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.

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. 

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. 

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.

Explosively Good Medicine

Meet the doctor.

NHS doctor Bilal Abdulla, who tried to blow up a London nightclub and Glasgow airport, will serve a minimum of 32 years after a judge condemned his “murderous intent” to maim and kill.

Mr Justice Mackay told Bilal Abdulla, 29, he was a “ very dangerous man” who posed a high risk to the British public

He said he had no doubt that Abdulla and his accomplice Kafeel Ahmed, 28, who died a month after the attacks, were planning to “kill innocent civilians on an indiscriminate basis.”

Both men shared equal responsibility, he added, but they may have had “external encouragement.”

Abdulla, a junior doctor from Iraq, and Ahmed, a PhD student from India, tried to set off two car bombs outside the Tiger Tiger night club in London’s West End and when they failed to go off drove a burning Jeep into Glasgow airport in June last year.

The judge said the nails added to the London bombs demonstrated Abdulla’s deadly intent and the car had been parked next to a the glass wall of the nightclub for maximum effect.

He said: “Your murderous intent was best shown by the obstructing of the safety mechanisms on two of the cylinders and by the 800-plus nails in one car and 1,000 in the second, designed to do nothing else but constitute a deadly form of shrapnel to maim, injure and kill.

“The club represented everything that you and Ahmed held in contempt and despised about Western culture - drink, association between the sexes, and music.”

Michael Moore fans will be thrilled to know that Dr. Abdulla’s medical care was provided free by the British government.

Moore’s new movie… version 2.0

I know I said in the comments to the previous post I would have this up a couple of days ago - I apologize for the delay. WotLK has me a bit under it’s spell… ;)

Remember the announcements a few months ago about Moore’s new film, the sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11? You know, the one he’s been shooting for a good couple of months? Well… he’s still shooting it… it just isn’t a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 anymore. Anyone else confused? Cinematical seems to be as well:

By now we all know that Michael Moore doesn’t make documentaries like our grandfathers did. He’s a master of polemics, using his films to rail against corporations, guns, governments, insurance companies, and whatever else riles up his David vs. Goliath sensibility. When his most recent project was announced in May, it was described as a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 that would “tackle what’s going on in the world and America’s place in it,” as pointed out by The Hollywood Reporter. Now, however, THR says the film will focus on “the global financial crisis and the U.S. economy.”

Moore is still “feverishly shooting” and it’s hoped the film will be ready for release next spring. At first blush, though, it sounds like he decided to make the mid-project adjustment in reaction to (or in anticipation of) the Democrats’ victory. Without Bush to bash, and without the Republican Party in control of Congress, how much mileage could he get out of criticizing U.S. foreign policy with a new President steering a (presumably) different course?

So.... let me see if I have this right. Moore has COMPLETELY changed the topic of his film. It was going to be a polemic that railed against US foreign policy, and now it’s going to be an study of our economic crisis. These are two completely and totally different topics… and yet Moore isn’t stopping his filming or scraping his footage. Somehow he’s going to make all the footage he’s shot about foreign policy now work for and focus on the economy.

.... ummmm...... anyone else confused about how he could possibly pull that one off without coming to both projects with very similar theses, preconceptions and foregone conclusions? Me either. I think Cinematical states the problem quite well:

Unlike many documentary filmmakers, Moore appears to start with a conclusion on his projects and then search for footage to back it up. Documentarians often say they don’t really ‘find’ their film, or discover the story, until they’re knee-deep in editing, but it doesn’t sound like Moore works that way. Which doesn’t mean his films lack meaning or substance or entertainment value, just that they’re more like personal essays than traditional docs.

According to THR, Moore is now saying that the project is less a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 and more of a bookend to Roger & Me. What more could he say, though, about corporations and big business than he already has? When he endorsed Barack Obama in April, he wrote: “Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so.” Maybe he wants to hold their feet to the fire until they burst into flame.

If all Moore does is bitch about the economy and complain about corporations, I don’t think it’ll be a very welcome message.

Well said.

I open to the floor to you fine ladies and gentlemen. Thoughts? Comments? Opinions? What do you think about this sudden and drastic turn in Moore’s agenda?

A Corny Argument

A few weeks ago the lovely DonnaK posted a list of Mikey’s latest idiocies, as well as her critique of them.  One particularly stuck out in my mind.

Proposal Three: Ban high fructose corn syrup. “And I will be the poster boy of that campaign.” Earlier in his lecture, Moore suggested that corn syrup’s historical dominance as a sweetener was a result of government collusion with large agribusinesses.

This is, simply put, one of the most retarded things he has ever said.  The EXACT OPPOSITE is true.  The prevalence of HFCS is a direct result of government interfering in the free market, and it was implement by the Grand Socialist himself FDR.  Here’s what I wrote FOUR YEARS AGO on my personal blog regarding this issue.

There’s one aspect to this that this article neglected to mention.  The next time you buy a Coke look at the ingredients.  You won’t see sugar, you’ll see “high fructose corn syrup.” This is sugar syrup made from corn, and it’s used in almost everything.  Why?  Because the high tariffs on imported sugar inflate the price to such a high level that using corn syrup is far less expensive.  The main group lobbying for these high sugar tariffs is a corporation called Archer Daniels Midland.  Why should ADM care about sugar tariffs?  Because, you guessed it, ADM are the makers of, among other things, high fructose corn syrup.  There’s absolutely no reason that Coca Cola couldn’t be made, as it used to be, with sugar, except for the artificially high price caused by government interference in free trade. 

To put it in simple terms, the government puts tariffs on imported sugar in order to keep the price artificially high.  (I have heard estimates that sugar is five to ten times more expensive than it would be if subject to market forces.) The makers of HFCS only have to make their product a penny or two cheaper than sugar to make it an economically attractive alternative.  Coca Cola alone must save millions, of not billions, of dollars by saving those few pennies with each batch of Coke they produce. 

Why is business able to collude with government?  If government were to get out of the sugar price support business, and let the market decide, you would have fewer products using HFCS because sugar would immediately drop in price.  What Mikey is proposing with his ban on HFCS is treating the symptom, not the disease itself.  If the government were not involved in sugar prices, then there would be no avenue for business to collude with them to keep the price of sugar high.  Mike is therefore correct in stating that it is collusion between agribusiness and government, but he implies some kind of corporate conspiracy, when the simple solution is to just end all farm subsidies once and for all.

So, let’s look at this in the context of the current election.  Cato has a great post up about the policy proposals of the specific candidates regarding this very issue.

In an article in today’s Congress Daily, key sugar lobby groups praised Senator Obama’s newfound enthusiasm for the U.S. sugar program. As a senator from the candy-making state of Illinois, he was none too fond of the price supports and import restrictions that raised input prices for factories in his state.

Not anymore. In a letter to sugar groups, Senator Obama gave assurances that while he “has concerns” with the program, he would listen to and work with them to “reward [their] hard work with policies that will keep [their] industry and your communities strong”. Oh dear.

One former lobbyist pointed out that “…the candidate now “represents a broader range of interest” than when he was a state legislator…[and] added that Obama has never voted against the sugar program and supported the 2008 Farm Bill.” McCain, on the other hand, would likely have lost the support of formerly Republican-leaning farmers because “…[he] has consistently opposed the program and agreed with President Bush’s decision to veto the Farm Bill.” Another lobbyist said that “Sen. McCain seems to want to radically alter [the farm safety net].”

Thus McCain’s policies would achieve the result that Mikey wants, fewer people using products sweetened with HFCS.  And Obama, with his socialist proclivities, will work to keep this very same collusion between agribusiness and government in place.

See, the issue here is that Michael Moore is a died-in-the-wool socialist.  Add to that the fact that his admirers are, generally, not the brightest people in the world.  All you have to do is mention the word “corporation” and it’s like you said “child rapist.” The solution is clear—if you want to avoid collusion between business and government, get the fucking government out of business.  As long as government retains the power to keep price subsides in place, corporations will always have an interest in making sure that government stays there.  It’s much easier to make a few campaign contributions to key legislators than it is to, y’know, actually compete in a free and open market.

Moore’s new movie getting some downloaders in hot water

Everyone hang on to your seats… I’m about to defend Michael Moore. ;)

Cinema Blend has a hot button article up on their site accusing Moore of a few things. The most important allegation of theirs is that Moore was trying to get the people outside the US and Canada who downloaded “Slacker Uprising” through his site in legal trouble. To be completely fair to Cinema Blend and to ensure that I don’t quote anything out of context, I’m going to republish their article in its entirety.

First of all, the idea that Moore would want to get people who wanted to see one of his movies in trouble with the law deliberately seems more than a bit far-fetched to me. Moore’s all about getting people to see him, hear him, watch him, believe in him. Why would he intentionally alienate a single one of his fans, even if they aren’t US citizens? It just doesn’t make sense.

Secondly, Moore doesn’t own the international distribution copyrights for “Slacker Uprising”. Brave New Films does. They get to decide who outside the US and Canada get to download Moore’s movie, not Moore himself. And if they don’t want the movie floating around internationally, they legally must make a showing that they intend to protect their copyright or they could be accused of abandoning it. By suing people and companies who are downloading or distributing “Slacker Uprising” in other countries they are simply protecting what is legally theirs and making a proper legally showing. Michael Moore isn’t part of this equation since the copyright isn’t his. He simply cannot be blamed for this one.

Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, Moore told everyone in his letter of September 22nd, 2008 that this movie was only available for download in the US and Canada. He said it plainly, albeit perhaps not overly clearly, that this download was only available to US and Canadian citizens: “That’s why I’m giving you my blanket permission to not only download it, but also to email it, burn it, and share it with anyone and everyone (in the U.S. and Canada only).”. HE TOLD EVERYONE. He gave proper notice to those outside the US that this download was not for them. He did his legal duty and I cannot find fault with him on this front.

Now, I will agree with Cinema Blend on one point. Moore really should have made sure that either this movie was available throughout the world or he should have worked out a deal with his distributors to make it so before the lawsuits came flooding down on his fans. However, to lay the blame for this problem at Moore’s feet is wrong. He doesn’t own the international copyrights and he did give notice that the download was only available to the US and Canada.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Moore. I personally see no need to invent ones that have no real merit, and this one doesn’t.

The response to Moore’s latest book and movie offerings

In answer to your first unspoken question - no, I have not yet seen Moore’s newest free movie, “Slacker Uprising”, nor have I read his book “Mike’s Election Guide”. In answer to your second unspoken question - yes, I do plan on watching the movie but not reading the book. So, since I have no first hand knowledge about the quality of either of Moore’s newest products, I have to turn to the Internet to see how the rest of the world seems to feel about them. The reponse? It’s mixed, but in general things the reviews tend to sound like this:

From The National Review about “Mike’s Election Guide”:

Well, at least he’s spared the local cineplex.

Michael Moore didn’t really bother trying to influence this election with another documentary — his new film, Slacker Uprising, is online-only and merely a travelogue of his 2004 anti-Bush tour — so instead he’s tossed off a book, Mike’s Election Guide. With Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004, Moore at least tried to make a case for voting against Bush, even if it was all conspiratorial nonsense. This time around, Moore’s just been lazy. He’s actually published a book straight-up telling people how to vote.

Given that Moore is a leftist radical given to astounding acts of greed-driven hypocrisy, it’s pretty presumptuous (even for him) to publish an election guide. Let’s face it: Asking Michael Moore to tell you how to vote is like asking Stevie Wonder to drive you to the airport — no good can come of it and ultimately you’re to blame. Now let’s get something out of the way — Mike’s Election Guide is a lame bit of cultural detritus that every living thing can and should safely ignore.

Ouch. I will admit that was one of the harsher reviews I read, but the tenor is about the same all around. But maybe “Slacker Uprising” is faring better after it’s dismal premiere at TIFF last spring? Let’s see:

From MLive.com:

Thankfully, the title has been changed for the better. But the 102-minute film isn’t up to snuff as far as Moore’s films go. It’s a straightforward and repetitive travelogue, consisting primarily of footage of Moore stirring up large audiences with anti-George W. Bush polemics, and introducing celebrity guests, from the sublime (Eddie Vedder) to the shrill (Roseanne Barr). In between, he splices bits of newscasts covering his speeches, which were often subject to Republican vitriol, and fly-on-the-wall scenes of Moore chastising the media at press conferences.

Regardless of what side of the partisan divide you fall, it’s easy to see with Moore’s previous work — “Roger and Me,” “Bowling for Columbine” — that he’s a talented filmmaker and satirist. Those expecting his wit and behind-the-camera skill will be disappointed with “Slacker Uprising” — it’s visually inert, and lacks the by-turns snarky and poignant first-person narration Moore usually provides.

From Emory Wheel:

Where “Slacker Uprising” truly fails is in its lack of organization. The film almost completely abandons the structure of his earlier work, replacing it with the loose, unpredictable structure of a 1970s variety show. It has numerous musical numbers and mediocre guest stars like comedienne Roseanne Barr, who fails to amuse a hefty portion of the on-film audience.

A select few of these musical numbers make for some of the strongest moments in the movie. Eddie Vedder, Pearl Jam’s infamous frontman, delivers an inspired acoustic cover of Cat Stevens’ “Don’t Be Shy,” while Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine and Audioslave fame delivers an uncharacteristic acoustic performance.

These pleasant musical interludes do little more than break up the monotony of speeches — and sometimes they don’t even do that.

When R.E.M. and Anti-Flag take the stage, it is only to deliver more speeches, not to play any of their hits. While the appearance of these very political bands is fitting, especially in a youth-heavy setting, the lack of musical performance is quite disappointing.

Moore’s first-person narration is also absent, making the film feel much less personal than his previous works. Combined with the amount of footage that shows Moore being mobbed by his adoring public, this causes the film to feel a bit like a self-congratulatory pat on the back.

Ouch again. It doesn’t seem that Moore is faring too well with either his book or his movie. If anyone in our audience has seen or read either product, please comment and let me know what you thought. I mean… it *can’t* be that bad...... can it?

What in the world is Michael Moore thinking?

Normally I try to be as unbiased and non-judgmental as possible when I’m reporting on the letters or speeches Michael Moore delivers. However, this particular speech, delivered at the premiere of Slacker Uprising in Ann Arbor, goes so far over the top that I find myself questioning if Moore is either playing an enormous practical joke or he’s really lost his way somehow. Before the screening of his new “free” movie (that he is of course selling copies of for those who don’t download… so much for free for all!), Moore offered seven “modest suggestions” for Barrack Obama should he in fact win the presidential election. The “suggestions” range from the potentially practical to mildly amusing to the rather offensive to the downright ridiculous. I seriously can’t do this justice. Here… read the synopsis for yourself:

Proposal One: Institute a military draft, but only for the children of the top five percent of wage earners in the country. “I am convinced that if they have to send their own kids off to war, there won’t be any wars,” Moore said.

Proposal Two: Sign into law congressman John Conyer’s universal health-care legislation (HR676). “The Obama health plan is no good. The McCain health plan is really, really no good,” Moore said, explaining that on this issue, his support for Obama comes down to the “lesser of two evils.”

Proposal Three: Ban high fructose corn syrup. “And I will be the poster boy of that campaign.” Earlier in his lecture, Moore suggested that corn syrup’s historical dominance as a sweetener was a result of government collusion with large agribusinesses.

Proposal Four: Build wells in the developing nations to provide clean drinking water for all. Moore says it will cost $10 billion to dig wells in villages. “We’re going to spend $12 billion on Iraq in this month alone. $12 billion. One month of Iraq and the entire world can have clean drinking water. What is our problem?”

Proposal Five: Remove the $102,000 income cap on the social security tax. “If you make over 102,000 a year, do you realize the people in that category do not pay one dime on wages they earn over $102,000 ... Why shouldn’t they have to pay the same six-and-half to seven percent rate that you have to pay on 100 percent or your income?” Moore cited former presidential candidate Chris Dodd, who said that if the cap was lifted, the resulting income would be able to fund social security for 75 years. He also told the audience to remind their neighbors that President Bush wanted to “put social security in the hands of Wall Street five years ago ... We’d all be Lehman Brothers.”

Proposal Six: Change the way we do elections. Moore offered several suggestions, including holding elections on the weekend so that more people can get to the polls, allowing multiple parties access to the debates and discarding voting machines in favor of paper ballots.

Proposal Seven: Change the Pledge of Allegiance to reflect “the America we all believe in.” Moore closed his lecture by reading his proposed pledge: “I pledge allegiance to the people of the United States of America / and to the republic for which we stand / one nation, part of one world / with liberty and justice for all.”

I’m.... speechless. Truly speechless. Band high fructose corn syrup? Draft only the children of the rich? CHANGE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE???  I’m telling you… if Obama has friends like this he certainly needs no enemies. If Moore et al keep these types of stunts up I predict McCain will have no problems at all winning in November.

*shakes head*

Fred Thompson give Moore something to think about

This was just so funny that I had to share it with you all. PJTV caught up with Fred Thompson last night at the RNC and asked him about Moore’s statements in the last week. Thompson’s reaction was simply priceless. Here, just watch:

Classic. I wonder what Moore’s response will be to this one? ;)

Once Again, Capitalism Saves the World

When Michael Moore wants to drop a few pounds he usually just pays someone to use Photoshop to stick his head on the body of a smaller fat guy.  Other than that he pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to the world’s most exclusive fat farm resorts.  However, if you’re a nurse in the socialist medical utopia of the UK, you just let the taxpayers pick up the bill.

Overweight nurses are to get personal trainers and high street vouchers to encourage them to lose weight.

More than 200 NHS staff are being equipped with pedometers and offered motivational fitness coaches to help them slim down.

They have been promised £20 of high street store vouchers if they manage to keep the weight off during the year-long pilot.

But here comes the best part.  Are you ready?  Make sure you’re sitting down, because this is awesome.

The £250,000 scheme at Birmingham East and North Primary Care Trust is being run by American healthcare company Humana, which wants to roll the programme out across Britain.

That’s right, folks!  The compassionate, free governmental fantasyland of the UK is turning to an evil, greedy, for-profit, heartless capitalist American company to get their lard-ass nurses to drop weight. 

My God, it’s almost as if socialism doesn’t work, and the free market provides solutions that government either cannot or will not!  Who could have ever imagined such a thing?

Dead Baby Jokes

You know that wonderful medical utopia in the UK, where everyone gets all the super duper magical free healthcare they could ever need, and it’s paid for by fairies and unicorns?  Well, it’s killing babies.

A devastating report on the state of Britain’s maternity services has concluded that they put the lives of women and their babies at risk.

The first national inquiry into maternity care by the Healthcare Commission, the NHS watchdog, has revealed a critical shortage of midwives, obstetricians absent from wards, a lack of beds and poor continuity of care. These have contributed to high death rates in some units and threaten the long-term health of mothers and their babies in others.

The inquiry, which is the largest ever carried out, involved all 150 NHS maternity units in England. It was triggered by separate full-scale investigations conducted at three trusts where mothers and babies died, which revealed failings indicative of a national pattern.

The three trusts were Northwick Park Hospital in Harrow, where 10 mothers died between 2002 and 2005, New Cross in Wolverhampton, where three babies died in two months in 2003, and Ashford & St Peters in Surrey, where there was a series of serious incidents in 2000 and 2001.

The Healthcare Commission said the root cause of poor performance was weak leadership by managers and medical staff. Many trusts were critically short of midwives, with numbers ranging from 40 per 1,000 births in the best-staffed trusts to 25 per 1,000 in the worst.

Only two-thirds of trusts had a consultant present on their wards for 40 hours a week – the basic safety standard laid down by the Royal College of Obstetricians. The study also revealed a five-fold variation in the number of consultants among trusts, from 3.3 to 0.6 per 1,000 births. In some trusts this meant consultants were present on the wards for just 10 hours a week.

More than £660m was paid out by NHS trusts in the three years to 2007 in negligence cases for obstetric claims – enough to hire 1,000 extra consultant obstetricians. Maternity services account for one in 10 requests to the Healthcare Commission to investigate particular trusts. Today’s report, which included surveys of 5,000 staff and 26,000 mothers, says nine out of 10 mothers rated their care as good. But it said there were “significant weaknesses”, with wide variations in standards between trusts. Many of the problems identified in earlier investigations were widespread, suggesting that NHS trusts are not giving maternity services priority. Sir Ian Kennedy, chairman of the commission, said: “I don’t ever again want to be reading another report into high death rates at a maternity unit.”

It’s worth noting that this report comes from The Independent, one of Britain’s leftie papers.  Ah, socialism.  Guaranteeing the same equal level of misery and shitty treatment for everyone.  (Except of course the rich, who can avoid the whole socialist disaster altogether by paying for private care themselves.)

Guess What?  Socialism Kills People

It’s often been our contention, as vehement critics of socialized medicine and its supporters like Moore, that all government healthcare provides is the same equally shitty service to everyone.  (Except, of course, the wealthy, who can pay for their own treatments.) As usual the Times of London lays it out.

The National Health Service is providing dying cancer patients with drugs that are five times less effective than those available privately and is refusing to treat them if they try to buy medicines themselves.

That’s right, folks.  If you decide to use your own money to pay for the life-saving drugs that your free healthcare system doesn’t provide, you’re shit out of luck on any future treatment.  Their policy is, “Use our substandard care or you’re on your own.” Ah, compassion.

One drug for kidney cancer, routinely available through public health systems in most European countries but not to British patients, can reduce the size of tumours in 31% of patients, compared with just 6% of those prescribed the standard NHS drug.

The growing row over “co-payments” has prompted the government to reconsider the ban. Alan Johnson, the health secretary, has promised a “fundamental rethink” of the policy.

Just not a fundamental rethink of the socialist disaster which created the problem in the first place.

A woman with bowel cancer is fighting for the right to pay for a drug that could extend her life long enough for her to spend Christmas with her grandchildren.

Sheila Norrington, 59, a former NHS medical secretary from Maidstone, Kent, has been told by doctors that if she buys the drug Erbitux, which the health service will not pay for, she will lose her state-funded cancer care. Erbitux is the only drug capable of treating her advanced bowel cancer.

Norrington’s husband, Goff, 61, a former sales manager, said: “We have been told that if we pay for it ourselves we will be thrown off the NHS completely and we will need to pay for everything privately. We are devastated. This is not going to cure my wife, but if it keeps her alive a little bit longer, then we would pay for it.”

The couple say that although they could pay for a few cycles of the drug, which costs about £3,000 a month, they could not pay for all Norrington’s care, including scans, blood tests and consultations.

Goff Norrington added: “We have two young granddaughters and this could make the difference between sitting round the table with them at Christmas or not. We think it is deplorable that patients can get this drug almost anywhere in Europe but we cannot get it in the UK.”

A spokesman for Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust said: “We are governed by Department of Health policy on this issue.”

And why shouldn’t they be?  The government is the one paying for it.  They aren’t concerned with individuals, they’re concerned with doling out their limited resources in the most compassionate and fair manner, which in this case is simply letting people die.

A poll for The Sunday Times shows strong support for allowing co-payment in the National Health Service, with 89% saying that people who buy additional cancer drugs should continue to get free NHS treatment.

Only 5% think allowing co-payment would create a two-tier NHS. Until now this has been the position taken by Alan Johnson, the health secretary.

Ministers had feared that allowing co-payment would upset less well-off patients, but the YouGov poll of nearly 1,800 people shows strong backing across the social spectrum and supporters of all three main parties.

This, of course, begs the question.  If compassionate free government healthcare can’t provide, y’know, actual healthcare to patients, and they are forced to paying massive amounts of money to buy their own treatments, maybe the solution to the problem is less free government healthcare and more private sector solutions.

Wow, paying for healthare.  What a concept!

Moore set to publish an “Election Guide” in the fall

I must be honest… I’m not quite sure what to make of this yet:

Michael Moore is coming out with a new book. The tome, titled “Mike’s Election Guide,” a manual of mockery for the 2008 presidential election, will be published Aug. 19 by Grand Central Publishing, Jimmy Franco, a spokesman for the publisher, said Friday.

Promotional material for the book reads: “Perfectly timed to coincide with the national political conventions—and to capitalize on massive campaign coverage.”

That is the sum total of all the details I’ve been able to find as of now, so I have no real idea what this book will be about. “Manual of mockery”? What does that even mean?

Moorewatchers… any guesses as to what types of shenanigans Moore is cooking up this time? 

Moore declares new film to be toxic and dangerous… again….

I think we’ve all heard these claims from Moore about his movies before, haven’t we?

Oscar-winning documentary maker Michael Moore, who this week unveiled plans for a follow-up to his anti-Bush polemic “Fahrenheit 9/11,” said on Friday the new film would cover topics so “toxic” he probably should not make it.

But Moore, whose work ranges from an expose of American gun culture in “Bowling for Columbine” to a scathing critique of U.S. health care in “SiCKO,” relishes controversy, so his unnamed new movie will likewise be risky, he told reporters at the Cannes film festival.

“It’s something I shouldn’t make, something that is dangerous,” he said.

Is is just me or is this hype of Moore’s becoming something of a mantra for him? He said it about Bowling, he said it about Fahrenheit, and he said it about Sicko. Not one of those films turned out to be either “toxic” or “dangerous”, largely due to the hefty amount of factual errors, inaccuracies and outright untruths contained within them. But no… *this* one will be different:

At box offices, his new movie will face risks. Recent films dealing with the current wars, such as “Stop-Loss” and “In the Valley of Elah,” were commercial flops.

But Moore said he believed those movies failed because most Americans no longer support the wars, whereas in 2004, when “Fahrenheit 9/11” was released, most Americans still backed U.S. military pursuits in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He believes “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which ranks as the top-grossing political documentary of all time with more than $220 million at global box offices, was a hit because it told audiences things about the Bush administration that they were surprised to hear.

Similarly, he said his new movie will succeed by exposing information about President George W. Bush and his policies that will leave audiences stunned.

“What I’m going to say in this film is what probably 70 percent of them (audiences) don’t want to hear,” Moore said.

Yes, Mr. Moore. You’ve got something right. We probably aren’t going to want to hear what you have to say in this new film venture of yours. You see, we’re all getting a little tired of your fictional diatribes against America getting masqueraded as documentaries. If you’d like to truly shock us… how about making this movie… I don’t know… based on the truth? That would certainly shock me.

Go Home and Die

Here’s some more of that wonderful socialist compassion that is supposed to infuse our cousins across the Atlantic, this proving their inherent moral superiority over us.

An HIV-positive Ugandan woman’s claim to stay in the UK has been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights.

Her lawyers argued that a lack of medical care in Uganda would lead to her early death, and this would amount to cruel and degrading treatment.

The government denies this, saying all NHS HIV drugs are available in Uganda.

The court agreed that if the unnamed woman were sent back to Uganda, there would be no violation of the bar on inhuman or degrading treatment.

When the woman entered the UK in March 1998 under an assumed name, she was seriously ill and was admitted to hospital.

Soon afterwards, solicitors lodged an asylum application on her behalf, claiming she had been raped by government soldiers in Uganda because of her association with the Lord’s Resistance Army, a rebel group in the north of the country.

The lawyers argued that her life would be in danger if she were returned to Uganda.

By November 1998, she was diagnosed with two illnesses which are known to be indicators of having AIDS, and as being in an extremely advanced state of HIV infection.

Her asylum claim was rejected in March 2001, a decision she appealed against.

In rejecting her claim, the secretary of state found no evidence that Ugandan authorities were interested in her and that treatment of Aids in Uganda was comparable to any other African country.

The secretary of state also found that all the major anti-viral drugs were available in Uganda at highly subsidised prices.

In January the government sent a terminally ill Ghanaian woman who had been receiving treatment in the UK back to her country because her visa had expired.

Now, which do you think is more likely, that she was deported because of a expired viusa, or because and HIV diagnisis would reqire thirthy fo forty more years of retroviral and “drug cocktail” therapy to keep her alive, when we all know that NHS is failing miserably to provide even basic care to the citizenry.  So rather than deal with the expense of treating this woman they’re sending her back home, to her happy land full of sunshine and rainbows and rivers of chocolate, where the children dance and play with gumdrop smiles.

Full discosure:  The US has some pretty draconian laws regarding HIV people obtaining citizenship in this country.  I’m just as opposed to this as I am to what these European dickwads are doing? 

See?  That’s called “intellectual honesty.” You Moore fans should try it once in a while.

Getting Care to the Sick

Michael Moore has stated that evil capitalism is the cause of all America’s healthcare woes, and that only the loving, warm, benevolent arms of the nanny state can provide what we need.  (He has explicitly called for the abolition of private health insurance.) But it seems that (gasp!) maybe one solution to the problem is to get rid of the bloodsucking trial lawyers.

Tort reform, of course, resulting in substantially lower medical malpractice premiums and expenses, and an influx of 7000 doctors, including into many underserved regions. One indirect benefit: with less money spent on medical malpractice lawyers, self-insuring hospitals can spend more on doctors and on medical practice:

Take Christus Health, a nonprofit Catholic health system across the state. Thanks to tort reform, over the past four years Christus saved $100 million that it otherwise would have spent fending off bogus lawsuits or paying higher insurance premiums. Every dollar saved was reinvested in helping poor patients.

Also of relevance: the amusing results when Texas added evidentiary standards of medical harm to their asbestos and silicosis docket. Suddenly, over 99% of the cases went away because so few suing plaintiffs had a doctor willing to certify harm.

My God, what a concept!  It should be noted, gentle reader, that trial lawyers overwhelmingly donate to Democrats.  In return, the Democrats will inevitably put a stop to this terrible example of the deregulated free market actually, y’know, improving the lives of patients.  For liberals, especially those like Moore, the means are more important than the ends.  Moore doesn’t want to see more people get healthcare, he wants to prove that socialism is super peachy awesome, and he pimps out sick people to make that point.  Any solution which is not directly attributable to government intervention will not sit well with him, because it won’t support his overall thesis that eeeeeevil capitalism is to blame for everything.

Update Well well well.  It looks like the Democrats are dutifully bending over for their ambulance-chasing overlords with a nice $1.6 billion payoff which somehow managed to find its way into the Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008.

The language is from Sec. 311, Uniform Treatment of Attorney-Advanced Expenses and Court Costs in Contingency Fee Cases. The provisions allow trial attorneys to deduct advanced litigation fees regardless of whether their contingency fee was structured as a “net” or a “gross” fee arrangement. The law does not now allow lawyers to take a current tax deduction under a net fee arrangement.

Anything that makes it easier for bloodsucking mass tort lawyers to drive up the costs of healthcare (and everything else). 

A Film With Heart

You know how when you’re watching a movie, and there are three guys sitting around drinking beer, and all the beer bottles are positioned so you can clearly read the label?  That’s called product placement, which Wikipedia defines thus:

Product placement is a type of advertising, in which promotional advertisements placed by marketers using real commercial products and services in media, where the presence of a particular brand is the result of an economic exchange. When featuring a product is not part of an economic exchange, it is called a product plug. Product placement appears in plays, film, television series, music videos, video games and books. It became more common starting in the 1980s, but can be traced back to at least 1949. Product placement occurs with the inclusion of a brand’s logo in shot, or a favorable mention or appearance of a product in shot. This is done without disclosure, and under the premise that it is a natural part of the work. Most major movie releases today contain product placements.

This is one means by which movies get funded.  For example, in the last two or three James Bond movies starring Pierce Brosnan came out Bond was driving a BMW.  The producers signed a deal with BMW to provide the vehicle in exchange for monetary or other consideration.  When the last movie, Casino Royale, came out the producers signed a deal with Ford.  When Bond first goes to Bermuda he rents a small Ford which he drives to the hotel.  Once there he ends up winning the bad guy’s Aston Martin in a poker game.  Later on we see Bond driving his pimped-out Aston Martin, the one with the defibrillator in it.  At the time Ford owned Aston Martin, thus the majority of vehicles in the movie are by Ford.  (Apparently the new owners of Aston Martin have agreed to abide by the terms of the contract entered into by Ford, so Bond will be driving an Aston Martin for the next few films.)

The End of Obama

Michael Moore has endorsed Obama.  This should be the death knell for the Obama campaign, since not a single candidate for political office endorsed by Michael Moore has ever won.  The endorsement is aboout what you’d expect, the usual nonsensical ramblings of a multimillionaire socialist.  Read it yourself if you like, I just want to make a couple of observations.

I don’t get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan.

No you don’t, Michael, you live in a penthouse in Manhattan.  Jim and I know your home address.  You own property in a swanky part of Michigan.  (You know, where you held your film festival, rather than in Flint, the town you claim to come from but don’t.  Why help out the disadvantaged in Flint when you can suck up to the rest of the millionaire liberals who own gigantic private estates?) So, either you’re registered to vote in two places (New York and Michigan) or you’re lying your ass off to perpetuate the farcical image of yourself as an average Joe.  Both of these sound equally plausible.

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years.

And here we see the classic liberal self-image as a pathetic waif being beaten by an all-powerful machine.  This is one of the things I find more vulgar and disgusting about liberalism than anything else, their incessant need to view themselves as victims.  I guess this is why they believe that the government is the solution to ever conceivable problem.  If people weren’t pathetic victims they might be able to find solutions to some of their own problems, and if that were to happen (God forbid!) it would deny liberals the ability to derive self-satisfaction from pointing to a government program and saying, “See what a wonderful person I am?  I supported that proposal!”

It’s foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country.

Thus says a guy who has made himself filthy, stinking rich by working with massive corporations.  But let’s not let a little rank hypocrisy get in the way of your own perceived sense of victimhood, huh Mike?  Just keep dressing like a slob and wearing your baseball caps, the world is full of idiots who will actually buy your little persona.