Apparently it's aruguable if this was a publicity stun by Mr. Moore or not. Let's just say it sheds a bad light on his seriosity which I never considered very high for starters. This is why I almost never use his movies or books to support an argument in a discussion.
However it's this lack of seriosity and the fact that he delivers his ideas (part of which I happen to share) to the public most effectively.
MM is one of the little lefties I know that does not go for self-destruction but has adopted the right's way of fighting: "The end justifies the means"
While I do not really agree with that (I AM a bit self-destructive
) I am kind of gald someone manages to get this ideas out to the public.
But up to another issue that bugs me:
Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.
A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company.
|
Okay, let me get this straight:
Disney does not want to distribute the film, because this could upset Jeb Bush who will then become pretty petty and (ab)use his power to harm Disney exonomically, right?
Are there some regulations deciding who gets a tax break? Like LAWS or certain rules? Is Jeb Bush the elected governor or is he the friggin KING of Florida???
It's bad enough if a media company is punished for upsetting thos in power. It's even worse if they decide to self-censor to avoid that. But OPENLY USE IT AS AN EXCUSE?
Who exactly decides which companies get which tax breaks? And how is that done?
Does Disney have a
right to get those tax breaks or would it have been a blurrily legal
favor from Mr. Bush?
And if the first, how would Jeb Bush sabotage their tax breaks without breaking the law?
[ 05-09-2004, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: Faceman ]