Michael Moore denies being a part of the "1%"
By Carlos CabreraOctober 27th, 2011, 12:15 pmComments (34)
Methinks the documentarian doth protest too much.
This Tuesday, filmmaker Michael Moore appeared on a special taping of Piers Morgan Tonight. During the interview, the subject of Moore's success and wealth came into question. Morgan began to press the issue, asking Moore to admit (despite various TV appearances supporting Occupy Wall Street) that he's a part of the "1%" of wealthy Americans.
Moore vehemently denied such a claim. Morgan continued his line of questioning, stressing the conflict of a filmmaker worth millions railing against the system that's allowed him to earn so much. To which Moore had this to say:
"Well, then, if you believe that about me, then that’s really something, isn’t it? That, even though I do well, that I don’t associate myself with those who do well. I am devoting my life to those who who have less and who’ve been crapped upon by the system. And that’s how I spent my time, my energy, my money on trying to upend this system that I think is a system of violence; it’s a system that’s unfair to the average working person of this country, and it was a mistake to ever give me a dime, from the day Time Warner, actually, gave me money to buy Roger & Me."
Moore is known for exposing powerful social inequalities with his documentaries, but has drawn criticism for constantly inserting himself in his films, leading to the popular accusation that he's little more than an egotist out to exploit the misfortunes of others for personal gain. He also owns a couple of million-dollar homes and charges $40,000 for public appearances.
Honestly, I don't know who he's trying to convince. Moore needs to admit that, although he does use a portion of his assets to help others, he is indeed amongst America's wealthier population. Not doing so just makes him seem like more of a pride-filled, self-important, celebrity crusader.
Commentarium (34 Comments)
He didn't deny that he was wealthy, but he said he uses his wealth in order to further the agenda of the working class, and that he does not identify with his wealth or with people in his economic class, or fight for their (and his!) economic agenda. He has made numerous documentaries that, despite his many critics, have completely changed national discourse on hot-button issues. He is not a perfect man, but focusing on his imperfections as a denigration of the good work he does is ridiculous. As someone who has worked in a lot of really good, non-profit organizations, I can tell you that some of the best work in the world is done by some really nasty people. Aspersions are cast constantly on the character of icons like MLK, Cesar Chavez and FDR, to name just a few.
The qualities of the worker are secondary to the work that they have done. Of course nobody is beyond reproach, but it gets frustrating how eager liberals are to turn on their allies. Michael Moore has many faults. His most recent documentary was, frankly, a mess. While any good documentary will have something of an agenda and some amount of arranged conflict, he is often too leading and too staged. Those are all valid criticisms. But he brings injustice and inequality to light, on a stage that is big enough that people will actually listen to him. He gets people angry, and he illustrates small, material ways we can enact change and challenge injustice in our world. And he does not merely document past injustice, saying "This is what happened, and it was wrong, but it's over now;" he challenges the status quo. So no, I do not think he needs to give Piers Morgan the right soundbite in order to justify all of his very impressive work.
the"one percent" refers to more than just the amount of money in one's bank account. it has to do with one's stance on that wealth, what the wealth means, what it should be used for, how it should be taxed, etc. leave it to a tv talking head to dumb it down like this.
Yup.
I think I'm angry at Wall Street and the crooks running the banks, not b/c they are rich, but b/c they are crooks! This movement to me isn't about hating on rich people, I love rich people! They dress nice, and generally smell good! but These Wall street A-holes have been rewarded by government bailouts time and time again for making bad investments, when Joe public get's told to "suck it up" for essentially making the same bad investment. I'm opposed to the fiscal raping of the American public in the name of capitalism and business. As much as I dislike Micheal Moore (and I REALLY don't like him) I think it is fair for him to say he isn't part of the 1% that is "the problem"....
What evidence do you have that Wall Street and bankers are crooks?
People on Wall Street are called traitors for a reason. :) (It's a bad pun. Think about it.)
According to his own movement he is EMK, all the '1 percent' are said to be the problem. I don't remember anyone saying it's the one percent except for Michael Moore. That's why he has to LIE and deny that he's part of it. He's a LIAR.
Yep... What ^ said.
on paper, he's a 1%'er.
in spirit, he's an occupier
in reality he is a pain in the ass that has figured out how to get paid for being just that.
By weight, he's about 1% of NYC. Does that count?
Yes, Michael Moore is fat. We got it. Let's just stick to the subject at hand - the money that he uses to keep that opulent shape.
OK, I'll go back to making snide comments about Herman Cain's race. That's acceptable here and won't ruffle any feathers. Oh! And that damn Tea Party is racist! Except for its support of Herman Cain. Damn it!
We have many friends in the teabagger party!
Really? Same here! Two peas in a pod!
Wow! Two comments of a similar vein one minute apart. If I were the suspicious type, I'd think it was the same person! Come on, Hooksexup, where's that sign-in system?
Quit your bitching about the sign in system. NOBODY on here uses more aliases than you do. No, not even me.
Dude, "comma" is my gimp. All I have to say is "Tort reform!" and he picks the lint out of my belly button.
Thanks for proving my point. So much for not reading my comments, libtard.
I don't even read my own comments. Waste of time.
@acapa, great comments. i agree.
Just because he doesn't wash his jeans doesn't make him an ally of the poor.
The OWS movement isn't protesting the fact that some people have money, but rather some of those people with the most money have used it to excercise undue influence on policy and abuse the system, at the expense of the less prosperous.
The whole idea behind Occupy is that it's really unfair that there's a small minority or people who have a disproportionately large amount of the wealth, who can afford to live in vast luxury while there are others are are poor and struggle to survive. Moore is part of the first group and is a hypocrite because he denies it. If he believes that he should get to keep it because he earned it 'fair and square' then that makes him a CAPITALIST.
The 1% cutoff is based on annual income, not net worth. Even so, it's a somewhat arbitrary demarcation that is independent of how one acts and feels politically. Moore is doing more for the 99% than many millionaires of his ilk. Piers Morgan's critique is stupid.
"Piers Morgan" and "stupid" in the same sentence is redundant. When it's in a paragraph about Michael Moore, it's so redundant, it risks being a redundancy black hole.
Which would then put it squarely in the category of your comments.
We don't know "comma"...
he is sooo 1%
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, maybe, but Donald Trump? He's manipulated the financial system to weather bankruptcy and avoid paying his debts so many times it's obscene. He's very definitely part of the problem.
rm you're wrong because most rich people invest their money and thus they live off speculative income. Which capitalists would argue isn't bad because it funds businesses and helps the economy grow, and it's not guaranteed that you won't lose money, but to leftists it's equal to stealing because it's not straight forward productive labor. It's 'do as I say, not as I do' with Moore. He's a hypocrite.
Michael Moore's wealthy, but I don't think he's top 1% of Americans wealthy. Even if he is, he's not part of the "let the eat cake" and "they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps" crowd. I'm pretty sure that's the point.
do you have any idea how little you have to earn to be in the 1%? that's the whole point. 100 grand puts you in the top 20%. what it means is, the crumbs left to the 99 are almost nothing. average income hovers around the poverty line. that's average in the wealthiest empire ever.
For people who argue that Moore 'uses his wealth to help us', that's how he *made* his wealth, making left wing documentaries. The whole idea of the Occupy movement is that by having largely disproportionate amounts of wealth the rich are oppressing us. Moore needs to flat out give away most of his money in order to not be a hypocrite, rather than *lie* and deny he has it. He could still keep a few million dollars and have a very comfortable existence. Or he could at least just give away all of his books and movies from now on rather than sell them and spend the money doing that, if he's so concerned about getting the word out. But instead he wants to keep it all, except for what will probably be a relatively small loss in higher taxes. In contrast to giving it all away minus enough to live a modest middle class lifestyle and not be part of the one percent any more. That would be the equivalent to like a 99% tax increase, which he knows he's not gonna get. So it's safe for him to argue for higher taxes, he has to do so in order to keep the schtick going. Why does he have to rally the government to redistribute his wealth when he could do it voluntarily? Instead of producing *for profit* material and claiming that's enough. If that's doing enough then all the major corporations are doing enough too and there's no problem, and he's wrong about everything he says.
I'm not impressed by these so called do gooders. Like Buffet, who is leaving it all to charity, like that matters. You're dead and can't take it with you. Leave it now to whomever you feel worthy. That takes some sack.
Now you say something