...but not for this Moron. Michael Moore has drafted an angry letter arguing that enforcement of his blatant violation of the Cuba sanctions is a political attack. While the Bush Admin, and others who hate Michael Moore may be enjoying the juicy potential enforcement action that was dropped in their lap, I would ask: what the hell else is OFAC supposed to do?
Moore is set to release a movie in which he takes a number of 9/11 responders to Cuba to take advantage of their debatable superior state-run health care system.
So is OFAC supposed to ignore the violation playing on 200 screens nationwide (god, I hope that's a generous estimate)? Also, he obviously knew his trip required licensing, since he requested just such a license in October 2006 (Moore refers to OFAC knowing about his trip since 10/06, I assume this is what he means). Actually OFAC responded with an investigatoin in less than 3 months after the crime was committed.
See, Hilton didn't deserve what she got. A huge fine, maybe. 45 days in jail? I really don't think so, and I think you can look to that as a good example of someone getting a sentence that far outweighs their crime due only to their celebrity status. In this instance, Moore is dealing with a much more serious area: carousing with our enemies. For this, and the unrepentant boldness of his action, a proper response is required.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
amen.
How come you're not advocating for Charlize Theron to be brought up on charges? Or everybody else who's gone to Cuba to film documentaries? Moore is hardly the first filmmaker to go there. When you bring politics into this, as you do when you only complain about Moore, you do the issues an extreme disservice (sp?). It sounds like you'd be ok with Moore's going if you agreed with his point of view......
Is it ALWAYS wrong to go to Cuba, or is it only wrong for Michael Moore? Many other people have gone under the exact same travel circumstances as Moore, yet you don't seem bothered by them.
To Anonymous #2:
My problems with Moore are less ideological than you presume. The fact is, I just like my "documentaries" to be accurate, or at least attempt to be. His distortions are well documented (he really DID get that meeting with Roger Smith, for instance), yet he continues to pass himself off as something other than a political entertainer. Rather, he fancies himself the Ken Burns of the activist left.
It's like insisting that the Blair Witch project was really the chronicle of 3 annoying teenagers, rather than the entertainment it really was.
Moore's unfair melding of Documentary and Storytelling bugs me, and I just can't deny it.
So, I would LOVE to see Theron and the others who have gone to show solidarity with Castro, or at least to show their disapproval of US Cuba policy to be fined as well. Some already have, so this is not without precendent (see http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/busted-oliver-stone-fined-for-cuba-visit-2/).
If someone breaks the law, and flaunts it on the screen in front of millions AND gets rich in the process, don't you think a response is warranted?
Oh, and by the way, some actors DO get licenses (if you consider Kevin Costner an "actor", that is).
http://ibike.org/cuba/ofac/010813-spt.htm
EB, I understand your point completely, thank you for being clear. Unfortunately, as I'm sure you've seen, a lot of the voices calling for Moore's head are doing so because he's Michael Moore and they don't like his movies....and no other reason. But Moore cannot be punished by OFAC for being Moore. The CONTENT of his movies cannot be relevant. Otherwise, we have OFAC deciding what is a "legitimate" documentary and what isn't.
Dear anonymous from 4:31 pm.
The question that is relevant is the following:
Is Michael Moore a journalist or not?
It is important to look at the content of his work since he claims to be an "independent journalist".
To Anonymous at 4:31pm today:(JEEZ, guys, could you at least make up a name so I can keep track of who says what?)
Thanks, and I agree, OFAC can't and should not be allowed to fine Moore for being Moore.
But I would also like to point out that the hysterics that have prematurely run to his defense (on Clif's site) are mostly export controls professionals and really should know better.
Moore submitted a request for a license in 10/06 -- the appropriate response to OFAC was to explain why he apparently was able to rely on one of the general licenses (presumably for journalist activities), and did not wait for OFAC's response. It was NOT to attack the Bush admin, as Moore clearly knew there were rules to be followed here, and is playing his supporters for suckers.
Of course, if he can't qualify as a journalist, OFAC will fine him and actually OEE will be knocking at his door as well (more on that in another post).
Post a Comment