So Michael Moore ended up paying the hospital bills of his strongest critic did he? Interesting. I would wonder where those hospital bills or the pre-cursor ailments of the critic came from. I guess I should lay out my own thoughts on Michael Moore at this time. As stated my opinion of Michael Moore switched in Chicago in 1999 when I was sitting in the studio of his taping of “the Awful Truth” where instead of cheering on his antics to supposedly help the people in the audience, it seemed more to me that he exploited the audience and did dirty little tricks to high profile people where by doing these tricks he appealed to base instincts in his followers, but in my opinion Mr. Moore has done little to actually solve any of the problems and does not address giant loopholes in his proposals that will clearly be brought up in any meaningful political debate and will cause any of his proposed ideas to go down in flames. This lack of addressing major concerns about any of his proposals including his current advocation for universal which neglects that the US has the best available drugs and technology of any country and has the capability to give the best medical treatment of any country and that the issue is that most people cannot receive this high level of treatment, but in a universal coverage system, the dynamic research and other capabilities that Canada and other European Countries apparently parasitically feed on off of the US system (Their countries do not fund the companies that develop the drugs, but they are happy to use the drugs once developed. If you get rid of the current drug plan, what replaces drug research as a model. I believe something should, but you have to come up with that if you truly want to fix pharmaceuticals and not just lower their prices without proposing the appropriate remedy to continue expensive and very risky but ultimately useful drug research. This does make some sense as we are the richest country and there is a high price tag, but if we go universal then no one does drug research and the same is probably said about experimental medical machines and devices.) Mr Moore has made so many movies on many topics that it is hard for me to believe that he could not see that he does not help the people who buy into his criticism in the long term. He uses the most acerbic arguments he can make that seem calculated to purposely distort facts of a situation instead of display them. He has gotten very wealthy off this process paying his staff union wages or not as he has been criticized for in several places and I do concur that he has gotten very wealthy and does not have many long term changes to show for what has done. Several other people such as Ralph Nater as an example who have changed laws and contributed to public good have made little off of what they do and many people who ultimately are responsible change get destroyed by society. Several prominent people have been shot or crucified for making very large changes to this society or to others. Mr. Moore bears none of the scars and also none of the successes. He can in my opinion be given credit for raising issues that need to be addressed and allowing people to blow off steam by going to his movies instead doing other things. But instead of chanelling the anger constructively I believe he pours more fuel on the fire and tries to make people more agitated instead of in my opinion telling them the truth that the best society will be that takes of all people and however convoluted all roads will lead there and some patience and self-examination with a situation will in many cases help to diffuse or resolve it as a first policy instead of constantly screaming the system is broken and that some radical change is needed. I know at first glance it appears I do the same thing as I list many things that I find lacking in the current system. This will sound like one upmanship and indeed it probably is, but is how I feel that there is a difference fundamentally between what Mr Moore does and what I do. I try to make clear and see what the current system has done right first and not say that it is totally broken. I do get a little emotional on some issues that have effected me personally. I in my opinion see impriovements I feel should be made to society. I offer them always as suggestions and no one is forced or coerced into accepting what I say. I would in all cases like to hold the door open to counter arguments as I do listen to them. It is true that I often find a refute to any counter-argument, but I do lose a few now and then and that is generally the way I have developed. I most certainly disapprove of anyone using force or coercion of any kind against someone expressing their opinion although again a counter opinion is welcome although on this I would encourage counter – opinions who also are trying to sort out an issue versus advocating for “their” side which is too often done and is destructive fundamentally. Good can come from having different sides speak, but trying to tease out the actual logic from one or sides of a debate trying to get the skinny or get the hand up on their opponent is unnecessary noise and just makes it harder to come up with a good long term solution for society. And ultimately the human race may have quite a few changes ahead and the self-centeredness and in my opinion juvenile delinquency displayed by those who have to win the debate for “their cause” slows down the progress of human society and is destructive to the survival of currently the human and life in time as the human race cares and integrates other species into global society though this maybe centuries down the road – pets is the bare minimum of what is possible – imagine bacteria doing useful work or having useful function and being connected into society – we are so not there yet. The need to win a political argument at any cost is the destructive factor and I see that in Michael Moore's way of presentation, he is presenting an argument to win, not to sort out an issue and this in my opinion is destructive. I try to formulate an opinion based on a logical argument that comes out where it does without too many pre-suppositions from me. I am human and do fail on occasion,. But this is the goal and the objective, not to bend facts as best possible to make sure George W Bush kicks the pants off the Unions. I call George W. Bush wrong when I think he is wrong and will not always side with him. The war in Iraq is not one of the cases where one the whole I believe he has been wrong. On the whole I believe the American people will owe a big apology in the history books in time for doing the right thing under tremendous pressure. I don't like sports or a lot of traditional European/American culture with good and evil that does signify that winning is everything because that notion has ended up being destructive. Many times it is ultimately finding common ground with a former enemy that is important as it is not really feasible anymore to annihilate your enemies and it was never a good idea. But I do see Mr. Moore as getting rich off his followers and giving them nothing in return and perhaps through intermediaries making sure he has no critics and I like none of that. And I don't believe I do things the same way as I try on the whole not to do a groups bidding although I do try to correct wrongs to people with similar aspects in one way to myself – no group do I represent in whole. And I do always try to look at a situation and not advocate for the group first which I believe is the fundamental difference between myself and Michael Moore. His group has to win in his movies whether it should or not. In truth winning the game is not the highest level of human acheivement, but development of the self. -fah and I trust that Mr. Moore will respect the freedom of speech granted by the Constitutions which does not say you are free to lean on someone if you don't like their opinion as I hope will any others. I do have a right under federal law to have my opinions and who knows God may want me to have freedom to my opinions. It's not a good idea to cross God. I don't believe in a Christian aspect of God so I may have a loaded meaning to those statements about God and I believe that to be blunt enough. Just saw E van Almight – very interesting movie. - you don't want to be on the wrong side when the ark comes crashing through - do you? I hope the point I made in the story last time about maybe there should tax incentives for a retailer to remain in an older when usually the tax incentives suggest moving frequently is looked at. The tax incentives should not drive a move, only a population shift should do that. The fact that architecture poorly accommodates that possibly could be addressed. Would it be a possibility in the future if in the new complex all the small stores could move with big at the same time and if the architecture were mobile pick up building and move it or disassemble it and reassamble or build new first and recycle all the old components into a new building and figure out something to do with parking lot – parking lots are hard – but if unpaved for several years plants will break through and begin to reclaim it and how much would it cost to facilitate this process? - A corn field in a vacant parking lot. Is there any research into doing something like this. There is no market currently. I know there are issues with what is in asphalt and using a parking for food – how about for biofuel and have “gray corn” or the better crop that is much better than corn for biofuel – or some other plant product that is needed and not ingested. Or make safer similarly priced asphalt.