Sicko Doesn't Does Meet Cuban Propaganda Standards

And they say there's nothing interesting in the WikiLeaks cables:

Cuba banned Michael Moore's 2007 documentary, Sicko, because it painted such a "mythically" favourable picture of Cuba's healthcare system that the authorities feared it could lead to a "popular backlash", according to US diplomats in Havana.

The revelation, contained in a confidential US embassy cable released by WikiLeaks, is surprising, given that the film attempted to discredit the US healthcare system by highlighting what it claimed was the excellence of the Cuban system.

But the memo reveals that when the film was shown to a group of Cuban doctors, some became so "disturbed at the blatant misrepresentation of healthcare in Cuba that they left the room".

Castro's government apparently went on to ban the film because, the leaked cable claims, it "knows the film is a myth and does not want to risk a popular backlash by showing to Cubans facilities that are clearly not available to the vast majority of them."

The memo is reproduced here.

Update: Michael Moore says the cable is B.S.:

There's only one problem -- 'Sicko' had just been playing in Cuban theaters. Then the entire nation of Cuba was shown the film on national television on April 25, 2008! The Cubans embraced the film so much so it became one of those rare American movies that received a theatrical distribution in Cuba. I personally ensured that a 35mm print got to the Film Institute in Havana. Screenings of 'Sicko' were set up in towns all across the country. In Havana, 'Sicko' screened at the famed Yara Theater.

Bonus update: I may have found the origins of the error. The dissident Cuban doctor Darsi Ferrer Ramírez wrote an editorial in 2007 predicting that the government would censor the film. Some writers outside Cuba misread this as a statement that the film had been banned. I suspect that the author of the cable then heard that version of the story and passed it along.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • CavMedic||

    Lefties will probably cry foul because this comes from the US diplomatic cable dump and not some official Cuban government file, but still:

    "The cable describes a visit made by the FSHP to the Hermanos Ameijeiras hospital in October 2007. Built in 1982, the newly renovated hospital was used in Michael Moore's film as evidence of the high-quality of healthcare available to all Cubans.

    But according to the FSHP, the only way a Cuban can get access to the hospital is through a bribe or contacts inside the hospital administration. "Cubans are reportedly very resentful that the best hospital in Havana is 'off-limits' to them," the memo reveals."

    What the single-payer types want for us all.

  • Juice||

    To be fair Cuba isn't single payer, it's nationalized medicine, like the UK (sorta).

  • the ||

    What is the difference?

  • cynical||

    That the government does not technically own the hospitals, it just has a monopoly on third party (or, more likely, all) payments to the hospitals for care. Which means it pwns them, at the very least.

  • Suki||

    Reason needs to stop spreading the lie that WikiLeaks published the Climategate files first. I am looking at you, Jesse.

  • ||

    So why isn't brilliant propaganda like this loudly trumpeted by the US instead of being released by Assange and Wikileaks?

  • ||

    What an excellent question. Why didn't State let everyone know that Moore's film was such putrid propaganda that even the Cubans couldn't stomach it?

    Oh and for you WikiLeaks haters: Still hatin'? Or starting to feel the love for real transparency?

  • CavMedic||

    Come on! If the Bush State Department released it the usual suspects wouldn't believe it and the Obama State Department would have no reason to release it. Hell, I doubt this even makes a dent in lefty opinion or sticks to Moore at all for that matter.

  • ||

    I think CavMedic's comments point out the problem. The left would dismiss it and accuse the US diplomats of lying.

  • ||

    I'm sure they'll still want him executed without trial; after all, they really, really hate him. For some reason that has nothing to do with a love of authority. Nothing.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Oh, Assange would never release anything, unless it embarrassed the US! He just miscalculated in this case!

  • ||

    Exactly! He was just trying to embarrass the State Dept, and we all know how much supposed libertarians love the State Dept!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Absolutely! After this, how is the State Dept. supposed to negotiate with Cuba?

  • ||

    If they can't criticize Michael Moore in secret, how can they operate?!?

  • Bingo||

    WikiLeaks is the litmus test for authoritarians.

  • MM||

    WikiLeaks is the litmus test for authoritarians.

    And gullible anarchists. You've been duped, sonny boy.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....98586.html

  • robc||

    There is no evidence in that piece that it wasnt banned as of Jan 31, 2008. Only that in April of 2008 it wasnt banned.

  • ||

    And all Cubans have not only televisions, but electricity as well.

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Do you strive to do exactly what we expect you to do, or are you just as stupid as we think?

  • Huff 'n' Puff||

    You got played like a cheap violin, boy.

  • ||

    Constantly repeating something doesn't make it true, no matter how much you want it to be true, stalkerpussy.

  • sevo||

    R C Dean|12.17.10 @ 7:44PM|#
    "What an excellent question. Why didn't State let everyone know that Moore's film was such putrid propaganda that even the Cubans couldn't stomach it?"

    It is not in any government's interest to show that government-provided services aren't very effective.
    So without proposing anything like a conspiracy, there simply was no constituency in any part of the government to expose his mendacity.

  • Jerry||

    I think it is standard policy for State not to make comments at all, because otherwise they are committed to making comments on different documentaries as well.

  • sevo||

    Regardless of State's 'no comment' stance, State also has no impetus to hand it off to any other agency.

  • Jesus H.||

    Folks here seem think "the state" is single organism with a consistent, official political agenda, whose role is to take sides in every petty debate that comes up on a political/pop-culture blog. When they don't, it's a conspiracy, or proof that "the state" is evil and incompetent and why can't we just have peaceful, "open" anarchy?

  • Spoonman.||

    They are discussing the Department of State, whose internal communication this comes from.

  • ||

    Yeah, RTFCT, newb.

    Sick burn.

  • ||

    Why didn't State let everyone know that Moore's film was such putrid propaganda that even the Cubans couldn't stomach it?

    Probably because the department of State isn't in the business of film criticism. Nor should they be, IMHO.

    -jcr

  • ||

    During the Cold War, they called people like Moore "useful idiots".

    Our propaganda efforts weren't exactly wasted in Eastern Europe and elsewhere...and the communists propaganda efforts weren't exactly wasted either.

    Regardless, why shouldn't useful idiots like Moore hyping the Potemkin virtues of a vicious dictator like Castro be something State should be concerned about?

    Arrest Moore for being a useful idiot? Of course not!

    But there's gotta be something between putting him in jail and turning a blind eye, right?

  • sevo||

    "But there's gotta be something between putting him in jail and turning a blind eye, right?"
    First, the cold war's gone, so whatever government pressure for propaganda was there at the time is gone also.
    Secondly, it would take a clear reading of 'free market' vs 'centralized planning' within government to push the issue; that's gone also.
    Finally, I think jcr's got a point; the government should not be in the speech-critic business, except as regards fraud.
    This is probably a public choice issue; there is no constituency within or without the government to call Moore on his lies; he gets awards for lying.

  • ||

    The Cold War isn't over in Cuba.

    If Castro is setting up Potemkin villages for Michael Moore to use in order to propagandize the American people--and the government knows about it?

    I'm not sure they don't have a duty to tell us.

  • sevo||

    Ken Shultz|12.17.10 @ 9:18PM|#
    "The Cold War isn't over in Cuba."

    Different definitions:
    Cuba represents zero military threat to the US.
    While silly people like Moore contend it represents a better alternative, that's their problem and the problem of ignoramuses who believe them.
    So, no, I'll say that isn't a cold war issue, and, again, it is not the government's role to correct ignorant film-makers, like, oh, Oliver Stone.

  • prolefeed||

    The Cold War isn't over in Cuba.

    If Castro is setting up Potemkin villages for Michael Moore to use in order to propagandize the American people--and the government knows about it?

    I'm not sure they don't have a duty to tell us.

    I can't find the part in the Constitution where an enumerated power resides for "government confiscating money from taxpayers and using it to release propaganda to counter viewpoints of private citizens that those currently in power diaagree with."

    If you can find that section in the Constitution, please let me know.

  • ||

    "If you can find that section in the Constitution, please let me know."

    Can you find a section in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to make decisions about my healthcare?

    I'll admit, my reasoning may be a little cloudy on this one--I'm more than just a little peeved about Obama remaking our health system so it's more like Cuba's...

    How do you expose a useful idiot like that when he's lying through his teeth? I don't know where it says what we're supposed to do about people like that in the Constitution--I don't think Moore gave a damn about whether what he wanted to do was authorized in the Constitution...

    So, if we invite him to a rational debate, and he wants to turn it into a food fight? Don't ask me about what's in the Constitution--just pass me the mashed potatoes.

  • ||

    There's a difference between this and Jane Fonda inspecting North Vietnamese prisons and assuring the American public that the North Vietnamese were treating prisoners well.

    And the biggest difference is that Jane Fonda is ashamed of what she did--and she apologized for it.

    Would you feel any differently if Moore were over in Iran vouching for the peaceful intentions of Iran's nuclear program?

    How 'bout going over to North Korea and vouching for them?

    We're in one hell of a healthcare predicament because of some stupid shit people believe--how much of that is attributable to Michael Moore?

    I don't know. But if foreign governments are propagandizing the American people with lies that are contrary to our interests, I'm not so sure we should take that lying down.

  • sevo||

    "But if foreign governments are propagandizing the American people with lies that are contrary to our interests, I'm not so sure we should take that lying down."

    They're not, at least in this instance.

  • ||

    You know, even if I thought socialized medicine was a good idea?

    I'd never apologize for anyone who allowed himself to be duped by a vicious dictator.

    The man made propaganda for a vicious dictator--and his only defense is the he was so stupid they took advantage of him!

    People in this thread don't have that advantage. They can't pretend they're ignorant of what happened. Anybody who says lying to the American people in order to trick them into supporting whatever policy...

    Has no business criticizing George W. Bush or any other president that leaves us stranded up shit creek on a lark.

  • Rrabbit||

    Moore wasn't "duped". The man is unable to check facts. It doesn't require any malice by anybody else for Moore to get the facts wrong.

    Way too many people out there who are unable to check facts.

  • ||

    Watch this...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-8TcpOz6A4

    ...and then tell me he wasn't duped.

  • Rrabbit||

    I could give you similar examples where the actual facts would have supported Moore's points better than the false claims of fact he made in his books and movies.

    No, he wasn't duped. He is so clueless that it hurts.

  • ||

    About how much fact checking went on in this post or this comment thread, would you say? Can you give me a rough percentage of the number of people who checked to see if the film really was banned in Cuba before ranting on and on about how it was?

  • H&R Commentariat||

    Um...zero percent?

  • ||

    I think of the H&R Commentariat as a giant fact checking mechanism.

    I'm much smarter for what I've learned from the H&R Commentariat--mostly from those who disagreed with me.

  • robc||

    Its quite possible it was banned in Jan of 2008 and unbanned in April of 2008.

  • BakedPenguin||

    About how much fact checking went on in this post or this comment thread, would you say?

    Yes, because making snarky comments on a blog thread and making a multi-million dollar "documentary" shown across the globe have equal weight. If you're wrong, there's absolutely no differences in the consequences whatsoever.

    Dick.

  • ||

    Aren't whether it was banned and whether it was bogus (and Moore was duped) two separate questions?

    If Castro used Moore's film to propagandize his evil regime to his own people? Then Moore should be doubly ashamed.

    Once for lying to the American people and once for lying to the Cubans.

  • ||

    Is there someone in this thread who thinks this means that Moore was right?

    Because this movie was shown in Cuba...that means average Cubans really do get better medical care than we do--because they're socialist?!

  • Rrabbit||

    Cubans? Nah.
    Average UK citizens? Probably not.
    But average Canadians, average Germans? Yes.

  • bgates||

    the department of State isn't in the business of film criticism

    How about if State just said that the Cubans thought it was such putrid propaganda they couldn't stomach it?

    They're in the business of letting us know what the rest of the world thinks about what comes out of America, right?

  • the ||

    "They're in the business of letting us know what the rest of the world thinks about what comes out of America, right?"
    I'm pretty sure that's prioritized somewhere well south of making sure the desks are clean at the close of business.

  • Huff 'n' Puff||

    starting to feel the love for real transparency?

    You mean cables that turn out to be factually incorrect but are taken at face value by gullible puppets? Yeah! I'm loving it!

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    I wonder how demoralizing it might have been to Cubans to see that movie, think it accurately represented the typical American's view of Cuba (which it may) and realize just how alone they are in their plight - that Americans have no appreciation of the depth of their poverty and suffering, and that if Americans really believe this BS, there is no bastion of truth, and no one even rooting for them to overthrow the communists.

  • sevo||

    I think there's too many 'brother/uncle/cousin Juans' in Miami for that to happen.

  • "Potemkin Mike" Moore||

    Those darn Cubans.

  • "Potemkin Mike"||

    I know what I saw.

  • ||

    Well, even a nasty dictatorship has to keep its lies up to a credible standard.

  • Joe M||

    This is the funniest thing I've read today.

  • ||

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! LOL!!!

  • Tman||

    So wait, you're saying that there may be an element of half-truth in a Michael Moore documentary?

    THAT'S UNPOSSIBLE!!! NPR TOLD ME SO!!!

  • Old Mexican||

    Cuba banned Michael Moore's 2007 documentary, Sicko, because it painted such a "mythically" favourable picture of Cuba's healthcare system that the authorities feared it could lead to a "popular backlash", according to US diplomats in Havana.



    I wonder how would Michael Moore feel knowing that his propaganda piece is so out there that even the régime's it was supposed to exalt felt embarrased by it?

  • Old Mexican||

    régime... Sorry.

  • sunny black||

    LOL...this makes my week. And he bailed the fucker outta jail...priceless...

  • BakedPenguin||

    I guess irony can be pretty ironic at times...

  • ||

    What's really funny is this won't cause leftists to rethink their stance one iota on even Cuba's healthcare, let alone socialized medicine in general. Nothing can penetrate. Nothing.

  • sunny black||

    Well, yeah. And the problem is that if I know my friendly neighborhood liberal -- and sadly I do -- their fallback position will be: "uhh, well, uhh, it's CIA propaganda obviously..."

    Mm-hmm...obviously.

    Followed by, "and what difference does it make anyway? Cuba still ranks ahead of the U.S. in (insert meaningless and unequivocal metric of comparison [e.g. lowering TB amongst Ashkenazi Jewish lesbians from Cambodia])!"

    Got me there, Maddow.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Their levels of childhood obesity are a magnitude of order beneath ours. Just don't tell Michelle Obama...

  • Hooha||

    Perhaps inflicting our nation with crippling poverty is the Obama Administrations' Super Secret plan for stamping out obesity in America? Hey, it worked in Cuba!

  • Tman||

    SB, you couldn't have better predicted said inevitable conversation with your local liberal had you a tape player from the future with that recording.

    Yet another subject I will inevitably have to talk about tonight at the bar that will end up with your typical "let's agree to disagree, do another shot and talk football" type situation.

    I hate how Moore is sooo beloved by my generation. It's embarrassing.

  • ||

    What I don't get is why leftists are so fucking stupid on the subject of Cuba. They are so stubborn about it, in the face of so much damning evidence, that you'd think they'd pick somewhere else to love and defend. But no; they stick with Cuba and make themselves look like retarded chimps again and again and again. Why?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    What I don't get is why leftists are so fucking stupid on the subject of Cuba. They are so stubborn about it, in the face of so much damning evidence, that you'd think they'd pick somewhere else to love and defend. But no; they stick with Cuba and make themselves look like retarded chimps again and again and again. Why?


    For the same reason neo-Confederates defend the Confederate States of America as a bastion of freedom.

    Of course, it would hardly be surprising if there was a significant overlap between the two groups.

  • Tman||

    I blame Che. He was romanticized to a disgusting degree. They took a psychopathic murdering blight upon humanity and polished him in to a trophy for Fidel that stupid anti-establishment college kids ate up like candy.

    Voila! Socialist paradise.

  • ||

    "Che ... was romanticized to a disgusting degree. They took a psychopathic murdering blight upon humanity and polished him in to a trophy for Fidel that stupid anti-establishment college kids ate up like candy."

    Makes you wonder: But for a different set of circumstances, it might be Charlie Manson's or Ted Kaczinski's posterized faces on all those t-shirts.

  • ||

    Timothy McVeigh - he was against murdering of women, excessive force by federal agents, killing of retreating soldiers in Iraq and dismal of civilian deaths as "collateral damage". His solution? Well, let's just talk about all the good things....

  • ||

    Because Cuba really annoys the fuck outta conservatives. I can see why the USSR was a threat, but Cuba? Really? Still? Conservatives are very irrational about Cuba, so leftists just support support it to make the conservatives go ape shit nuts. Having said that, my ex-BFs sister, who has a trust fund in the millions of dollars, lived in Cuba for a year doing a documentary on some famous Cuban film director and how great he is. She and her anarcho-syndacalist BF absolutely loved Cuba and always talked about its wonderful health care system ("There are so many female doctors and health care is sooo inexpensive!") My brother always called her documentary "Embrace your Red Friends." The sad part is that they are not stupid people. we all went to the U. of Chicago together. Sigh.

  • sunny black||

    exactly....an oppressive dictatorship??? psshh...what's there to be so annoyed about?? so irrational.

    Leftists don't support Cuba just to be difficult. That's just stoopid. They support Cuba -- land of Che, the South American Elvis -- because they view it the same way many people view Graceland.

  • ||

    Maybe I've been reading Reason comments for too long because it seems EVERYONE is contrarian just to piss the other side off...I really think you may be underestimating the "Team Red! Team Blue!" undercurrent in support for Cuba. A lot of the shit you hear on the MSNBC or Fox or talk radio is just baiting the other side. As far as I can tell, people like Ann Coulter have built their careers on it. The left and right are so damn similar, to prove they are different, they have to take a little Carribbean island and make a big fuckin stink over it.

  • CatoTheElder||

    With youth, health, and enough money, a person can have a great time anywhere -- even a third-world hellhole. Lots of affluent European and American kids enjoy backpacking around Southeast Asia, China, India, etc. To affluent Westerners, the beer is cheap, in most places the dope is cheap, good food is cheap, and the locals are generally friendly. This can leave the impression that a third-world hellhole is, in fact, a delightful place.

    But there's a big difference between being a rich foreigner and a local ... and it only takes about $25 a day to be rich in much of the third world.

  • Yonemoto||

    U of Chicago. Went there. Not surprised.

  • ||

    "The sad part is that they are not stupid people. we all went to the U. of Chicago together. Sigh"

    Gee, what a shock that is..

  • CatoTheElder||

    Where else can they find an example of Marxist success? North Korea?

    They have to argue about the Marxist successes they have, not the Marxist successes they'd like to have.

  • Jesus H.||

    What's really funny is this won't cause leftists to rethink their stance one iota

    Or rightists, or anyone else. So much for the efficacy of "openness." Humans believe what they want to believe. This blog proves it. You trumpet those leaked cables that reinforce your worldview and dismiss those that don't. No minds are ever changed. To call it a circle jerk would imply that there's some sort of reward at the end of it all. But there never is. Unless arguing with strangers is its own reward.

  • sunny black||

    That's bullshit and you're dead wrong: minds are changed with reason. I was a committed leftist as of 4 years ago. I believed in man-made global warming and that Matt Damon was teh awesome.

    I think you're more likely to see open minds among libertarians more so than with any other group. Leftists and Right-wingers are religious nuts with different shades.

  • Jesus H.||

    The people here believe everything the editors tell them. Just read the commentary. They're obedient little puppets.

  • ||

    Right, no one ever slags on the editors here at reason. Nope, never.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • BakedPenguin||

    Someone ought to tell that to Moynihan.

  • Yonemoto||

    Or KMW. Didn't we suspect she got fired because some of the comments were so harsh and she disappeared for a few months? To be fair, her contributions did shape up after that hiatus.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Kerry Howley left as well. And while I'm sure a part of that was the "OMG! Yur so hott!" that was repeated ad infinitum on her every thread, there were plenty of posters here who were pretty harsh about her views as well.

  • Yonemoto||

    not too many people think KMW is hot. I mean she's not ugly or aynthing. Really I don't think that KMW's views were the problem, it was her *writing*. She was really trying too hard to pull off a fratire-ish style (and hackish "gotcha"-ing) and it really wasn't working.

  • Hooha||

    "The people here believe everything the editors tell them. Just read the commentary. They're obedient little puppets."

    Yup, when I found out Cavanaugh voted for Obama 'cause "lol, black!", all I could do was sit back, nod my head, and go 'Yeah. Yeah. That makes sense.'

    Your collection of anti-conservative, mindless, thought-terminating, cliched little liberal blogger BS snarky comments are powerless here, where rationality and free minds abound, child. But please, stay and post. You entertain us.

  • nekoxgirl||

    I was a Lefty too. Peolple's minds can be changed. It was stuff like this that made me realize the error of my political ways.

  • Michael Moore is a fat fuck||

    So why are Cuban government officials more sophisticated than American Liberals?

    I wish I could take joy in this news, but I can't. This was obvious to anyone with half a brain and yet liberals trumpeted Moore's movie. This is the level of idiocy that wants to run not only the country, but everyone's lives completely.

  • ||

    Moore painted a rosy picture, primarly based on Potemkin hospitals and the treatment sold to medical tourists. Not only does the average Cuban know that is a lie, but they might get seriously upset if they found out how easy it is for (relatively) rich foreigners to get medical treatment that Cubans themselves are denied.

  • Robert||

    So why are Cuban government officials more sophisticated than American Liberals?


    Because the gov't officials have something to lose, while American "liberals" have no position of power to lose.

  • ||

    I saw "Sicko" in its theatrical release.

    I do not remember Michael Moore ever claiming that the treatment facility that the ill Ground Zero workers went to in Cuba towards the end of the movie was "typical" of the standard of care in Cuba. As I recall the context, it was pretty clear that this was some kind of special VIP hospital, and that this "stunt" was the last desperate gambit for getting the Ground Zero workers care that they were not receiving in America, for sundry reasons that were explained in the movie.

    Did anyone else who actually saw the movie (not read some recap of it on a wingnut website) remember Michael Moore saying this hospital represented how people across Cuba got medical treatment?

    "Sicko" gets a lot a flak for its rather brief, contrived and ultimately ambiguous detour to Cuba. Much less is said about the abuses Moore reveals in the U.S. insurance system, or the high levels of satisfaction with Bismark plans he shows in various other wealthy Western democracies.

    But hey, it's the 21st Century. We don't need context and we don't need to face inconvenient facts. Create your own bubble.

  • ||

    But hey, it's the 21st Century. We don't need context and we don't need to face inconvenient facts. Create your own bubble.

    Oh, the irony...it's so fucking delicious.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Shut the fuck up, Danny. You're way out of your element.

  • sunny black||

    LMAO....i just got that!! Nice.... Hey, I'm going to do it too:

    1...

    2...

    3...

    Shut the fuck up, Danny. Dude, Fidel peed on your rug...

  • Nobody...||

    ...fuck with the Jesus!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Fucking nihilists.

  • dave c||

    I saw "Sicko" in its theatrical release.

    Which means Danny Douchebag paid to see it!

    LOL, fucking moron.

  • ||

    Which means Danny Douchebag paid to see it!

    Didn't Moore even tell people to watch the pirated version?

  • sevo||

    Danny|12.17.10 @ 8:38PM|#
    "I saw "Sicko" in its theatrical release."
    And as a brain-dead ignoramus, you immediately started working on justifications for its lie, right?

    "I do not remember Michael Moore ever claiming that the treatment facility that the ill Ground Zero workers went to in Cuba towards the end of the movie was "typical" of the standard of care in Cuba..."
    Of course! It was never stated, hint, hint, it was suggested, offered by innuendo, etc.

    See how long it took a brain-dead ignoramus to come up with excuses? Practically no time! They practice at it!

  • alan||

    Okay, Danny, now you have successfully berated us, you need to talk to those doctors in Cuba who walked out on the movie and berate them for not being fair to Moore, and berate the Cuban officials who banned it for the same offense since they agree with us and not you.

    You could not be more stupid.

  • Hey Danny||

    You apparently don't know what a Potemkin Village is, do you? Michael Moore creates a Bizarro World Potemkin Village USA for his films. If you actually got out in the real world, you would find there is a fair degree of satisfaction in the USA with the health system, as fucked up as it is in a lot of ways.

  • Robert||

    I remember in Moore's earlier TV series, "The Awful Truth", on several scores Cuba was said to beat Canada and the USA for treatment of a simulated leg fracture.

    No matter how perverted his ideas are, or how much even other leftists who know him hate him, Moore is awfully entertaining. Makes me laugh, at least. So it's all worth it.

  • Tman||

    As I recall the context, it was pretty clear that this was some kind of special VIP hospital, and that this "stunt" was the last desperate gambit for getting the Ground Zero workers care that they were not receiving in America, for sundry reasons that were explained in the movie.

    So the Cuban doctors who were apparently so disgusted by this scene that they left half way through the movie are dumb fox news wingnuts?

    Do you not see how ignorant Moore is by using these Cuban facilities? Don't you understand WHY they have these places?

    Watch a real documentary about a Communist dictatorship like this one -Vice Guide to North Korea 1 of 3 and then you'll see the difference.

    Especially watch the scene when they first go to "dinner" in North Korea.

    Also, fuck Michael Moore.

  • Robert||

    Thanks for the link to the Vice material. I recommend it, sampled a little more too.

  • Tman||

    That VBS North Korea film would be getting a Pulitzer prize in a just world.

    The Tea lady? Epic sadness. Just a shattering perspective. I wish more people would watch it.

  • Robert||

    Did you look at any of their other material? Are there travelogs on TV as good as these people are capable of on the Internet?

  • Steff||

    No shit. Heart-wrenching stuff.

  • Yonemoto||

    thanks dude. Totally worth it.

  • anarch||

    pwned.

    (Xenophobic squirrel censored my tilde.)

  • ||

    anarch, I am trying to spin making up small time punk band names into a money making career. Needless to say, I think that Xenophobic Squirrel is an excellent nom de rock star.

    If your band is interested in opening for the national act Pat Sajak's Bit Tit Fetish please send an email to confirm.

  • anarch||

    It's either "Xenophobic squirrel censored my tilde" or it's nothing.

  • ||

    Sounds good. We'll be in Topeka, Kansas on the 13th of January. 7pm show at the Shitkicker Bar and Grille.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I'd love to copy some of the choice bits of this hilarious cable about what a squalid shithole Cuba really is, but I don't want to get Reason in trouble for trafficking stolen property or whatever ridiculous charge Justice is loading into the chamber if they ever get their hands on Assange.

  • alan||

    Send it to Jesse and let him judge what should be done with it.

  • hurly buehrle||

    We don't need context and we don't need to face inconvenient facts. Create your own bubble.

    Why does every discussion of healthcare seem to remove 50 IQ points from the head of every liberal?

    This is exactly the problem that critics have with Sicko (it's also why it's an utter piece of shit as a documentary): its contempt for the idea of context. A quick of summary of the film, for everyone who didn't see it: after carefully selecting anecdotes depicting private-sector American healthcare in the worst light possible, and then going to great lengths to present the rosiest possible picture of British, French, Canadian, and Cuban (?) healthcare, we conclude that American healthcare is worse, and that massive government takeover is essential for some reason. In other words, it has less nuance than the average Hannah Montana episode.

    The real answer to the "which system is better" story is complicated. All of them are far from perfect, and terrible unintended things happen in each of them every day. And no amount of micro-regulation will fix that. But on most statistical measures that could reasonably be considered outputs of a system of medical care (e.g., rates of screening for common cancers, wait times for diagnostic workup for screen-detected lesions, wait times for non-emergency surgery, etc.), the American system is consistently superior.

  • Rrabbit||

    Disagree. The most important number is how long people live. The US health care system is overloaded with expensive unnecessary diagnostic procedures that only serve one purpose: reduce the doctors' risk of being sued for malpractice.

    For the patients, there is no actual benefit in those extra procedures. Only expenses.

  • Dello||

    I'd instead go for a quality of life number. I've worked in nursing homes, and while those folks may technically be alive (thus upping the number of years lived), I sure as hell wouldn't want to "live" like that.

  • Rrabbit||

    Yes, nursing homes are horrible. They are horrible in the US, and they are horrible elsewhere.

    So you'd need a number up to which age the average person is still reasonably self-sufficient, rather than depending on somebody to wipe his behind.
    I have not seen such numbers, but I'd expect the US to lose big time against other western countries in such a statistic, too.

  • ||

    Expected lifespan may be one of the most important numbers, but among modern developed countries, it is a better measure of non-health-care aspects of culture and environment than it is of health care quality. In those countries, lifespan is driven by diet, exercise, genetics and to some extent by crime rates. The US fares poorly on at least three of those measures.

    It certainly would help budgets -- but not necessarily quality or length of life -- if we had meaningful tort reform such that defensive medicine were not so necessary.

  • robc||

    USA does really well if you look at something like "expected lifespan of 60 year olds".

  • Rrabbit||

    You can pretty much exclude genetics by taking the "caucasian" US numbers. Those are poor compared to other western countries, too.

    Yes, diet and exercise drive life span, but those have to be considered part of the health care system. A good health care system for a variety of problems recommends that the patient changes diet and/or exercises regularly. The US health care system has a tendency to prescribe pills instead.

  • ||

    Why does every discussion of healthcare seem to remove 50 IQ points from the head of every liberal?

    Impossible; you can't have negative IQ values.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    +1

  • anarch||

    = - (-1)

  • Greer||

    This is exactly the problem that critics have with Sicko (it's also why it's an utter piece of shit as a documentary): its contempt for the idea of context

    The reason it's such a piece of shit is because it's made by Michael Moore. But you are correct about lack of context. He's made a career out that.

  • robc||

    The real answer to the "which system is better" story is complicated.

    Not really. I use the "I just cut off my hand standard" (sure, some may find this arbitrary, but I dont). If you cut off your hand ANYWHERE in the world, where do you fly to get it reattached? Cuba? London? Ottawa? No fucking way. You got Jewish Hospital in Louisville, KY, USA.

    And there is about a 50% chance your hand surgeon graduated from a foreign med school. But they arent working in a hospital in their home country.

  • BakedPenguin||

    To be fair, Belfast, No. Ireland has some of the greatest trauma centers in the world. Of course, you probably wouldn't want to recreate the conditions that made it that way.

  • robc||

    There is probably a reason my home town has the best hand center in the universe.

    "Hey yall, watch this!"

  • lei||

    I imagine he may be thinking the same of you (concerning your level of intelligence) as the fact that you are apparently unable to recognize a facetious/sarcastic statement is quite sad. And just so you know? I'm not a liberal. As a matter of fact, with the exception of your smart-assed, unnecessary insult, I felt your comment showed you to be very intelligent and possessing an exceptional understanding of the subject. Why then would you feel the need to insult another's intelligence for merely possessing a differing opinion? It is ironic that those type comments--insulting and mocking--often show one displaying the same ignorance from which he accuses another of suffering.

    *I am quite certain that you are able to recognize a sarcastic/facetious statement. /grin/ However, your comment, containing the insult as it did, was just begging for a response. /smile/

  • skr||

    too fucking awesome for words

  • ||

    And to think, Michael Moore bailed Assange out of jail:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/12/post_40.html

  • ||

    I'm wondering if he regrets it now.

  • Wind Rider||

    One thing he doesn't regret is picking a fat farm with an innewebz connection!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I needed a good laugh. Thanks, Reason!

  • Michael Moore||

    Charge that bastard with rape!

    And I want my money back!

  • the ||

    Tuff stuff, Mike. Put it in your ear.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Next to that Philly cheese steak sammich.

  • ||

    When you've lost Castro...

  • the ||

    "When you've lost Castro..."
    You've still got Obama, Morales, Pelosi, Chavez, Glover, Penn and many other ignoramuses.
    Some folks never figured out there was a lesson in 1989; they still think there was a lesson in 1917.

  • DRM||

    There was a lesson in 1917. Make peace with the Germans as soon as your provisional government takes power, and don't pretend there can be no enemies to the left.

  • ||

    Considering that the British had a similar dumbfounded reaction to Moore's portrayal of NIH as a well-oiled wellness-promoting machine, and that reaction came out while the film was still playing in the US...I doubt this is going to have any effect. People believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of the facts. (myself excluded)

  • Chony||

    "People believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of the facts. (myself excluded)"

    You forgot me and all Obama supporters.

  • ||

    What is the NIH? You mean the NHS - as Brit I have to say people were not "dumbfounded" by the portrayal. It was a little overly positive but not vastly inaccurate.

  • Bingo||

    I would really love to see Thomas Friedman produce or direct a documentary about China's healthcare system.

  • cynical||

    I would really love to see Thomas Friedman take part in China's healthcare system, particularly the part where they execute people for their organs.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'd fork over pay-per-view money for that...

  • Thomas Friedman||

    Isn't it amazing that China's healthcare system is so advanced that they actually execute people for their organs? Their system is so much better than ours! Why don't we do that here? Why are we so backwards? We need to adopt this -- what I call the Harvesting economy, so rich with possibility. And, mark my words, it IS the future, and if we don't get in line, we will be far behind the curve.

    Read about it in my next column in the New York Times. Every Wednesday.

  • Kate Black||

    As Moore explains in the Huffington Post today, the cabel was dead wrong -- SickO was played on Cuba's state television.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....98586.html

  • ||

    Listen, Missy. We don't care much here for your facts. This is REASON. We work only from first principles here, not extraneous information about some fantastical "real world." Don't you see over 90 comments and counting of sound, impeccable reasoning and commentary on this?

    Go back to your mud hut!

  • Jesus H.||

    Goddamn inconvenient facts! If we can't trust official State Department cables...wait a minute...

  • ||

    Yes, all hail XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX! He's never steered the American intelligence community wrong before!

  • H&R Commentariat||

    Just a few short hours ago, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX was our hero! But he lied to us! We were misled! We'll never trust anything XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX says again, unless Jesse or Nick or Matt or Michael tells us to.

  • Wind Rider||

    All Hail The Jacket. He is our master overlord protector!

  • alan||

    Oh, my! Michael Moore issues a refutation. That must make you ever so giddy thinking about it. Three months after the cable was released Sicko DID meet to Cuban standards of propaganda! What were those officials so worried about? That agitation from the Cuban public would create a demand for change? When there clearly isn't one given Cuba has the bestest government in the world. Silly officials, to be so concerned, but I guess that is really there strength to, caring. If only the right wing Neanderthals in the US would stop being so hateful and myopic, how much better the world would all be, right?

  • alan||

    Reason got what wrong, Rather? Would you care to sort through this, or can you only make that claim against them on a more general level where context doesn't matter? At best you have an inaccurate headline stating 'Sicko Doesn't Meet Cuban Propaganda Standards'. Besides that, you have squat.

  • l0b0t||

    Wow... Reason is part of the "right-wing press" now?

  • ||

    While it would be wrong to say the same about the individual authors, Reason as a whole seems more doctrinaire right-wing now because the Democrats are in power. When the Republicans are in power again, it will seem more left wing again, just as it did during the Bush years.

    Which is not to say that libertarians are unswayed by politics. But being against government overreach in our system of government means getting annoyed and angry at one party and then another, as they switch off being in charge of the government.

  • Jesus H.||

    This is what happens when you have a philosophy that tries to get by with just politics while eschewing metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. You become a ship without a rudder.

  • robc||

    As I said above, there is no evidence in that piece that the film wasnt banned as of Jan 31, 2008.

    The fact that it was LATER shown doesnt make the cable wrong.

  • Jesus H.||

    Where's the evidence that it was banned as of Jan. 31, 2008? Where are the reliable sources? The whole point of this post (based on hearsay and propaganda, apparently) was that Cuba banned Moore's movie. "Banned for just a little while" or "banned over one weekend in January" doesn't have quite the same effect, does it? In fact, it undermines the whole argument.

  • robc||

    Well, if it was banned and the guy wrote the cable and the next week Castro said "fuck that shit, lets show it", the cable isnt a lie.

    IF, at the time it was written, it was banned, thats all the cable writer can do. He cant see into the future.

  • Jesus H.||

    Yet some professional fact-checking would have uncovered the inconvenient fact that the film was not permanently (if ever) banned in Cuba, that in fact it was shown. From the Guardian story: "Cuba banned Michael Moore's 2007 documentary, Sicko..." and "Castro's government apparently went on to ban the film..." You'll notice that nowhere in the story cited does the word "temporarily" show up. The story implies that the film was permanently banned in Cuba because it embarrassed Castro. The entire point of the post (and all the commentary) rests on this vital supposition which, it turns out, is false.

  • robc||

    Im talking about the memo. The memo isnt false if the ban was temporary.

  • robc||

    I dont give a flying fuck about the media.

  • robc||

    IF it was banned, even temporarily, that says more than enough about Cuba, regardless of whether a later decision was made that was different.

    Actually, the fact that the film was screened to determine whether or not it could be shown in Cuba, REGARDLESS OF OUTCOME, indicts Cuba.

    The Bush administration, as far as I know, never screened the film in order to determine if it could be released in the USA.

  • Jesus H.||

    I have spoken.

  • Some Guy||

    Wait, so does this mean that Cuba runs documentaries about how shitty life is down there or something? I figuredd propaganda like this was the bread and butter of whatever TV existed on that island.

  • ||

    Why are you reporting this falsehood as though it were fact? Is that your skewed idea of 'reason'? Distorting the truth so that it fits your narrative. I am assuming you have actually looked into this story, in which case you will know that the memo spread the lie that the film was banned, when in fact it was shown to the entire Cuban nation on television on on April 25, 2008 and also had a theatrical release. Sorry if this is inconvenient for your pals in the insurance industry, but its an indisputable fact.

  • H&R Commentariat||

    Boy, are our faces red! We swallowed Jesse's post hook, line and sinker! Episiarch and the gang will be along shortly to formally admit that they have been duped, and that their own ideology (such as it is) got the better of them.

  • ||

    Extraneous side question: were you named for that famous Andrew Sullivan? Or does the famous Andrew Sullivan have a yahoo mail account? Because, dude, if you do: gmail is sooooo much better at handling spam and priority inbox rules.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Probably because the Moore article wasn't published when this was posted yesterday. Jesse made a mistake believing that the "journalists" at the Guardian, hardly a right-wing paper, actually did some checking before running with the story. Hopefully, he won't do that in the future.

    And Reason is a big friend to large corporations. That's why they opposed TARP, the auto bailouts, government subsidies, imminent domain abuse by large corporations, and so on. Go crawl back under your rock, troll.

  • MNG||

    He didn't say they were friends to all big corporations but had friends in the insurance industry.

    Of course I recall Reason posts criticizing elements of insurance reform supported by most big players in the insurance industry.

  • alan||

    Don't forget to ask MNG to check out your blog, Rather. I'm surprised you missed the opportunity to do so, oh, there it is! Right in your little handle.

  • alan||

    A woman are you? But you do internet tuff gai so well!

    Hey, I'm fucking with you, now what?

  • alan||

    Well, Rather, I got to go prepare my boyfriend supper. Who knows, if I play my cards right he might even let me be the Top, tonight, tee hee.

    Oh, and what ever you do, make it a good one. Who knows, you may even get picked for serialization, if you know what I mean.

    http://www.google.com/search?q.....fc6f926f13

  • alan||

    Still waiting . . .
    What are you going to do now that you have escalated the rhetoric, Rather?

    This is my favorite episode of the Internet Tuff Gai Show,
    The Massive Display of Impotence.

  • alan||

    Oh, you are just going to show up like a mayfly on random post in the next few weeks to tell me what a big, fat poopy head I am. Shit, I should just pack my bags seeing how you troll Episiarch. The man has barely any self confidence left after your witty evisceration. Whatever, you do other commeteriat DONOT anger Rather and wind up on her shit list like Epi and I. Take heed of our mistake.

  • robc||

    As I said above, there is no evidence in that piece that the film wasnt banned as of Jan 31, 2008.

    The fact that it was LATER shown doesnt make the cable wrong.

  • Spartacus||

    It's an indisputable fact that a movie with the same title was shown on Cuban TV, and later in theaters. Was the TV version the same as the original, or was it "edited for TV"? Last time I saw Animal House on TV, it was barely recognizable.

    I don't know, I haven't seen either one. I'm asking.

  • alan||

    Andy, are you still looking around for Trig's birth certificate? How is that going?

  • ||

    I don't know whether it's disputable or not, but I doubt that anyone at Reason has many pals in the insurance industry. Or is this related to Trig Palin somehow?

  • MNG||

    Guys I really think you are misunderstanding what Moore was doing with the Cuba part of that film. I took it as less of a "hey look how great Cuba is!" and more as a "hell, if even a third world dump like Cuba can have universal coverage then surely we can do it." Of course there was some "we're all people here so why the hate" sprinkled in but I took that to be the usual pacisfist love in stuff.

  • Mike Laursen||

    So, I haven't seen the film. Did he take a moment to point out that Cuba has seperate hospitals for foreign medical tourists? If not, The segment was misleading, intentionally or not.

  • MNG||

    It doesn't point that out, but iirc it really just wanted to make the point about universal coverage. The angle was that these 9/11 responders could not afford care in the US but could get care in Cuba because everyone gets care there. And that the Cuban people don't hate us and all that.

  • Yonemoto||

    the irony is that it would be easier for a cuban boat person to walk into a hospital in miami and get healthcare than for an average insurance holding citizen, too.

  • Some Guy||

    The difference between you and Michael Moore is that he's successful at propaganda.

    Other than that, you both contributed to getting that 60th vote to make our already bad system worse last year.

  • ||

    Michael Moore has published details that the cable contains lies: the movie Sicko was broadcasted nationwide in Cuba and a minister made public statements that he liked the movie. You can find it on Google also.
    Question: why does the USA embassy in Cuba lies to its own government ???

  • ||

    Correct me if I'm wrong but... what embassy? I thought we didn't have one there.

    To be clear, I'd love to see that regime fall, but I think the one and only reason that crackerjack regime has hung on so long post-Cold War is because of our decision to maintain the embargo, which basically allowed Castro to keep the island a walled city against the influences of the modern world.

    The Cuban exile community that made this into a third-rail in politics has been incredibly short-sighted on this, failing to react to changing circumstances with changing strategies.

  • ||

    Sure, one country out of 160 has an embargo and that's all it takes to keep Cuba walled up?

  • ||

    Yep. The US has tremendous economic influence in the region, not to mention a huge population of Cubans who were driven out by Castro who have family, cultural, and economic ties back to the country. I think this is a very clear case where an influx of American culture and business would overwhelm a regime that currently has sole message and economic control over the populace.

  • Sean Mack||

    It was shown on Cuban state television? That could mean as many as a dozen people saw it.

    What hath god wrought...

  • Rrabbit||

    Which "USA embassy in Cuba"? Since when is the United States Interests Section of the Embassy of Switzerland in Havana, Cuba as USA embassy?

  • MNG||

    Hero Dog Euthanized by Mistake

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/us/19dog.html?_r=1

    "By the time Sergeant Young arrived at the pound on Monday, the shelter employee in charge of euthanizing animals that day had apparently picked the wrong dog out of the pen and administered a lethal injection, performing what the shelter referred to as “P.T.S.,” or put to sleep."

  • ||

    That would never have happened in Cuba! Even the dogs get free health care.

  • Paul||

    "By the time Sergeant Young arrived at the pound on Monday, the shelter employee in charge of euthanizing animals that day had apparently picked the wrong dog out of the pen and administered a lethal injection, performing what the shelter referred to as “P.T.S.,” or put to sleep."

    So much for government-run healthcare. They can't even euthanize the right patient.

  • ||

    Sicko was shown on Cuban television. It also had a broad theatrical release. This cable is an example of the misinformation that is common to communications of state.
    You guys think the state is wise when it agrees with you but an idiot when it doesn't?
    See http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....-WikiLeaks!-SiCKO-Was-Not-Banned-in-Cuba
    for Mr. Moore's version of the story.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Little problem with your scolding. Nobody here praised the government for discrediting Moore, because the government sat on this information.

  • Mike Laursen||

    As for whether it was shown or not, I don't have a dog in this race, so I'll file it all under he said/she said until more info (and mis-info) comes out.

  • Wind Rider||

    Well, that's the way I'd run a disinformation/smear campaign. Stamp it Secret then rely upon a disgruntled low level functionary to steal it and pass it to some guy to publish on the internet. What could go wrong?

  • robc||

    As I said above, there is no evidence in that piece that the film wasnt banned as of Jan 31, 2008.

    The fact that it was LATER shown doesnt make the cable wrong.

  • Yo||

    Your broken record schtick is annoying. Please stop.

  • robc||

    I wasnt the one posting the same thing over and over and over. I was replying to the same thing being posted over and over and over.

    The first person who pointed it out was the only one necessary.

  • alan||

    You, rather, are not even a dookey stick in a hat box on this thread. To see you pretend to be a conduit of some imagined groupthink in your attack on robc is both pretty fucking sad and hilarious at the same time.

    Besides, he is right, and you and your buddies are wrong.

    Also, you are not taking over. Your currency of thrice warmed over commie shtick is, ah, no good here.

  • alan||

    HA!HA!HA!

    Did you see that! He made a gay insult. No, nobody in the history of the human race has ever used a gay taunt as a refute when he had nothing going on upstairs to really make a comeback stick. Nope. You are a true original, Rather.

  • Paul||

    It's Michael Moore's version of the story. It is, by definition, untrue.

  • Mike Laursen||

    No fan of Moore, but I have to give him props for bailing out Assange. Agree that this particular
    wikileak won't be acknowledged at all among progressives.

  • Paul||

    Still can't figure out why he bailed out Assange.

    I'm sure it has something to do with the massive fucking disconnect between Obama supporters and the actions of Obama.

  • Pachuco Cadaver||

    I see the Reason commentariat is still infested with cryptofascist rubes and dupes pretending they are libertarians. Both sides hate government, but the fascists have zero affinity for freedom, their play is to replace government...with corporate feudalism. Someday, the libertarians are gonna need to conduct a purge to get the kneejerk authoritarians out. That's when we'll know it's already too late.

  • Wind Rider||

    So, Pachucho translates to "rotting"? Or would that be "smelly"? And they let ya keep the secret crypto decoder ring? Cool!

  • Pachuco Cadaver||

    hotdamn! You think "pachuco" means "rotting"? Ignoramus much? It's not so much that you're ignorant, it's that you're ignorant and stupid. How hard would it have been to look up the word? (about as difficult as looking to see if Sicko was ever screened in Cuba). Instead, you make shit up and forge forward aggressively. Never mind that you're wrong. Are you, by chance, a US embassy? You act like one...

  • Bradley||

    replace government...with corporate feudalism

    I confess I can't see how this would be different from the status quo.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Maybe he's one of those mythical "libertarian socialists".

  • alan||

    Likely, he has read more than his share of William Gibson. Governments reduced to pension plans for prosthetic wearing vets serving up the black hash in dingy dives. Mercenary teams escorting scientist who have had a change of mind on the terms of their contracts out of facilities. A bit of a romanticized thought process revealed there in his thinking with the barest trace of social science involved in it, but I suppose you have got to have something going for you in this crazy world.

  • Paul||

    replace government...with corporate feudalism.

    That's what we have now with the Democrats sitting at the head of the table. Oh, what, you thought the Party of Corporate welfare, too-big-to-fail and Eminent Domain really care about the little guy?

  • Wind Rider||

    I'm so glad that Mikey had an interwebz connex at the fat farm so he could make sure TEH TRUUF! got out. . .It would have totally sucked if he'd come out as a lean, mean, filmaking machine, only to find his reputation was totally shredded!

  • ||

    It's true that the cables say this but the cables are incorrect. "Sicko" even aired on national television in Cuba.

    Moore has addressed this here: http://www.michaelmoore.com/wo.....-wikileaks

    I've not been a fan of Michael Moore but I'm also not a fan of journalists reprinting government statements / cables as if they're fact, something Reason is always willing to do when the government's statements confirm their biases.

    The obvious exceptions being Jacob Sullum and Radley Balko, who are consistently great.

  • Yo||

    Yeah, Balko never posts sensationalist accounts of cops shooting dogs to get the rabble riled up. You're right about Sullum, though. He and Bailey have the most integrity here.

  • Juice||

    I'm sure Balko prints the stories about cops shooting dogs for the same reason I would. I'm outraged by it every single time and I want others to be outraged.

  • Yo||

    It's Nancy Grace journalism. Radley does some good work, but his infrequent (because it hardly ever happens) cop-shoots-dog posts are over the top and sensationalist.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Yup, hardly ever. Only 134,000 Google hits for "officer shoots dog". I'm sure there are plenty of duplicates, but I'm also sure it's missing articles titled "police shoot dog" or "cop(s) shoot dog".

    Funny that in other comments you like to label others as "apologists". Seems like you ought to know.

  • robc||

    As I said above, there is no evidence in that piece that the film wasnt banned as of Jan 31, 2008.

    The fact that it was LATER shown doesnt make the cable wrong.

  • robc||

    That was for the benfit of Yo, since Justin apparently doesnt read before he posts.

  • Yo||

    What are you, H&R's janitor? Unpaid editorial assistant? Bored crackpot? Embarrassed apologist? Who are you apologizing for?

  • robc||

    Bored crackpot, 1.5 hours until bowl season.

    I dont know why people post the same fucking thing over and over - those of us who actually read saw it the first time it was posted. I blame the idiotic threading. Didnt happen as much in ye olde unthreaded days.

  • robc||

    Why you responding to me instead of Justin and Mosquito Pilot and Andrew Sullivan and etc? They are the people who keep repeating things.

  • Yo||

    Five wrongs don't make a right?

  • MNG||

    There is no evidence that it wasn't not shown...To quote the LMFAP "Wow, Bob, Wow!"

    When you're finished here I've got some goalposts I need moving...

  • ||

    So the headline should really read, "Jesse Walker is a piss poor reporter who does absolutely no fact checking. Appointed Cuba Propaganda Minister"

  • robc||

    Jesse's facts were 100% correct.

    Lets see what Jesse wrote:

    And they say there's nothing interesting in the WikiLeaks cables:

    Some people say that. He implied that there actually were interesting things in them, and this was interesting.

    The memo is reproduced here.

    This also appears to be factual.

  • Jesse Walker||

    In fairness to Jared, the headline was inaccurate. I originally used something more neutral -- I think it was "WikiLeaks: Cuba Banned *Sicko*" -- but after it had been up about five minutes the more sarcastic title occured to me, and I couldn't resist it.

    Dunno if that makes me a piss-poor reporter -- there's no pretense of reporting here, just a point-and-quote blog post about someone else's article -- but it may mean I'm too quick on the draw with a joke.

  • robc||

    there's no pretense of reporting here

    That was my point, you had all of two lines in your post, neither of which had anything which could ever be called inaccurate. As Ive heard too many times from media people, you cant blaim the writer for the headline. You should have never admitted to writing it.

  • Jesse Walker||

    On a blog, you usually can blame the writer for the headline.

  • robc proxy||

    D'oh!

  • ||

    What exactly is your goal with this blog -- surely its not to disseminate government propaganda blindly? A libertarian site that does that would lose all credibility fast. Oh wait, your job is to promote government propaganda as truth when the lies suit your ideological prejudices. Oh and to answer your "question", you may be too quick on the draw with a joke, but that's hardly your most egregious sin in this case -- if a circle jerk is what you're after you are a success. Congrats. Hope all the school was worth it. Your parents must be so proud.

  • Yo||

    He (or somebody) has issued an update (not really a retraction, but whatever.) The commentariat refuse to accept it, of course. That egg on their faces is getting sticky.

  • SM||

    Gotta love the Orwellian "reason" reprinting government cables wholesale without ANY investigation into their background...

    ...i guess it fits your agenda of government bad, private great, right? You people are a bunch of blind ideologues, pounding all the square pegs into your round holes...

    ...no wonder your movement has failed for the last...well...forever.

  • Yo||

    Libertarianism, as far as it goes, and despite some glaring philosophical inconsistencies, is sound. It's failing (so far) as a movement because its adherents (as evidenced in this thread) are intellectually limited adolescents. A philosophy (such as it is) cannot be discredited simply because its alleged adherents are not worthy of it.

  • l0b0t||

    "Gotta love the Orwellian "reason"... a bunch of blind ideologues, pounding all the square pegs into your round holes...."

    Drink (again), if you people keep this up I'll be too drunk to leave work.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Thanks to SM's unfortunate return, we have at least two fools trolling in our midst.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You do realize you're at least partially cheerleading for 1) a country that has "propaganda standards" and 2) a documentarian that loves a country that has propaganda standards and 2a) tailors his films to put such countries in a good light... don't you, SM?

    Or DO you?

  • alan||

    What he does know is that the Cuban people are fortunate to have a government that cares for them. One that doesn't just roll over and play dead when corporations want to turn their people into mind numbed consumer robots. In fact the officials are so conscientious they will try these new, 'innovative' products on themselves for years, decades even, as they carefully access the merits of those products and what allowing them for general use would mean for the welfare of the Cuban people. They do so while risking cultural contamination and loosing their own authentic Cuban identities. What lengths of sacrifice that the public servants of Cuba will take for their own people is something that the peoples of the US do not process the mentality to comprehend as they are blinded by consumerism and capitalist malfeasance.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Uh, yeah... all that is more than a fair trade for freedom.

    /snark

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Oops, didn't catch the sarcasm. Sorry, alan.

  • alan||

    As Jennifer Lopez would put it, 's'alright.' The argument really does mirror a sick minded leftist all to well, doesn't it?

  • I'm surprised...||

    ...the Cuban people weren't forced to watch the movie at gunpoint.

  • Kathleen Sebilius||

    I like where THIS is headed!

  • ||

    The Cubans embraced the film so much so it became one of those rare American movies that received a theatrical distribution in Cuba.

    And given Cuba's robust free market system, the fact that it was widely distributed must mean that lots of people wanted to see it.

  • ||

    Unless by "the Cubans", Moore means only the totalitarian regime that decides what gets played in theaters. I wouldn't be surprised if he conflated the people of Cuba and the government of Cuba, that's a common lefty mistake.

  • ||

    Cuba banned the movie!
    Which proves we're right!

    No!

    Cuba distributed the movie and showed it on TV!
    Which proves we're right!

    It's so easy to be an Objectivist douchenozzle on the Reason comment boards. Just start with "we're always right," then work backwards. You can never lose!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Actually, your lame attempt at sarcasm is correct. Because Cuba is a totalitarian state. Do you know what that means? Let me explain it, since you don't seem to have grasped it - the government has (or seeks to have) total control of every aspect of people's lives.

    The fact that it was the Cuban government that made the decision whether or not Sicko was seen by the Cuban populace means that we are right whether they banned it or not. If this was about a state that was merely authoritarian, or one that is considered "free," you would have a point.

    But you don't. Kthxbye!

  • alan||

    'douchenozzle'? Do you know anything about female anatomy, Danny?

    When you are a liberal dribbledick defending a totalitarian regime, you already started the race as a loser. Of course, that makes the rest of us look like winners who are always right in your envious eyes, so I can understand your butthurt, and why you were so happy when Moore applied the diaper rash cream this morning after you cried all night anxiously waiting for it so you could jump up and down here yelling, "all better now!"

  • ||

    Wow. You people need to get a grip on reality and stop posting propaganda cables from the US govt as truth. Don't you get it? The reason our system is in shambles is because our government doesn't just lie to us, they lie to themselves! See, the way it works is some lickspittle who wants to climb the bureaucratic ladder sucks up to his superiors by flattering their prejudices with lies sends a "truthy" sounding cable to said superior. I understand this form of corruption, what I don't understand is a supposed journalistic source like reason printing same as truth without doing the least bit of due diligence to find out if its even true. Jeez, I can do a better job in my pajamas in my basement at my computer -- just like those awful incompetent independent bloggers sites like reason hate on in order to establish their cred. Too bad you Koch brother backed garbage dump.

  • alan||

    I get it. The very fact Cuba is not an open society is a useful tool Cuba's apologist can exploit for rhetorical gain just as they did here.

    Where can you find an error on Jesse's part? He relayed a story from the Guardian about the contents of a cable. The accuracy of those contents are a separate matter. However, for some contrived reason, that doesn't stop you in the least in issuing your bad faith assessment of the reporting as opposed to our commentary on that report. May your motives be ulterior?

  • Mike Laursen||

    Moore's assessment, that some underling was telling his boss what he wanted to hear, sounds plausible. It's also plausible the Cuban government has been telling Moore what he wants to hear: "Oh, yeah, we show it every Sunday. The people parade in the streets with joy every time its shown. No, really."

  • ||

    There used to be a better class of trolls around here.

  • Yo||

    And commentators. All the adults have left, it would seem.

  • Al Gore||

    If only everyone could be super cereal like me there would be no problems.

  • Stephen Smith||

    First of all, it's perfectly plausible that some parts of the Cuban state banned the film while others played it. Secondly, it's possible that they played the film with the Cuba parts cut out. Moore and the WikiLeaks cable could both be correct.

  • ||

    It's also perfectly plausible that they spliced in old episodes of "General Hospital" and "the Interns," too.

    No clue about what "centralized" and "socialist" mean, I suppose...

  • ||

    STEVE SMITH ALSO BANNED IN CUBA! STEVE RAPE RAUL MANY YEARS AGO! RAUL LIKE IT, BUT FIDEL NOT LIKE YETI-ON-MAN SEX, SO HE THREATEN TO PUT STEVE IN PRISON, SO STEVE LEAVE ON RAFT MADE OF HIKER BONES! RAUL VERY SAD!

  • Stephen Smith||

    When I start interning at Reason in January, if they ever let me within 100 feet of blogging credentials, I expect you to be the first post every time. If you're not and I'm forced to troll my own posts under your name, I'm going to be very disappointed. Don't let me down!

  • ||

    Dude, if you do a blog post, you know the entire thing will be insane STEVE SMITH responses. You know what we're like. And it won't just be me; it'll be NutraSweet, Warty, everybody.

    Your good humor about this has been to your credit, by the way. A lot of people would get much more pissy having a serial rapist murderer Sasquatch character named after them, and you've been pretty calm about it.

  • ||

    If Mr Smith had not been good natured about this, you and your pals probably would have been banned by now.

    In my experience, being good natured only makes you an easy target for one form of bullying or another.

  • MNG||

    Tulpa, Epi et al., are just funning with the guy. I think you're expanding the meaning of the word "bullying" more than I expand the meaning words "interstate commerce" ;)

  • Mike Laursen||

    That's where I have my doubts about Michael Moore's rebuttal. Now, it's possible it really did go down like he says, but I'd like to see some proof that lots of Cubans actually saw his documentary uncut, and some confirmation that the Cuban public lauded the film that comes from someone other than an official Cuban government spokesman.

  • The end||

    Stop reaching. It's over. The commentariat shot their wads over a untrustworthy (imagine that!) diplomatic cable. Their hatred of Moore got the better of them. They were willing to believe anything that reinforced their worldview. They got hosed. Their vaunted "openness" came back and bit them on the asses. Now they'll be averse to accepting any leaked document at face value without first fact-checking it. Right?

  • ||

    As a US citizen who has actually spent a sizable amount of time in Cuba in the last ten years, I can definitely say that the people there have it better than the people in rural New Mexico, Arizona, and even some parts of California.
    I actually felt compelled to toast in agreement with French, German and Russian tourists when they said "at least the Americans haven't been able to ruin THIS place."
    The best part is that if you are a US citizen, and fly from Germany, they don't even stamp your passport on arrival in Cuba.
    But hey, I guess it was "as bad as they say" when it came to the USSR, too, right? LOL.

  • Is Mark Michael Moore?||

    What a dopey f'ing comment.

    People are literally ripping the roofs off of their homes in Cuba to throw themselves in the ocean to come to the US, and according to Mark, people there have it better than people in some rural parts of a few states.

    Idiot, nothing else can be said.

  • ||

    That would explain the Cubans crossing the Straits of Florida in cardboard boats.

  • MNG||

    Jesse Walker is consistently the most interesting writer for Reason imo (with Radley Balko a close second). The first thing I read by him was a great article about a Russian rock star. Since then I've admired his articles.

    But look, he put out this post focusing on a report that was innaccurate. He himself has admitted that is less than ideal. The fundies like alan, robc etc., rushing to prove there was no, and I mean no, mistake here are being goofy.

    But look, the left wing posters harping on this are being silly as all get out. He just relayed this story in a blog post for Christ's sake. He linked to the original Guardian story. Is everyone expected to not pass along a seemingly interested story in a frigging blog post without tracking down every single fact in the story first? Sheesh.

    Yes, yes the two minute hates on Cuba and other leftist autocracies get hysterical around here, but I have little use for Cuba apologists. Cuba is a one party dictatorship with a terrible human rights record. The first persons they would kill/imprison would be people like Moore and his followers so please, spare us any apologia.

  • ||

    well put, MNG. I'll remove two pins from your voodoo doll's rectum for that comment.

  • MNG||

    Cuba lovers should start by reading this recent Human Rights Watch (hardly a right wing tentacle of the Kochtopus or whatever) report on the dismal state of affairs in that thuggish dictatorship.

    http://www.hrw.org/en/node/86549/section/2

    This is a one party state with a long record of brutal treatment of political dissidents, homosexuals, trade unionists, prisoners, the unemployed. Any so-called liberal that admires Cuba has created a strong presumption of him or herself as a fool in my eyes.

  • alan||

    Also, meant to cobble this in the last post, I make a distinct difference from what we do here, screwing around for the sake of arguing that has few to no external consequences, with that of a professional journalist:

    Where can you find an error on Jesse's part? He relayed a story from the Guardian about the contents of a cable. The accuracy of those contents are a separate matter. However, for some contrived reason, that doesn't stop you in the least in issuing your bad faith assessment of the reporting as opposed to our commentary on that report. May your motives be ulterior?

    Don't know why you have to go around calling someone a fundie, that is just mean.

  • alan||

    How is your:

    But look, the left wing posters harping on this are being silly as all get out. He just relayed this story in a blog post for Christ's sake. He linked to the original Guardian story. Is everyone expected to not pass along a seemingly interested story in a frigging blog post without tracking down every single fact in the story first? Sheesh.

    substantially different from my:

    Reason got what wrong, Rather? Would you care to sort through this, or can you only make that claim against them on a more general level where context doesn't matter? At best you have an inaccurate headline stating 'Sicko Doesn't Meet Cuban Propaganda Standards'. Besides that, you have squat.

    Yeah, I had higher expectations for the accuracy of a cable where there is little reason for proselytizing to occur, and did not occur since we are hearing about it for the first time years later; however, it has not been invalidated in its entirety. Are you willing to say that it was fictitious from start to finish?

  • ||

    A little history lesson. The problem with all the misinformation about Cuba's health care system stems from a serious misunderstanding of the health care system already in Cuba pre-Castro. UN statistics from the late 50s reflect that Cuba's health care system was among the best in Latin America. There were many rural clinics that provided essential care, as well as excellent facilites in the cities.

    Now, did the wealthy get better care than the poor? You bet. Are there Cubans in Cuba today who get better care than others? Well, you know the answer. (the Cubans who are getting the best care today are here in the U.S. of course)

    Finally, is the health care system in Cuba better today, overall, than it was in 1959? Yes. Was the improvement in that system worth 51 years of what Cuban's have had to tolerate? Michael Moore would say yes. But then, he doesn't have to live there, and his country has the best health care system in the world. For now.

  • ||

    Attacks on Cuba are funny, especially when one say that there are privileged who get better care :-). I bet that this is different in the US where tens of millions of people do not have any health-care and in the same time privileged and those with connections in the government and own insurance companies live in multimillion dollar houses and enjoy best health-care in the world while worker can have surgery up to 50.000$ and die afterwords.

  • ||

    Your "Bonus update" is BS just as rest of it, just as lies that come from the W.H. - that is equal to Rome 2000 years ago and without any evolution - democratic, political or human.

    You say "Some writers outside Cuba misread" - NO, NO, NO, this came from the mouth of US government officials working in Cuba, and just as "case" Iraq in 2003 had NOTHING to do with human rights but, and only, with oil, transfer of budget money into private hands of shareholders who run arms industry.

  • Jesse Walker||

    You say "Some writers outside Cuba misread" - NO, NO, NO, this came from the mouth of US government officials working in Cuba

    Follow the link from the word "misread." It's a blog post by a Cuban-American writer who literally misread the meaning of the Darsi Ferrer editorial, with links to two other bloggers who made the same error. This was in August 2007, five months before the date on the diplomatic cable.

  • ||

    I'm not sure what the controversy is here.

    The headline for me isn't about the fact that the movie was really shown in Cuba...

    The headline is that Michael Moore made a propaganda film glorifying a vicious dictator's egalitarian health care system--a system that doesn't exist!

    He lied to the American people in that film about what the Cuban health care system is like--and if Fidel Castro used that film to propagandize his own people too? Then that doesn't let Moore off the hook for being a useful idiot.

    Actually, if he still refuses to apologize for what he did now that he knows the truth, that makes him worse than a useful idiot.

    Doesn't it?

    A vicious dictator used Moore's film as propaganda for his own purposes? Why does that make what Moore did okay?

  • -||

    Who cares about Moore? The point here is that some ideologues are willing to take the leaked cables at face value--as useful information otherwise unavailable to them--regardless of whether those cables happen to be factually true. In other words, in the name of "openness," these ideologues are perfectly willing to accept government propaganda as fact if it supports their ideology. The irony here is that they were not the original targets of the propaganda, but through "openness" they became unwitting patsies of the government they despise.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Speaking for myself, I believed (note the tense of that verb) the cables mainly because Cuba is a totalitarian state. Their government (which I despise a lot more than the American) has total control over what Cubans are allowed to see. Therefore, it was entirely plausible the movie could have been banned. Had the cables been about imminent revolution to overthrow Castro, I would have given it far less credibility.

    As far as being a "patsy", the cables were kept secret. That means our government didn't want us to know about it - probably because it turned out to be incorrect. So, how could they have desired to trick us with messages they didn't want us to know about, years after the fact?

    One valid point in your favor (that you missed) is that had the message in the cables been true, the Bush administration would have leaked it at some point while they were still in power, as payback for Fahrenheit 9/11.

  • -||

    So, how could they have desired to trick us with messages they didn't want us to know about, years after the fact?

    There was no intent to trick you. You (meaning not necessarily you, personally, but those government-haters who don't trust "the government" except when it does something they happen to agree with) tricked yourselves by assuming that a leaked cable was factually correct. How can you ever again be certain--short of an "official" (and trustworthy?) acknowledgment by a government official or a reliable (how reliable? Are all "journalists" like Assange trustworthy?) third party--of the veracity of any of those leaked cables? To be certain, you may be forced into the uncomfortable position of having to trust the very government that you don't trust. Or (heaven forbid) do your own fact checking.

    Had the message in the cables been true, the Bush administration would have leaked it at some point while they were still in power, as payback for Fahrenheit 9/11.

    How can one prove or disprove a hypothetical event? You're assuming that the Bush Administration was interested in "paying back" Michael Moore. I don't recall many instances of Bush Administration officials punching below their weight class (unlike the current administration). They were fairly disciplined (unlike the current administration) and were content (rightly) to ignore Mr. Moore. As it turned out, Fahrenheit 9/11 failed to influence Bush's reelection in any meaningful way.

  • ||

    "There was no intent to trick you. You [...]tricked yourselves by assuming that a leaked cable was factually correct."

    Tricked into thinking what exactly?

    1)That Cuba's healthcare system is worse than ours?

    There's no controversy about that--Cuba's healthcare system is a hell hole for the average Cuban. What Moore showed is restricted to the elite and foreign tourists!

    2) Are you suggesting that we "tricked ourselves" into thinking that Michael Moore's propaganda wasn't good enough for Cuban audiences?

    If it was, why would that make it any better?!

    I don't even understand what you're suggesting we tricked ourselves into believing!

    I think it's possible some people may have tricked themselves into thinking that because Michael Moore's film was shown in Cuba, that somehow means their healthcare system isn't really a hell hole...

    ...but you're gonna have to show me a lot more than "Sicko" being shown in Cuban theaters before you can pull that wool over my eyes!

    Propaganda like "Sicko" being shown in Cuba doesn't mean what some people in this thread seem to think it means.

  • ||

    "The irony here is that they were not the original targets of the propaganda, but through "openness" they became unwitting patsies of the government they despise."

    If we're talking about criticizing a totalitarian state? Then I don't see how a libertarian can lose at that game.

    Walker didn't make a film glorifying the fruits of a totalitarian state--but Michael Moore did!

    He glorified the magnificence of a Potemkin village for an American audience--why discovering that a vicious dictator used the film to propagandize his own people too makes that okay is beyond me...

    If Walker mistakenly reported that the film wasn't shown to Cuban audiences, then that's still a red herring in that equation as far as I'm concerned.

    Again, the Castro regime using the film for its own nefarious purposes makes what Moore did worse--not better.

    On the one hand, you have people who think Michael Moore was used like a useful idiot to propagandize the American people--and on the other? You've got people who disagree--they think the film was used to dupe the Cuban people too!

    ...and I'm still looking for the controversy. I don't see it anywhere.

    Michael Moore made a propaganda film that lied to the American people--if, contrary to reports, the totalitarian regime in Cuba used that film for their own purposes domestically too? That doesn't reflect badly on Walker.

    That makes what Moore did even worse!

  • -||

    Michael Moore made a propaganda film that lied to the American people

    Are you that naive? A private filmmaker made a "propaganda" film? He "lied" to Americans? Have you ever seen a movie? Do you think that movies tell the truth? Government films are propaganda. Private films are entertainment. If you don't know the difference, then you're probably hopeless. Good luck anyway.

  • ||

    He took a tour of a Potemkin hospital--that he presented as if it were open to the Cuban public...

    I linked an excerpt above. Here it is again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-8TcpOz6A4

    The whole premise is that he's bringing Americans who can't afford the care they need to Cuba, where they get the treatment they need...

    Look at the video I linked!

    Castro played Michael Moore like the quintessential "useful idiot"--and that isn't the way I feel about it.

    That's a fact.

    Michael Moore: "I asked them to give us the same exact care they give their fellow Cuban citizens, no more, no less, and that's what they did."

    That's a lie. ...and that's not my opinion. That's a fact.

    Cubans are some of the poorest people in the world--and the government health care system they have to suffer is a disgrace on humanitarian grounds...

    ...and if Fidel Castro used Michael Moore's film to make the Cuban people think that as bad as their health care system is, America's is even worse?!

    Then that is forever to the disgrace of Michael Moore.

    Lying to the American people about the quality of care people get in a horrific health care system like Cuba's? That's to his disgrace too, no doubt about it.

    I'd say it's right up there with the lie that ObamaCare is there to help the uninsured--by siccing the IRS on them, but it's worse than that. Making things harder for working people by siccing the IRS on them is bad, but making propaganda for use by vicious dictators to oppress the desperate poor?

    That's much worse. I don't know how he lives with himself.

  • -||

    I'm not defending Moore. For the record, I think he's a scumbag. But people need to realize that he's a private scumbag. He just has a bigger megaphone (through his own efforts, by the way) than the lesser scumbags who shout, ineffectually, into the blogosphere void.

  • David E. Gallaher/Ruthless||

    http://www.facebook.com/notes/.....0984145711
    This link has probably already been posted here a dozen times, but I'm headed to the sack.

  • Paul||

    I've not been a fan of Michael Moore but I'm also not a fan of journalists reprinting government statements / cables as if they're fact, something Reason is always willing to do when the government's statements confirm their biases.

    Wikileaks reprinted the government cables.

  • ||

    Note that none of the progressive interlopers here are disputing the fact that Moore completely misrepresented the Cuban and British health care systems to buttress his attack against the US system. They're just playing gotcha with the fact that we believed a funny (and believable) story told by an authentic diplomatic cable.

  • Useful Idiot||

    Shame on all these people that oppose statism.

    Don't you all know that Cuba is a place where they have flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children dance and laugh and play with gumdrop smiles?

  • Neu Mejican||

    Someone needs to do their communications master's thesis based on this thread.

    Funny shit.

  • robc's fact checker||

    Despite all of robc's posts on the topic...his statement:

    As I said above, there is no evidence in that piece that the film wasnt banned as of Jan 31, 2008.

    The fact that it was LATER shown doesnt make the cable wrong.

    is, in fact, inaccurate.

  • -||

    The problem in communication here is that leftist are clueless how totalitarian regimes finction. ALL movies are banned until individually approved by the state in Cuba. If the movie had not met that approval by the date of the cable than in a very real sense as well as technical, no matter the extenuating circumstances, Sicko was still under a ban until approval was given. Why are you people so fucking thick headed about the obvious?

  • The real -||

    ^
    I did not post that comment.

  • The Front Desk ||

    Beg a thousand pardonnes, sir. We had reserved, what you may call, a joke handle, but somewhere between writing it and submitting it, it was deleted out except for the hyphen. While this mess gets cleared up, would you care for the ampersand instead? Surely it a much nicer accommodation with its sexy curvature instead of a mere humble hyphen.

  • -||

    You have my permission to use an ampersand.

    Best regards,
    -

  • Neu Mejican||

    If the movie had not met that approval by the date of the cable than in a very real sense as well as technical, no matter the extenuating circumstances, Sicko was still under a ban until approval was given.

    This is a good point. However, the movie was distributed to theaters throughout Cuba prior to the cable and after the cable was shown on national TV...so it seems unlikely that it was banned for some short window at the end of January.

    The new headline seems accurate.

  • Neu Mejican||

    ...maybe a doctorate.

  • ||

    So according to Moore we can believe everything from Wikileaks except this one cable. The massive right wing conspiracy strikes again.

  • -||

    The cables are forever tainted. If we can't trust a government agent to tell the truth...wait a minute...

  • ||

    At the beginning of the film, Michael Moore shows America ranked a "lowly" 37th in health by the W.H.O.
    If you look below the U.S. what do you see? Cuba at 38.
    I saw it once in the theater and noticed that, without knowing anything in advance about the film.

    So I thought it was a bit incongruous later when they made a pilgrimage to Cuba for medical care.
    If that list is meaningful, why go to Cuba? If it's not meaningful, why show it?

  • Magic 8-Ball||

    Ask again later.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement