Lefty Soapbox

Congress.org reports this amazing issue.

The Draft will Start in June 2005

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

What's more, the story goes on to say that going to Canada is not a safe haven for draft dodgers, nor is college.

College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

Yeah, the thing about this is that the authors of both bills and the cosponsors of the house bill are ALL democrats. Bush isn't trying to slide this through. Read this.

I don't like Bush, but he's not THAT dumb.

He'll wait until after he gets elected to introduce the legislation for the draft. So never, hopefully.

Congratulations to all the happy couples who have persevered and triumphed in Massachusetts. I love the bay state. There are a few towns that are saying "eff that!" to the Governor's proclamation that gay non-residents of Massachusetts can't get married. One of them is, surprise surprise, Provincetown. I've been there. It is truly the awesomest place ever. I want to live there.

This is truly a great day for America. *sniff*

AJ, in the article you linked, it stated that Moore wrote in a letter to his supporters that "he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax" but that in a CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

I don't know if the new email from Michael Moore that's sitting in my Inbox is meant to "clarify" the situation as a result of this new "finding," but here is the complete text of the email, (warning: it's long)

When You Wish Upon A Star... by Michael Moore

May 7th, 2004

Friends,

Thank you for all the incredible letters of support as my film crew and I once again slog our way through the corporate media madhouse. Does it ever end? Are we ever going to get control of our "free press" again? Can you wish upon a star?

The Disney spin machine has been working overtime dealing with this censorship debacle of theirs. I don't think they thought they would ever be outed. After all, they know that all of us are supposed to adhere to the unwritten Hollywood Code: Never tell the public how business is done here, never let them have a peek at the man behind the curtain.

Disney has been hoping for nearly a year that they could keep this thing quiet. As I promised on Wednesday, here are the details behind my sordid adventure with the Magic Kingdom:

In April of 2003, I signed a deal with Miramax, a division of the Walt Disney Co., to finance and distribute my next movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. (The original financier had backed out; I will tell that story at a later date.) In my contract it is stated that Miramax will distribute my film in the U.S. through Disney's distribution arm, Buena Vista Distribution. It also gives Miramax the rights to distribute and sell the movie around the world.

A month later, after shooting started, Michael Eisner insisted on meeting with my agent, Ari Emanuel. Eisner was furious that Miramax signed this deal with me. According to Mr. Emanuel, Eisner said he would never let my film be distributed through Disney even though Mr. Eisner had not seen any footage or even read the outline of the film. Eisner told my agent that he did not want to anger Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. The movie, he believed, would complicate an already complicated situation with current and future Disney projects in Florida, and that many millions of dollars of tax breaks and incentives were at stake.

But Michael Eisner did not call Miramax and tell them to stop my film. Not only that, for the next year, SIX MILLION dollars of DISNEY money continued to flow into the production of making my movie. Miramax assured me that there were no distribution problems with my film.

But then, a few weeks ago when Fahrenheit 9/11 was selected to be in the Cannes Film Festival, Disney sent a low-level production executive to New York to watch the film (to this day, Michael Eisner has not seen the film). This exec was enthusiastic throughout the viewing. He laughed, he cried and at the end he thanked us. "This film is explosive," he exclaimed, and we took that as a positive sign. But "explosive" for these guys is only a good word when it comes to blowing up things in movies. OUR kind of "explosive" is what they want to run from as fast as they can.

Miramax did their best to convince Disney to go ahead as planned with our film. Disney contractually can only stop Miramax from releasing a film if it has received an NC-17 rating (ours will be rated PG-13 or R).

According to yesterday's New York Times, the issue of whether to release Fahrenheit 9/11 was discussed at Disney's board meeting last week. It was decided that Disney should not distribute our movie.

Earlier this week we got the final, official call: Disney will not put out Fahrenheit 9/11. When the story broke in the New York Times, Disney, instead of telling the truth, turned into Pinocchio.

Here are my favorite nuggets that have come out of the mouths of their spinmeisters (roughly quoted):

"Michael Moore has known for a year that we will not distribute this movie, so this is not news." Yes, that is what I thought, too, except Disney kept sending us all that money to make the movie. Miramax said there was no problem. I got the idea that everything was fine.

"It is not in the best interests of our company to distribute a partisan political film that may offend some of our customers." Hmmm. Disney doesn't distribute work that has partisan politics? Disney distributes and syndicates the Sean Hannity radio show every day? I get to listen to Rush Limbaugh every day on Disney-owned WABC. I also seem to remember that Disney distributed a very partisan political movie during a Congressional election year, 1998—a film called The Big One... by, um... ME!

"Fahrenheit 9/11 is not the Disney brand; we put out family oriented films." So true. That's why the #1 Disney film in theaters right now is a film called, KILL BILL, VOL. 2. This excellent Miramax film, along with other classics like Pulp Fiction, have all been distributed by Disney. That's why Miramax exists -- to provide an ALTERNATIVE to the usual Disney fare. And, unless they were NC-17, Disney has distributed them.

"Mr. Moore is doing this as a publicity stunt." Michael Eisner reportedly said this the other day while he was at a publicity stunt cutting the ribbon for the new "Tower of Terror" ride (what a pleasant name considering what the country has gone through recently) at Disney's California Adventure Park. Let me tell you something: NO filmmaker wants to go through this kind of controversy. It does NOT sell tickets (I can cite many examples of movies who have had to change distributors at the last minute and all have failed). I made this movie so people could see it as soon as possible. This is a huge and unwanted distraction. I want people discussing the issues raised in my film, not some inside Hollywood fracas surrounding who is going to ship the prints to the theaters. Plus, I think it is fairly safe to say that Fahrenheit 9/11 has a good chance of doing just fine, considering that my last movie set a box office record and the subject matter (Bush, the War on Terror, the War in Iraq) is at the forefront of most people's minds.

So what will happen to my movie? I still don't know. What I do know is that I will make sure all of you see it by hook or crook. We are Americans. There are a lot of screwed up things about us right now, but one thing that most of us have in common is that we don't like someone telling us we can't see something. We despise censors, and the worst censors are those who would dare to limit thoughts and ideas and silence dissent. THAT is un-American. If I have to travel across the country and show it in city parks (or, as one person offered yesterday, to show it on the side of his house for the neighborhood to see), that is what I will do.

More to come, stay tuned.

Yours,

Michael Moore
http://www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com

P.S. Be sure to check out yesterday's New York Times Editorial, "Disney's Craven Behavior"

Hey, why did Disney tell Miramax that it will block the distribution of Michael Moore's latest documentary, "Fahrenheit 911"? Was it because Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has, as a stipulation in the contractual agreement with Miramax honchos Bob and Harvey Weinstein, the right to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating? Well, yes, but those aren't Disney's reasons. According to Ari Emanuel, Moore's agent, Michael Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

And as Michael Moore says, "Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?"

The problem with that argument is that he assumes we live in a "free and open" society.

I am assuming you are all aware of the Taguba report detailing the atrocities committed against prisoners by American troops in Abu Ghraib. And the pictures, for which Bush is going on Arab TV to address. And you may have also heard about the attacks on the prison by insurgents, killing many Iraqi prisoners.

Why would the insurgents attack the prison? Were they trying to kill the guards? No. They were trying to kill the prisoners. Why were they trying to kill the prisoners, who are, supposedly, insuregents themselves? Because they believe it is better for them to die than it is to suffer the humiliation, abuse, and torture. They aren't so much worried about the men.

They are worried about the women. And the children.

You read that right. Women and children are also being held at the prison and are also being abused, raped, and tortured by American troops, contractors, and Iraqi guards under their supervision. There are hundreds of pictures and video tapes as evidence.

At least, that's what I heard. By my friend's sister's teacher's mailman's dog's vet's brother who read it on the internet somewhere.

Watch the news in the next few weeks for this. If it comes out, assuming it is true, Fallujah is going to look like a carousel at an amusement park.

This is frightening. The situation in Iraq is so fabulous right now and there is no shortage of troops, yet there is a proposal to start drafting women, and increase the draft age to 34.

Nice to see the major names in the Liberal Media are all over this, like the Toronto Star and the Arizona Daily Star.

(via Atrios)