Hypocrisy abounds in the NY debut of “Capitalism”

The premise of Moore’s newest opus is that the economic system of capitalism is inherently evil and must be destroyed. The LA Times is not alone in noting how ironic it is to hold a premiere for a movie with this as its thesis in such a manor:

As the Deal Journal’s Michael Corkery notes in a surprisingly evenhanded report, having the film open at New York’s Lincoln Center was a huge blunder, since it made Moore a fat target (no pun intended) for charges of hypocrisy.

After all, as Corkery puts it, the center’s sleek new theater was largely funded “by the very institutions that Moore lambasts as greedy, sleazy and beyond repent. Before the film, the crowd sipped champagne and cocktails in the ‘Morgan Stanley Lobby’ and then headed to their seats in the ‘Citi Balcony.’ Movie tickets were available at the ‘Bank of New York Box Office’ and there’s outdoor seating at the Credit Suisse Information Grandstand.’ “ (Geez, when you have to pee, do you think you can do your business at the Alan Greenspan Memorial Urinal?)

Corkery says there is “plenty of good entertainment” in Moore’s film while acknowledging the emotional impact of some of the film’s scenes, including one where Moore exposes how Wal-Mart profited from a life insurance policy it took out on a young woman who died unexpectedly, leaving behind a young family scrambling to make ends meet. But he also points out that Moore is often guilty of “throwing stones in a glass house he often frequents.” Noting that Moore has gone from assembly line worker to well-compensated indie filmmaker, Corkery contends that “his journey alone exemplifies the social mobility made possible by the very economic system he savages in his latest film.”

But wait! There’s more from The Business Insider, who noticed something rather interesting at the NY premiere:

Held at the fabulous, sprawling, lushly-appointed Esquire Apartment in Soho, it was packed with good-looking, well-dressed people, had multiple bars across two suites and two balconies, featured a Steak Bar, and even had a hot tub, complete with young lovelies lounging steamily therein. Meanwhile, the Hackers were there — the Hackers from Peoria, Illinois, whom an hour ago I had watched get evicted from their home, bewildered and tearful, burning their worldly possessions. I wondered what they must think. (Actually, I asked Mr. Hacker, who said that everyone in New York seemed to be beautiful, that it was their first trip and that they were having fun. I said I was glad to see that they were doing okay; he said, “Well, we’re not in that movie for nothing.”)

Hmmm… I wonder what exactly the Hackers did receive for appearing in Moore’s new film? Given Moore’s past of attempting to buy opinions and silence (*cough*), one has to wonder.

And the bad reviews keep right on coming….

In what is turning slowly into a mess of bad press, the newest reviews of Moore’s new opus “Capitalism” continue down a very negative, critical, and sometimes even scathing path. Here are a few more interesting pieces that made their way to my computer today.

From The Metro:

Many around Wall Street seemed unimpressed by the filmmaker’s argument that capitalism is an “evil” that needs to be replaced.

“What would be helpful was to teach people how capitalism really works rather than scare them,” said Alex G., a 36-year-old financial analyst. “I don’t have a problem with him, but I would wish he wasn’t so bombastic. Cut out the hype and deal with the facts.”

Much of the online commentary comes from Moore’s fan base, praising his genius and courage to speak truth to power. Not surprisingly, there are few tempered opinions of the provocateur.

“The man is a parasite who has carved out a market from the fringes of society,” wrote one poster to the Wall Street Journal’s Web site.

Jane Lee, 26, an associate at NY Pacific Capital said she appreciated Moore’s criticism, but thought he goes to extremes.

“I don’t see that capitalism is a bad thing,” Lee said. “I come from China, a communist country and I have experienced both.”

David Epstein, a professor of political science at Columbia University, said that Moore is right to say that capitalism “harnesses greed,” but added that it works.

“It’s seems he’s upset about concentrated power and its ability to influence policy but that happens in every single system,” Epstein said “I’m not sure why capitalism is especially bad in that respect.

From Newsday in a review that gave “Capitalism” a one and a half star review:

Most of what he rails against isn’t about economic philosophy, it’s about immorality; greed is certainly the lifeblood of capitalism, but greed is eternal and it’s human failing that has Moore at the ramparts, where he shrinks from making the big connections. That various corporations took out life insurance on employees and benefited from their deaths is low, but it isn’t criminal, and it doesn’t even victimize the survivors.

But if Moore could have accused Wal-Mart of denying health care to its employees in an effort to collect death benefits, that would have been something. While Moore is happy to imply the worst, innuendo is all we get.

Moore shares the blame for financial atrocities pretty fairly - he names Democrats as well as Republicans who have bellied up to the Wall Street-catered trough. But his trademark antics - wrapping Goldman Sachs in crime-scene tape, using a bullhorn to order Wall Street malefactors into the street with their hands up, or hassling security guards to give back “America’s Money” seem cheap, hackneyed and trite. Too bad: There was probably a good movie, even a funny movie, to be made here, but Moore has too much contempt for his audience to think they’d understand anything beyond the cartoonishness that is “Capitalism.”

This one from Opposing Views is my favorite. I wish I could reprint the whole thing because it’s a truly fantastic piece that breaks down the economics Moore rails against in “Capitalism”. I HIGHLY encourage you to go and read the whole thing, but here a taste for you:

The bad rap could not be more undeserved. Rather than mankind’s scourge, capitalism has been its greatest benefactor. It is, in fact, the only socio-economic system that can provide ordinary people with dignified and prosperous lives. It was only with the advent of capitalism that the common man was able to escape the penury and filth of his existence to which he had been previously consigned. Until then, the lives of most people were short, hard and miserable. Today, as if by miracle, we can enjoy greater comforts and ease of life than the kings of the past. It is to capitalism that we owe this good fortune.

Capitalism is responsible for nearly everything that makes human existence easy and comfortable. The automobile, the supermarket, the personal computer, the washing machine, the hammer-drill, the iPhone, the airplane, the TV set, the chewing gum, electricity and countless other good things have all been birthed and mass produced by capitalism.

Because of its immense wealth generating power, people who live in capitalist societies enjoy rising standards of living and material affluence. Conversely, those who live in non-capitalist societies invariably experience the opposite. To see this, it is enough to compare the experience of, let’s say, the United States, Switzerland and Australia, on one hand, with that of the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and Saudi Arabia on the other. The rule always holds: Capitalist societies are invariably prosperous. Non-capitalist ones are always poor.

But wealth and prosperity are not the only benefits capitalism confers. Capitalism fosters freedoms of all kinds and affords unprecedented opportunities for personal fulfillment and growth. It rewards efficiency, resourcefulness, originality and inventiveness. Those whose oddness would consign them to marginalization in less free societies often excel under capitalism. Capitalism rewards good ideas regardless of who their authors are. Thomas Edison was a hearing-impaired eccentric while Bill Gates is a well-known nerd. It is inconceivable that these men could develop their gifts in the way they did under any other system. Mankind has benefited greatly from the fact that they were born under capitalism rather than under a communist or Islamic regime. Andrew Bernstein was right when he said that capitalism is, among other things, “the system of liberated human brain power.” Capitalism uniquely encourages individuals to realize their talents and pursue their dreams no matter how far-fetched they may seem.

Perhaps the most remarkable characteristic of capitalism is its ability to transform the pursuit of self-interest into the general good. In the process of pursuing profit, people satisfy the needs and wants of their fellow men. This is because success under capitalism is tied to one’s the ability to provide something – a product or a service – that benefits other people. In a very real sense capitalism is the most effective and successful welfare program ever implemented. In the process of becoming the richest man on earth, Bill Gates provided a product which tens of millions have found immensely useful. This is the story of nearly every successful capitalist. John D. Rockefeller provided the masses with cheap oil, Henry Ford with affordable cars, and Steve Jobs with ingenious gadgets.

Anyone who genuinely cares about the well-being of mankind – anyone who claims love and compassion as his personal traits – cannot but become a passionate advocate for capitalism. The question to ask is: Under which system are people best off? Capitalism wins hands down. The difference between capitalism and even the best alternative is that of light and darkness. Michael Moore and all those who oppose and revile capitalism cannot have the best interest of their fellow men at heart. If they did, they would dedicate their efforts to its defense. By trying to destroy it, they are inviting hardship and misery on their society.

Brilliant stuff from Opposing Views - please everyone check out the entirety of the article. I feel I can now saw that one thing is certain - “Capitalism” is going to have a very bumpy ride both at the box office and with the viewing populace.

Moore banned from his own premiere?

In a somewhat stunning allegation, Moore is claiming that General Motors somehow banned him from his own premiere of “Capitalism: A Love Story” in Detroit:

In what sounds like a publicity ploy, controversial filmmaker Michael Moore is claiming that General Motors banned him from the premiere of his own new documentary, Capitalism — A Love Story, on Sunday.

Moore said he rented out four theaters in the General Motors-owned Renaissance Center in Detroit for the premiere of the movie. He told WDIV-TV in Detroit that when GM realized it was his film, they wouldn’t allow him on the premises. “Somehow, they are able to ban me from my own premiere,” Moore said.

But General Motors had a different take on the controversy.

“The screenings did go on as originally scheduled, but Moore was not given permission to do a press conference in the building,” GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson told Inside Line on Monday in response to an e-mailed query.

Moore is spinning his wheels again trying to be the squeaky wheel. His claims that GM “banned him” from his premiere as simply false. Moore did not schedule or receive extra time for a Q&A session after the screening, and therefore he was not allowed to have one. The movies were shown exactly as planned and Moore was allowed to attend. He simply wasn’t allowed to hold a Q&A session after the screening because he neither asked for nor received permission to have one.

I am wondering why Moore thinks we the people aren’t intelligent, savvy, or aware enough to find the truth in his erroneous allegations. Surely we’ve proven we aren’t easily taken in by such publicity stunts, so why even try them. It truly makes me wonder.

Reason and Moore

What our late lamented Lee used to call the Best Magazine on the Planet has an early look at Capitalism, which Sean Higgins watched with members of the AFL-CIO.  The thing that struck Higgins—and has struck me in Moore’s recent commentary—is that he seems to be drifting into a territory we will call Red Tea Party, as opposed to the current tea-parties being held by the Right:

First, Moore is a radical ideologue before he is a partisan Democrat. His film hammers congressional Democrats pretty hard for leading the effort to pass the Wall Street bailouts last year. Moore fudges a little on this, portraying the opposition that sank the initial House vote on the bailout as comprised exclusively of progressive Democrats. In fact, it was mostly Republican opposition that killed it. (That opposition crumbled after the markets subsequently tanked.)

...

The film’s second unexpected direction is to go beyond just shaking a finger at Wall Street and Washington. Moore doesn’t simply call for new regulations. Instead, he explicitly states that “Capitalism is evil and you cannot regulate evil.” Something must replace it.

He doesn’t exactly say what should come next, but he does lay some pretty heavy hints. Towards the end of film he interviews Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the Senate’s only (avowed) socialist. As far as Moore is concerned, Sanders’ ideas “sound like America.”

While many liberals have mocked conservatives for claiming that the left’s agenda is socialist, Moore’s response is, “Yeah, so?”

This is no surprise to those of us who have spent time following the writing and movies of Michael Moore.  He has never been in favor of changing the system or finding sensible ideas.  He has always been a radical who believes that our culture is fundamentally sick and can only be cured by a massive overhaul.  The tepid response of the AFL-CIO tells me that this message is not going to play as well as he thinks it will.  Americans—some of them, anyway—will put up with liberalism but not outright socialism.

I did find this amusing:

One final note: Just before the film started, Moore asked the audience to turn off any recording devices because the studio did not want bootleg versions of the film getting around. Apparently this socialism stuff has its limits.

Of course it does.

Moore shut out of award at the TIFF festival

Not only did Moore not place in the Venice Film Festival, it seems he got shut out of TIFF as well:

Kiwi documentary Topp Twins: Untouchable Girls has beaten Michael Moore’s latest film to win an audience choice award at the Toronto Film Festival (TIFF).

Director Leanne Pooley was been awarded the Cadillac People’s Choice Award for Best Documentary while Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story was the runner-up.

Ouch. Canada rejects Moore? What is this world coming to? 

More heat for “Capitalism”

When even The Huffington Post starts to turn on Michael Moore’s new film, you know there’s trouble a-brewin’ for our favorite polemicist. I couldn’t believe my eye when I read their review the review of “Capitalism”. Now, for the sake of fairness, it starts out with a slew of compliments:

Like I said after a screening on Wednesday here in L.A., Michael Moore’s new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story is awesome and I want to recommend it (again) to everyone-- except for one part.

But after a short time, reviewer Howie Klein skewers Moore to the wall over Moore’s treatment of Chris Dodd in his film. Listen to this:

Well, okay, the traditional media, sure, the AP, of course, but not a liberal media source like Michael Moore, right?  Right?

Wrong.

Moore:  As I point out in the film, I have an exclusive interview with the VIP loan manager at Countrywide Loans, the largest mortgage company in the country, was giving sweetheart loans to Senator Dodd where he didn’t have to pay fees, they did away with the paper work for him, he got all-- things the average person couldn’t get. ... I think people are going to be surprised.

Hell yeah, they are going to be surprised!  Surprised that Michael-freaking-Moore ate this guy’s story up without even the most basic fact check!  Sure, it fit his narrative well, but c’mon, could you at least check to see if he, in fact got a special deal? Time to hand over that $10,000, Michael.

Also, if you are Michael Moore, and you have basically made a career out of getting powerful people, people who you have no business interviewing, on film, how is it possible that Chris Dodd is not interviewed in the film?  Roger-- check. Charlton Heston-- check.  Chris Dodd-- [crickets].  If you get the accuser on video, making wild accusations that everyone now agrees are completely false, how is the accused not here, allowed even a moment to mention that HE GOT THE SAME FUCKING RATES AS EVERYONE ELSE?

Why does this feel like, in the interest of being able to sit on Leno and say, “I went after Democrats too!,” Moore passed up the real story here?  It would have been really powerful if he made the connection between the bullshit allegations about Dodd and the banking industry desperately wanting to put the breaks on important housing and foreclosure legislation that Dodd was championing in the Senate at that very moment.  Well, mission accomplished assholes, excuse me, the Sheriff is here to foreclose on my house (is it possible its the same one from Roger and Me? Oh, the irony).

Finally, exclusive?  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.  Maybe what he meant was that, even though the Feinberg Interview Express has more miles on it than the Madden Cruiser, he was only getting interviewed by Moore at that particular moment, so it was exclusive as to that particular place and time.  Or something.  (Seriously, not counting Darrell Issa’s I-am-doing-the-bidding-of-the-NRSC’s sham investigations, Feinberg has done roughly seven quintillion interviews.  You can look it up.

Ummm… yeah. I won’t comment on Klein’s opinions about Dodd, but I do think it says a lot when The Huffington Post puts out a piece that slams Moore this hard.

But wait! There’s more! The National came out with an exceptional review of the film’s premise and execution thereof. You should read the whole thing, but I especially liked this section:

On Tuesday, pitching his latest film on the Jay Leno Show, Mr Moore declared capitalism as “evil” and called for Americans to “go back to the roots of our country, democracy”, to fix the system.

The implication seemed to be that democracy and capitalism are somehow incompatible, like oil and water. In fact, they are as combustible as fire and a stiff wind.

Unless Mr Moore is aware of some as-yet-to-be-written revisionist history, America was a democracy in 1837 when a massive banking collapse led to a six-year long recession.

It was democratic during the crippling depression that began in 1873 and lingered on for a quarter of a century.

It was similarly pluralist during the mild recession that began in 1920 and it remained so in the run-up to the Great Depression a decade later.

The October 1929 stock market crash occurred on the presidential watch of Herbert Hoover who, far from an amiable dunce as he is popularly portrayed, was one of the most able men of his generation, a self-made multimillionaire, philanthropist, humanitarian and pioneer of the liberal “progressive” movement with which Mr Moore seems to so closely identify.

In his interview with Mr Leno, Mr Moore said capitalism was “legalised” greed, as if there was such a thing as “outlawed” greed. It would be more accurate to say that a common feature of democracy, particularly in one as unfettered as America’s, is legalised excess.

Nicely put. So once again, it seems that even liberals who normally defend Moore tooth and nail are angry with him for at least parts of “Capitalism”. If these are the early reviews, I can’t wait to see what’s going to happen when the general public gets a look at it. 

Oprah puts a lid on Moore… for now

It seems I’m not the only one who’s been wondering why Michael Moore has been nearly silent in these crucial weeks before the US release of his new movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story”. When a reporter from the LA Times tried to get an interview with the usually boisterous Moore, he was told Moore wasn’t talking… for now:

But Moore has been strangely silent in this run-up and the LA Times’ Patrick Goldstein has learned that he plans to keep a lid on it for weeks to come no less.

When Goldstein called Overture Films, Moore’s distributor to arrange an interview, he was told that the filmmaker would sit for interviews after the premiere, but the pieces would all be embargoed Sept. 23rd, the day the film opens in New York and Los Angeles.

“Why? Because Moore is doing a sit-down interview with Oprah Winfrey, which won’t air until Sept. 22. And if Oprah wants an exclusive, she gets it, since when it comes to books, movies or music, no one offers a better promotional platform than La Winfrey.”

There is perhaps no bigger winner here than Barack Obama, who is trying to persuade America that his health care package is not a socialist takeover of their lives. He will get a precious few weeks wherein Michael Moore is not clogging up the airwaves with his caricature of Middle American GOP fears. A conspiratorial mind might even wonder of Miss Winfrey is slyly doing her old pal on Pennsylvania Ave. a solid.

The conclusion this reporter reached in the last paragraph above is certainly intriguing. With Obama’s health care plan going down in flames and the tea parties heating up left, right, and center, one must wonder if keeping Moore quiet for these precious few weeks might in fact be advantageous to Obama. Of course, having Oprah give Moore such a solid and far-reaching platform is just as good of a reason for Moore’s silence - after all, who helps artists out more than Oprah? Moore does have a couple of appearances scheduled before the big Winfrey interview on the 22nd, but as they were scheduled before snagging the Oprah spot they will air as scheduled.

Silence from Moore before his movie is released. Now there’s something I never thought I’d hear. ;)

Hugs and Kisses from Hugo

I can’t upload the pictures for some reason, but here you can find pictures of Michael Moore meeting with and high-fiving Hugo Chavez.  I mean, just in case you though Fidel Castro was the only human right abuser that Moore had a hard-on for.  In a related story, Chavez is shutting down 29 more radio stations that are critical of him.  If Moore actually lived in a country like Venezuela, he’d be in prison by now.  Unless he gave the regime the full Riefenstahl treatment (always a possibility).

Is there anything more hypocritical that an agitator like Moore embracing a critic-silencing thug like Chavez?  Ok, possibly making millions of dollars off of a film about how evil capitalism is.

Update Oliver Stone is also infatuated with the rising tide of thuggish socialists in South America.  I’m sure that the economy-crushing problems socialism is inducing in Bolivia, Argentina, Venezuela, Nicaragua and El Salvador are also our fault.

Early responses to “Capitalism: A Love Story”

I know I’ve been an absent landlord for a while, and I do apologize for that. I plan on becoming much more present in the near future, and there is certainly much to discuss as Moore’s new film, “Capitalism: A Love Story”, has just debuted at The Venice Film Festival. Set to debut in US theaters on October 2nd, the film garnered Moore a nearly eight minute standing ovation from the Venice film audience. However, reviews outside the festival have been lukewarm at best. Even traditionally liberal and Moore-friendly publications are slamming “Capitalism” right and left to a rather surprising degree. So what are reviewers saying about Moore’s newest opus?

From The Telegraph Online:

I wonder, is there a more serious reason than his weight behind Michael Moore’s demise? Seven or eight years ago, his films - such as Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine - were incredibly fashionable, and he was one of the most talked about directors around. But although his new film - Capitalism: a love story - has received an eight-minute standing ovation from the luvvies in Venice (”the longest in memory”, according to Moore’s twitter account) for most people, his hypocrisy is too much to bear.

Don’t be fooled by the scruffy cap and trampish demeanour. Moore is as well-to-do as the “stupid white men” which he has made millions of dollars from criticising. The Guardian interviewed him shortly after he became a best-selling author and discovered not only that he was the best paid presenter at Channel 4 (during his short-lived career as a chat show host), but that he was no stranger to the high-life....

Sadly for Michael Moore, many of the people that should be watching his films don’t get the joke either. He is supposed to be the champion of the oppressed, who spends his career holding the rich and famous to account. Now he’s one of them, and lapping up the lifestyle like a banker in boom time, it makes no sense. Still, at least he gets to rub shoulders with Hugo Chavez.

From The Examiner:

“Capitalism is evil” is the conclusion of Michael Moore’s coming film, “Capitalism:  A Love Story”.

What an embarrassment....

So what socialist country does Michael Moore like better than the United States?  And don’t write in by trying to prove the Netherlands, or France, or whatever:  Michael Moore says CAPITALISM is evil.  Not a mixed system.  I’ll debate the U.S. being better than those places, but not right now.  Which socialist, fascist, communist, anarchist, or other system is better than capitalism?

Every possible experiment in socialism has been a colossal failure with millions dead from starvation.  It is a system that is pure evil; stealing from some to give to others and leaving everyone poor.

And if Michael Moore is advocating that, then he is the evil one.

From CNNMoney:

VENICE (Fortune)—If anyone has profited from the free-enterprise system in the past 20 years, it’s Michael Moore. Since 1989, when his “Roger & Me” pioneered the docu-comedy form of nonfiction film, Moore’s movies, TV shows and best-selling books have given him an eight-figure net worth.

And in all of these, he is the improbable star: a heavyset fellow with a doofus grin, alternately laughing and badgering but always at the center of his own attention. Why, there he is, at the end of his new movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” wrapping the New York Stock Exchange building in yellow tape that reads: CRIME SCENE…

By now, a Michael Moore film is its own genre: a vigorous vaudeville of working-class sob stories, snippets of right-wing power players saying ugly things, longer interviews with experts on the Left, funny old film clips and, at the climax, Moore engaging in some form of populist grandstanding.

This time, he goes to the headquarters of the former AIG, a multibillion-dollar recipient of government largesse, and attempts to make a citizen’s arrest of its chief executives. He also asks Wall Streeters for advice on healing the nation. One man’s quick reply: “Don’t make any more movies.”

“Capitalism” has lots of statistics, like the Rasmussen poll that showed only a slight majority of young adults prefer capitalism to socialism. But this is a lecture from a charismatic comedian of a professor; he makes his points with gag movie references and quick visual puns.

From The Atlantic:

Instead, I’ll just say that I highly doubt that either movie will do particularly well at the box office, though Moore’s film may spark some interest due to the economic events that it considers. I think much of the public’s wary response to Washington’s efforts at healthcare reform shows that Americans are still generally pretty nervous about the government being too involved in their lives. So the thought of trading in free-market capitalism for government-run socialism probably won’t appeal to most Americans at this time.

I will also note that no one going to see these films should expect a thorough examination of the economic merits of capitalism versus socialism. Neither of these directors, to my knowledge, have much experience in economics or finance. As a result, I doubt either is a particularly rigorous film, but probably more based on opinion and anecdotal observation.

From Variety:

Unfortunately, elsewhere, Moore strives so hard to manipulate viewers’ emotions with shots of crying children and tearjerking musical choices that he’s not so much over-egging the pudding as making an omelet out of it. While it could be argued that Moore needs to milk the human-interest stories for all their worth to get auds to engage with his denunciation of capitalism, more often than not, such tactics just patronize the audience and descend into cheap sentimentality. Moore all but stops short of holding up dead puppies Hank Paulson personally murdered.....

No Michael Moore film would be complete without scenes of the writer-helmer arguing with security guards in glassy office-building foyers as he attempts to have an impromptu word with the company’s CEO. Predictably ill-fated attempts are made to storm the citadels of various banks and financial institutions that survived the crash. In perhaps the funniest moment, Moore tries to find a banker who can explain what derivatives are; he corners one and says he wants some advice, to which the reply comes, quick as a flash: “Stop making films!”

Moore shows no signs of heeding this injunction, and ends the pic on a combatative note, vowing, “I refuse to live in a country like this, and I’m not leaving.” It’s a pugnacious riposte to his right-wing critics, but in the end, Moore also fails to answer his left-wing doubters, who will have plenty of evidence here that Moore’s argument is less with capitalism as Marx and Engels understood it, or even as the North Koreans and Cubans do, than with capitalism’s most egregious excesses in the U.S. His ideal is not the end of private ownership, just more cooperatively owned businesses where everyone shares the wealth and makes collective decisions. Moore merely flirts with counterpointing socialism with capitalism, and ultimately sets up an inoffensive-to-the-point-of-meaningless notion of democracy as capitalism’s opposite.

Ummm… wow. I honestly didn’t expect such an immediate derogatory response to Moore’s work, but here it is already pouring in, and these are just the early reviews. So how off-the-mark is this film? Have people finally had their fill of Moore’s particular brand of polemic? Time will only tell, but I’ll do my best to look back through the last week or so of news to see if I can put some more meat and perspective on this negative response to Moore’s new film.

This should be an interesting car-crash of a film premiere, that’s for sure. 

Capitalism is evil

Moore has completely stopped pretending to be anything other than a total hypocrite.  Love it.

“Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil,” the two-hour movie concludes.

“You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy.”

*sigh*

“Capitalism is evil! BUT...before you overthrow the system, do me a favor and pay ten bucks at the movie theater to see my commercially produced film - the work for which I underpaid my staff and abused them as I generally do - and keep funding my extremely lavish lifestyle for just a little bit longer. Cool? Cool.”

What a jackass.

Goody Goody Gumdrops

I know it’s been quiet here for a while.  But that’s because Moore has been comparatively quiet.  No longer.  Enjoy the trailer for his new film:

Now here’s a funny thing.  When it comes to bailouts and influence peddling, Moore and I are ... oh I can’t say it.  Come on, Mike.  Man up.  We’re ... on ... sort of ... maybe .. in a small way ... to some degree ... as far as it goes ... on ... well, not the same page.  But at least we’re both reading books.  How’s that?  That OK?

Bailouts are disgusting and the conflict on interest between our former Secretary of the Treasury, the heads of Fanny/Freddie, Congress and Wall Street were repulsive.  In the financial crisis, companies with political connections (or union payrolls) became “too big to fail” while companies without such pull were left to suck eggs.  A good film-maker could produce a searing indictment.

The thing is, that system of bailouts and influence is not capitalism.  If anything, it’s a reimagined version of the mercantilism that Adam Smith fought so hard against.

Now granted, this is just a trailer.  But it seems like Moore intends to head, predictably, into the “blue vs. white collar” schtick that has defined his economic thinking for his entire career.  Capitalism bad; socialism good.  Money men bad; workers good.  Repeat.

Anyway, we’ll see what happens when the movie comes out (October 2).  In the meantime, maybe we’ll ramp things up in September with a look back at Mike’s previous movies.

Running On Empty

Donna e-mailed me last week telling me Michael Moore had put up a post on his website that made her skin crawl.  It took me until the weekend to read it.  And I must confess myself ... disappointed.

The post is Michael Moore celebrating the collapse of General Motors and asking where we should go next.  For a man who claims to be from Flint and to know the car industry, it shows a stunning lack of knowledge.  This ignorance is combined with pure economic stupidity and a stunning faith in the power of government to make things happen just by wishing so.

Michael Moore is 55 years old.  He is a highly successful film-maker, and one of the few who understands the financial benefit of tacitly allowing his films to be pirated.  He has been a political force for the last decade or more.  And yet, given months to think about it, he’s produced a “plan” for GM’s bankruptcy that looks like something a 19-year-old college kid would write the night before a deadline.  It has no original ideas; it’s just a liberal wish list.  It does not acknowledge tradeoffs or problems; it lives in fantasy world.  It practically refutes itself.

If you don’t want to read the fisking, here’s the short version: Mike wants Barack Obama to declare himself Czar of the United States and reorganize industry, infrastructure and the economy along the lines Michael Moore thinks best.  He doesn’t, of course, say he wants a dictatorship but that’s the only possible interpretation.  Because there is no way that what Michael proposes could be done in our current Constitutional Republic.  Such sweeping changes would only be possible if government broke all the boundaries of the Constitution, the law and federalism.

It’s donatin’ time…

I’m afraid it’s that time again...time for a server drive. With Lee’s passing, the entire cost of the server is now on my shoulders, and times - as they are for everyone I’m sure - are tight.  Blogads are a thin trickle these days, not nearly enough to pay for the server.  And so I’m coming to all of you hat in hand.  If you find any value in any of the sites I host, please consider a small donation. Every penny will go directly to the cost of paying for the $250 a month this machine and the associated bandwidth costs me.

We host the following blogs:

Right Thinking
Right Thoughts
Made of Awesome
Wasting Time WIth Alex
Moorewatch
The Victorious Opposition

So if you are a fan of any of these sites, consider sending maybe the cost of a beer or two. The cost of a couple of beers, when multipled by a group of you, could keep us going for months. Unfortunately we only have Paypal as a donation solution, since Amazon closed their donation/payment program. Hopefully that’s okay for most people.

I wish there was a way to express to all of you how little I like doing this.  Some day I will either be rich or Supreme Ruler of the Universe and then I’ll host everyone’s websites for free. :)

Michael Moore’s next film to be released in October

Well… it looks like it’s that time again. Michael Moore has announced his upcoming film will be released in the States on October 2nd. Since virtually every news source is just quoting Moore’s own site and press release, I’ll link to the same:

Firebrand filmmaker Michael Moore, who targeted the Bush administration in “Fahrenheit 9/11” and the healthcare industry in “Sicko,” is now focusing on the global economic meltdown.

The Oscar-winning director will release his as-yet-untitled documentary across North America on October 2, co-financiers Overture Films and Paramount Vantage said on Thursday.

“The wealthy, at some point, decided they didn’t have enough wealth,” the statement quoted Moore as saying.

“They wanted more—a lot more. So they systematically set about to fleece the American people out of their hard-earned money. Now, why would they do this? That is what I seek to discover in this movie.”

Overture said Moore was still working on the film, and was keeping plot details close to his vest in typical fashion.

So… anyone remember that this film was originally going to be a “sequel” of sorts to Fahrenheit 9/11 and that Moore shot hundreds of hours of footage about the War on Terror and our foreign relation blunders? Anyone else wondering how Moore’s going to work all that footage into his new piece on the economy? He said he would use all that footage… but how? And isn’t the promise to do so already letting us know that Moore went into this project with a point already in mind, with a fully-formed premise in place that all this footage would support? How is this journalism or a documentary? How is this anything but another scare-piece polemic that Moore has pre-constructed to fit a conclusion at which Moore has already arrived?

I like how Terra King of the Indie Film Examiner put it:

I’m sure Mr. Moore believes in the causes he has chosen to make documentaries about. I’m not saying he is anything but passionate. What I would like to see is a documentary on the fear Moore has caused as a result of some of his work.

Nicely put.

Madoff Madness

Boy, Time Magazine has really fallen on hard times, haven’t they?  They did a series on the 100 Most Influential People in the world and, for some reason, picked Bernie Madoff.  So who did they get to write an article about him?  Why, it’s our man from Flint Davison.  He basically says, in a beautiful “blame the victim” piece, that we deserved Bernie Madoff (assuming I have correctly read his rambling piece).

Smiles For Socialism

For people who oppose socialized medicine, Britain’s NHS is the gift that keeps on giving.  And for genuine Brits, it’s a nightmare:

Like so many young women, Amy King always took great pride in her appearance.

Standing in front of the mirror to check her make-up before a night out, the 21-year-old would always try a smile - friends told her they loved the way it lit up her face.

Eight weeks ago, all that changed. The student from Plymouth was admitted to hospital where, in a single operation, she had every tooth in her mouth removed.

Amy, whose dental problems were caused by untreated gum disease, does not go out any more. And when she looks in the mirror she hardly recognises the face staring back at her.

...

While Amy’s experience is an extreme one, it highlights growing concerns about the state of the nation’s dental health.

Last week, statistics obtained by the Liberal Democrats revealed that the number of people having teeth extracted in hospital has risen by one third in the past four years.

More than 175,000 Britons had their teeth removed under general anaesthetic in 2007/08, up 40,000 on the 2003/04 figure.

The number of children having teeth out has shot up, too. But more pertinent is the fact that the rate of these extractions gathered pace after a deeply controversial contract for NHS dentists was introduced in April 2006.

Read the whole thing.  The system in Britain is basically denying people routine care but paying for massive expensive procedures.  So Amy couldn’t get any help until they needed to yank out every last tooth.

Yes, the Law of Unintended Consequences rears its ugly head again.

Ten Years Gone

This post was Originally posted at Right-Thinking by West Virginia Rebel. I don’t think I could have said it any better myself, so I’m republishing it in its entirety. Enjoy.

Bad news about Lee

Please read this.  We’ve lost Lee. Please be respectful in the comments.

The NHS’s Latest Hits

Mike, what news is there from the wonderful UK healthcare system?  Glad you asked:

The full extent of the horrific conditions at an NHS hospital where hundreds may have died because of ‘appalling’ care was laid bare yesterday.

Dehydrated patients were forced to drink out of flower vases, while others were left in soiled linen on filthy wards.

Relatives of patients who died at Staffordshire General Hospital told how they were so worried by the standard of care they slept in chairs on the wards.

The ‘shocking’ catalogue of failures was released yesterday after an independent investigation by the Healthcare Commission.

It found Government waiting time targets and a bid to win foundation status were pursued at the expense of patient safety over a three-year period at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust.

The commission’s report - revealed in yesterday’s Daily Mail - said at least 400 deaths could not be explained, although it is feared up to 1,200 patients may have died needlessly.

This is just stunning.

Among the findings of the report were:

Receptionists carrying out initial checks on patients;

Two clinical decision units - one unstaffed - used as ‘dumping grounds’ for A&E patients to avoid missing waiting targets;

Nurses who turned off heart monitors because they didn’t understand how to use them;

Delayed operations, with some patients having surgery cancelled four days in a row and left without food, drink or medication;

Vital equipment such as heart defibrilators was not working;

A savings target of £10million met at the expense of 150 posts, including nurses.

I will grant that this is not typical of the NHS system.  But it is something that you will get when you essentially take the consumer completely out of the loop.

But let’s look at the good side—at least the kept costs down.

Feuerwaffe Kontrolle

Ten innocents were gunned down today by a crazed madman in Alabama.

A gunman on a terrifying rampage across two southern Alabama counties killed at least nine people Tuesday, including members of his own family and apparent strangers, and burned down his mother’s home before shooting himself at a metals plant, authorities said.

Police were investigating shootings in at least four different locations in several communities, all of which were believed to be the work of a single gunman who had not yet been identified by investigators.

The afternoon of bloodshed began in Kinston, near the Alabama-Florida border, where the shooter burned down his mother’s house, according to the Coffee County coroner, Robert Preachers. Officials located the woman’s body inside the house, but they had not been able to get inside the still-burning house to determine if he shot her first.

The gunman then headed east, into Geneva County, where he shot and killed five people—four adults and a child—at a home in the nearby town of Samson. Then he killed one person each in two other homes. The identities of all the victims were unknown, but Preachers said they included other members of the shooter’s family.

“He started in his mother’s house,” Preachers said. “Then he went to Samson and he killed his granny and granddaddy and aunt and uncle.”

“We don’t know what triggered it,” Preachers added.

The gunman also shot at a state trooper’s car, striking the vehicle seven times and wounding the trooper with broken glass.

He then killed someone at a Samson supply store, and another person at a service station.

When, oh when, are we going to learn the abject stupidity of allowing so many guns in America?  When are we going to adopt a more logical, civilized, rational approach to guns?  Why don’t we just ban them like they do in Europe, so that this sort of thing can never happen?

At least 10 people have been killed in a shooting at a school in south-west Germany, police say.

A number of people are also thought to have been wounded in the attack at the Albertville school in Winnenden, north of Stuttgart.

Police say the gunman, who was reported to have been wearing black combat gear, has fled into the town.

A major search is underway, and police and rescue workers are at the secondary school.

“We have at least nine dead and numerous injured,” a police spokeswoman said.

The editor of the local paper, Frank Nipkau, told television channel N-TV that eight pupils and two adults were among the dead.

It’s the latest gun control success!