Letters to the Editor

Michael Moore knows how to produce films that make millions, and he's to be commended for his smarts. But Moore, like Oliver Stone and his dishonest

JFK

film, has no problem with stretching the truth or even flat-out dissembling in order to make those millions.

When Moore was questioned about the false posits in his anti-Bush film, Fahrenheit 9/11, he responded that it's no documentary, it's a film, that it was made to entertain. But those favorable to Moore's misguided positions continue to call his films documentaries and continue to buy into his conceptions.

Moore's failure to allow the health providers to defend themselves in his latest effort, Sicko, should be enough to raise questions about his entire concept. But that does not prevent him from getting positive reviews and continued insistence that it's another documentary.

His claim that Cuba's health care is free should be enough to dissuade anyone from accepting any points this film makes, as everyone must know health care cannot be free: Someone pays. The higher taxes Canadians pay is pretty much the equivalent to what we pay for health insurance. So in reality, we pay through insurance and they pay through taxes. Someone always pays.

Dan Landis

Broomall

When considering the case of the Alaskan student who made a silly banner that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as a joke to get attention, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his conservative pals on the Supreme Court chose to put the big chill on free expression, deciding that school policies, and not the First Amendment, took precedence.

Yet in ruling in favor of an antiabortion group and striking down parts of the McCain-Feingold Act, which strives to try to make some sense out of campaign finance, Roberts stated without apparent irony: "We give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship." It would appear that Judge Roberts is in perfect sync with the man who appointed him. He's all for free speech, as long as the speaker is a conservative.

Stan Herrin

West Chester

Why would anyone sing in a heavily used park for hours? If columnist Daniel Rubin ("Balancing rights of freedom to sing," June 25) had attended performances of Anthony Riley and Robby Torres in other heavily traveled public transit ways (such as their regular rush-hour gig in Suburban Station), he would have the answer - the ever-present donations cup.

This monetary issue presents a different intent than that expressed by Torres: "Our intent is to be able to sit under a tree and strum a guitar." These troubadours are carrying on the tradition of performing in public spaces for income. Their sound must project loud enough to stimulate curiosity from a good distance.

More listeners equals more money in the cup.

Although music can add a charming and uplifting atmosphere to city life, it can also increase the blood pressure and worsen the mood for those who prefer other musical styles or a little less volume in the environment. Hence the real problem, the rights of those who control the community sonic space to make a buck verses those who live, work or otherwise want to have a little peace in that same shared space.

Paul Nolan

Philadelphia

The belief that industrial society will be maintained and expanded by conservation, efficiency and "renewable" energy is refuted by reality. Improved efficiency does not produce energy; it doesn't even save energy, because of the increased use that results. If conservation and improved efficiency produces power, then ban all oil production and run cars on the "conserved" fuel.

Relying on wind, solar, biomass and geothermal for reliable and consistently available electricity ignores supplying energy when the wind fails to blow, night descends and geothermal sites are few.

Ignored are the safest sources of reliable power - nuclear and developing coal liquification and shale oil. These energy forms can provide power for hundreds of years. As viable energy sources, the "clean energy" bill approved by the U.S. Senate proposes nothing (conservation) and the minuscule (renewables). Neither is viable or feasible to support an industrial civilization.

Frederick Willis

Haddonfield