since Clinton was in office. In fact, Clinton actually enacted laws to strengthen the embargo. The motive behind the embargo - to promote democracy in Cuba - is decent, but the effects of it are actually counter-productive.

_________________

well i'm not saying that moore is any henry david throeau (though we could use one of them...) but i do believe in civil disobedience, as well as working within the system. strengthening the cuban embargo was a stupid move and i don't think george bush has thought one iota about it the entire time he's been in office, so i don't blame it on him either.

like i said, forms of authority need to justify themselves. call me a hippie or a commie or whatever, but if a totally unjustifiable law was passed tomorrow "for my own good" or worse--to go around policing how other countries operate--i'd be inclined to disobey that law.

moore is no rosa parks. everyone calls themselves or other people they support rosa parks. i can't stand it. i'm pretty sure moore has done it to himself, even. i can't abide by that. but some laws are so archaic and arbitrary that they aren't worthy of enforcement, i think it would be petty and dumb to toss the book at him on this. plus, you'll only make him a martyr.

So basically, you're saying that you know better than the government, and the only solution is anarchy. Why are you the one to decide which laws are right and which ones are wrong?

_________________

Has anyone seen that family episode where Peter out farts Micheal More? [/kinda off topic]

_________________
You're playing Team Fortess 2... you are a heavy and you have two medics... you are taking out everone on the other team so easy... another medic aproaches... THEN HE TURNS INTO A SPY AND STABS YOU IN THE SPINE!
SPY PWNS ALL!

Um, no not really. But I'm also not going to assume the government knows better than me. I would like to clarify my statement to say that I feel most laws are good and necessary.



We the people decide which laws are right and which laws are wrong. Ultimately we are the ones who have to make choices in our lives. And if the choices we make land us in jail, well that's the way it goes. But if I believe a law is wrong, I'm not going to wait around for everybody else to realize it's wrong before I ignore it. If a consequence is that I have to go to prison, that's the price I pay for my decision. Nobody's fault but mine. I knew the law, and chose to break it. It's all about risk assessment. Is it worth the risk to break a law that I feel is wrong? For me, the answer is no in most cases. I'm against seatbelt laws, but I'm certainly not going to break them. However, if I was dead-set against the embargo of Cuba, I might be inclined to break laws associated with it.

_________________
Listen to the Black Crowes.

Bear in mind, Exhibit A, that our nation was founded upon the principle that unjust laws ought to be resisted. Remember the colonists who rebelled against the English government? And yet, as a result, we now have a nation founded upon the principle that people can and should have some say in which laws are instituted. So, if our founding fathers had simply accepted the unjust laws enacted to govern them, we'd still be a British colony right now.

_________________

True, but the situation was different. The American colonists had no choice but to defy the law, because they had no way to change it. We do.

Also remember that the Bible does tell us to submit to government authority, so I will obey the laws that are passed by congress, unless they are unconstitutional, or in conflict with God's commands, both cases where the law is superseded by a higher authority.

_________________

In theory we do. In practice we really don't. You can't depend on politicians to do things, no matter how much you scream for their attention.

_________________
Listen to the Black Crowes.

What I think a lot of people are overlooking is that the main reason he first went to Cuba was because he was headed for Gitmo (Guantanamo Bay). Now while that may be illegal, why is it not illegal for government officials and terrorists to go there? I thought one of our laws was that everyone was equal under the law...

_________________

Uh, wrong.

Cops can go 100 mph and not be prosecuted.

Cops can shoot people and not be prosecuted.

The mayor and governor and president can do a lot of stuff average Americans can't do without getting busted.

_________________

i'm sick of anyone with the guts to attempt civil disobedience invoking rosa parks. she was awesome. nobody's going to compare to her. i hate how every political person on either side always does that. oh well.

I think what Lahi was trying to point out is that when an official is carrying out his official business, he is empowered to do some things that an ordinary citizen is not allowed to. In the case of police, it is in their use of firearms and the necessity to overstep speed limits in order to carry out their duties of pursuing criminals. But the terms of such empowerment are limited by the necessity of those duties as well. A government official may be allowed to visit the facility, but that doesn't give him the right to go on vacation there.

But here is another issue: officially, the base is not under the jurisdiction of the Cuban government. Therefore, a government official visiting the base does not violate the terms of the embargo, whereas Michael Moore did.

_________________

Actually, Michael Moore IS currently under investigation by the U.S. Treasury for taking ten 9/11 Ground Zero workers to Cuba without confirmed permission from OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control, an office of the U.S. Treasury), although he did request permission before leaving:



(Source for all above information)

Besides, the U.S. seems perfectly fine with people violating federal laws, what with Bush commuting Scooter Libby's ENORMOUS 30 month sentence (for being "excessive", no less)...

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

This is probably for another thread, but presidents pardon people and commute sentences every time.

If you're going to rip Bush for doing it, at least be equal and condemn every president for the past sixty years.

_________________