Criticizing Michael Moore for making "propaganda".

[The Heart Collector]

America is, by far, the nation with the most insidious and deplorable propaganda I've ever lived in, and I've lived in a few. there is no other country I've seen that has such a strong and unquestionable fetish towards its fauxstory; from the bizarre Constitution worship to the Founding Fathers psychosexual obsession to the insane deification of "American values" that have never actually existed to its view as some sort of torch carrier for the fight of freedom and equality.

Michael Moore's movies fit squarely in there. He's never made anything that tries to question these ideas. No, he actually supports them, and his films always have the tone that "gee, if only we get rid of this bad apple or this bad system then we'll be the greatest thing in the history of humanity again".

So what's the deal with criticizing Michael Moore for making "propaganda"? Is there such a brutal and unrelenting obsession with mythologizing in the U.S. that anything that strays from its absolute center (not even from the boundaries, since Moore never does) is some sort of Riefenstahlesque affront to APPLIE PIE and THE TROOPS or whatever other fucking nonsensical bag of shit is being worshipped on any given day?

[someguy]

Don't forget about how 'the troops' are infallible and cannot be criticized at all. Either way I agree with this rant.

[CyclicNightmare]

I don't understand what you guys are talking about.

[outsyder]

So what you're saying is that they are propaganda.

[The Postmaster General]

I think the people who act as if they are exposing some hidden truth, when they criticize Moore for making propaganda, are the same people who are surprised to learn John Waters is gay.

[Cbenz]

I guess Michael Moore is too right wing for you?

I honestly mean no offense by this, but I have seen a number of your posts, Heart Collector, and I'm curious: What is your ideal country? (It doesn't have to really exist.)

By the way "Heart Collector" is a great, great song.

[The Postmaster General]

I guess Michael Moore is too right wing for you?

I honestly mean no offense by this, but I have seen a number of your posts, Heart Collector, and I'm curious: What is your ideal country? (It doesn't have to really exist.)

By the way "Heart Collector" is a great, great song.


He's saying that criticizing Moore for making propaganda rings false, since it isn't the propaganda part of his films people don't like, it's the ideals that they don't.

[jdparker]

the Founding Fathers psychosexual obsession to the insane deification of "American values" that have never actually existed to its view as some sort of torch carrier for the fight of freedom and equality.

How is this psychosexual? Are you using shock gargon, or is there actually something behind this? I'd say most what, I think, you're implying can be chocked to early American ideology that has held weight for some centuries now.

I do agree with your rant though.

[echo_bravo]

America is, by far, the nation with the most insidious and deplorable propaganda I've ever lived in, and I've lived in a few. there is no other country I've seen that has such a strong and unquestionable fetish towards its fauxstory;

What about China or Iran???

And where exactly are you located now? I could of sworn you said you were living in Chicago...

[Cbenz]

He's saying that criticizing Moore for making propaganda rings false, since it isn't the propaganda part of his films people don't like, it's the ideals that they don't.

I thought he was commenting on the irony that many people cite Moore's films as leftist propaganda, when in reality, his works still support American dominance in the world. Moore believes that America can get right "back on top" if the changes he speaks of in his films are made. A true leftist would never support the continued success American society, as that dominance (real or perceived) is a result of capitalism.

Ultimately, he is saying that people call Moore a leftist propagandist, when in reality his propaganda supports America (the capitalist demon and enemy of leftist thought) so it can't be leftist. He thinks Moore and his critics are on the same side.

I disagree, but it is an interesting argument.

[The Postmaster General]

I thought he was commenting on the irony that many people cite Moore's films as leftist propaganda, when in reality, his works still support American dominance in the world. Moore believes that America can get right "back on top" if the changes he speaks of in his films are made. A true leftist would never support the continued success American society, as that dominance (real or perceived) is a result of capitalism.

Ultimately, he is saying that people call Moore a leftist propagandist, when in reality his propaganda supports America (the capitalist demon and enemy of leftist thought) so it can't be leftist. He thinks Moore and his critics are on the same side.

I disagree, but it is an interesting argument.


I don't know, I saw it differently because of the quotation marks around 'propaganda'. Then someguy also pointing out the similarity with Moore films and RW prop films in glorifying the troops. Maybe THC can clear this up, since several people seem to be unclear what he's ranting about.

[John Galt]

Michael Moore is a consumer; not a capitalist.



On the serious side though, I really have no idea what the hell Heart Collector is pissing about. Maybe his hybrid car broke down or he had cognitive dissonance from a mugger carrying a gun in a gun free zone.

[APzombie]

i'm a little sketchy on the multifaceted rant. I understand the broad strokes of the argument against Moore's protesters, it's just the first part thats iffy.

"from the bizarre Constitution worship"
For a system to work, you need a system to believe in. Faith in a system builds a stronger foundation for any country, similarly Jews and Christians have the Ten Commandments. Too much faith can lead to blind superiority and a lack of tolerance, if that's what you mean.

"to the Founding Fathers psychosexual obsession"
Same as above. Faith in the system lends to faith in the creators.

"to the insane deification of "American values" that have never actually existed"
Similar to the Ten Commandments, there is an acceptance that people will never live a sinless life, that doesn't mean they shouldn't live without striving for those virtues. Although i'm sketchy on what exactly American values are, i don't think everyone believes they are an absolute, nor were they ever.

"to its view as some sort of torch carrier for the fight of freedom and equality."
I agree with this somewhat. I don't think it's wrong to have values striving for freedom and equality, i just think America believes there is only freedom and equality through 'America'... kind of like Jesus (man my whole response was theologically allegorical)

[QUENTIN]

i'm a little sketchy on the multifaceted rant. I understand the broad strokes of the argument against Moore's protesters, it's just the first part thats iffy.

"from the bizarre Constitution worship"
For a system to work, you need a system to believe in. Faith in a system builds a stronger foundation for any country, similarly Jews and Christians have the Ten Commandments. Too much faith can lead to blind superiority and a lack of tolerance, if that's what you mean.

But this idea that the Constitution is a "perfect document" and treating it like it's word from God is bullshit. It was written exclusively by 55 rich, landed white men shielded from public view and without public input. Its wording and laws were primarily established because those with money and property, the guys writing it, were very reasonably afraid, given all the rabble rousing and rebellious, revolutionary spirit of the day (Shays Rebellion of poor, indebted farmers against the usurious debtors, etc) that The People of the land who actually worked for a living were going to take and distribute their unequal income by force and seize and claim the land they worked. They needed to come up with a legal justification for getting to keep all of their money and land while compromising enough and offering the average citizen enough that they were placated enough not to violently overthrow the powerful and instill a real egalitarian democracy. So this idea that it's the most glorious and shining example of liberty ever put to paper is middle school textbook malarkey. I end up being a pretty strict Constitutionalist myself because it's the best thing we have, like or not is what makes America America, and usually those who stray are straying to take away rights, not provide more, but we do have a bizarre and unfounded worship for it like it was a magnanimous gift bestowed upon us rather than largely just a means to allow rich people justification to keep their property.


"to the Founding Fathers psychosexual obsession"
Same as above. Faith in the system lends to faith in the creators.

Except the founding fathers were almost all of them privileged, slave-owning, immoral assholes. Jay and Hamilton were among the only prominent founders who were opposed to slavery, but not so opposed that they weren't cool being chummy with people who made their living by torturing human beings and turning them into chattel to line their pockets. Even Jefferson, arguably the greatest founding father and probably one of the world's foremost thinkers on the subject of freedom and human liberty, was a disgusting, slave-owning rapist piece of shit. We ignore, whitewash, or excuse the fact that if such a place exists, surely the founding fathers are in Hell and if not, should have been in jail were laws remotely just or ethical at the time. These were horrendously awful people, not national heroes or role models. Imagine if Spain today admired the inquisitors, or if Americans worshiped Columbus...


"to the insane deification of "American values" that have never actually existed"
Similar to the Ten Commandments, there is an acceptance that people will never live a sinless life, that doesn't mean they shouldn't live without striving for those virtues. Although i'm sketchy on what exactly American values are, i don't think everyone believes they are an absolute, nor were they ever.

The only steadfast American value one can really point to that bridges our history is "Fuck you, pay me." An insatiable greed that motivates any act, no matter how terrible, so long as it makes money. Otherwise, what value have we regularly and consistently embraced as a nation?


"to its view as some sort of torch carrier for the fight of freedom and equality."
I agree with this somewhat. I don't think it's wrong to have values striving for freedom and equality, i just think America believes there is only freedom and equality through 'America'... kind of like Jesus (man my whole response was theologically allegorical)

We are not a free and equal society, nor have we ever been, nor have we ever created a free and equal society elsewhere in the world...so like the rest above, this idea of being a beacon of democracy and freedom for the rest of the world is pretty much unmitigated bullshit with no basis in reality. Each of these criticized commonly held beliefs/traits are held in spite of the fact that they don't conform to a realistic understanding of the Consitution's creation, the so-called founding fathers, and the idea that the American people have uniquely benevolent values, or that the nation as a whole serves as a good example to the rest of the world.

I get where THC is coming from and largely agree. Moore does not question the fundamental, underpinning falsehoods of popular American myth/propaganda of the country's exceptionalism and supposed greatness but rather mostly embraces them while narrowing in on a specific problematic domestic issue (gun violence, President Bush, health care) and keeping his focus on attacking that one issue and proposing alternatives. This, coupled with the fact that his documentaries are incredibly thoroughly researched and there has yet to be any inaccurate assertion of fact found in any of his movies, make the idea that he's some far-left anti-American propagandist mostly a load of crap.

I don't think I'm telling you or anyone anything they don't know, but it seems people are confused about what THC was saying and I think that's a rough elucidation of some of his points... Or maybe my own misinterpretation, but that's how I took it and I largely agree with what he has to say, as I read it anyway.

[Cbenz]

I can agree that the founding fathers shouldn’t be worshiped like prophets. They had vices and faults like any man does; in fact, most of the founders had more extreme faults than the average man of that time. However, the fact that they owned slaves does not completely discredit their ideas. Slavery is an immoral and despicable practice that the majority of the world’s nations have employed at some point in time. The ancient American Indian civilizations (Aztec, Inca, etc.) were slave owners. The Egyptians, from whom African Americans are quick to claim ancestry from: slave owners. Yet we appreciate the knowledge that these cultures passed on to the world, in spite of their violent, slave-owning histories. Why is America so much different?

The hypocrisy of the founders in writing that “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence, while owning slaves, is discrediting to the men themselves, not the document. They knew that what they were doing was wrong when they wrote that. However, for rich old white who were just tying to protect their own property, the founders sure did create one of the most significant documents of all time, which has influenced the creation countless representative republics across the globe.

What really irks me is this idea that the constitution is perceived by the left as an untouchable, static document, only when republicans are in office. As soon as the left regains power, it is a “living document” that must be changed because it was written by evil, old white men. When the Patriot Act passes, Bush is trampling over the constitution! But once a Democrat hits the scene, let’s change it quick!

I say anyone who is for radically changing the U.S. constitution is nuts, Republican or Democrat. We need this document to ensure that the right wing doesn’t strip us of our rights in the global war on terror, or whatever they come up with next to marginalize Non-Christians. The constitution will hopefully keep you left wingers from allowing a president to pull a Hugo Chavez, by erasing term limits and giving the president the power of decree to fight the “good fight” for the proletariat against the capitalist pigs. Either you are a constitutionalist, or you’re not. Stop pretending to be a constitutionalist if all you want is for the document to suit your own needs.

[The Postmaster General]

What really irks me is this idea that the constitution is perceived by the left as an untouchable, static document, only when republicans are in office. As soon as the left regains power, it is a “living document” that must be changed because it was written by evil, old white men. When the Patriot Act passes, Bush is trampling over the constitution! But once a Democrat hits the scene, let’s change it quick!


Couldn't the same be said of either side, eg the 2nd?

[Cbenz]

Couldn't the same be said of either side, eg the 2nd?

Of course! The difference is that Republicans take a more insidious route by passing unconstitutional laws (Patriot Act) while telling the masses they are un-American for not supporting the legislation. However, I think the Republicans are so oblivious that they actually believe laws like the Patriot act are constitutional, when they clearly are not. Republicans seem to constantly confuse the bible and the constitution. "If it's okay in the bible then it's okay in the constitution too!" (Because we were founded as a Christian nation, after all). Their stupidity stems from a ridiculous ignorance.

The left still pisses me off more though, because they seem to actually know what is going on. They bash the Republicans for passing unconstitutional legislation, and then blatantly downplay the constitution's importance when they want to make a change. They have no reverence for the constitution whatsoever, and they know it. They just want their way.

[QUENTIN]

I can agree that the founding fathers shouldn’t be worshiped like prophets. They had vices and faults like any man does; in fact, most of the founders had more extreme faults than the average man of that time. However, the fact that they owned slaves does not completely discredit their ideas. Slavery is an immoral and despicable practice that the majority of the world’s nations have employed at some point in time. The ancient American Indian civilizations (Aztec, Inca, etc.) were slave owners. The Egyptians, from whom African Americans are quick to claim ancestry from: slave owners. Yet we appreciate the knowledge that these cultures passed on to the world, in spite of their violent, slave-owning histories. Why is America so much different?

The hypocrisy of the founders in writing that “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence, while owning slaves, is discrediting to the men themselves, not the document. They knew that what they were doing was wrong when they wrote that. However, for rich old white who were just tying to protect their own property, the founders sure did create one of the most significant documents of all time, which has influenced the creation countless representative republics across the globe.

What really irks me is this idea that the constitution is perceived by the left as an untouchable, static document, only when republicans are in office. As soon as the left regains power, it is a “living document” that must be changed because it was written by evil, old white men. When the Patriot Act passes, Bush is trampling over the constitution! But once a Democrat hits the scene, let’s change it quick!

I say anyone who is for radically changing the U.S. constitution is nuts, Republican or Democrat. We need this document to ensure that the right wing doesn’t strip us of our rights in the global war on terror, or whatever they come up with next to marginalize Non-Christians. The constitution will hopefully keep you left wingers from allowing a president to pull a Hugo Chavez, by erasing term limits and giving the president the power of decree to fight the “good fight” for the proletariat against the capitalist pigs. Either you are a constitutionalist, or you’re not. Stop pretending to be a constitutionalist if all you want is for the document to suit your own needs.

I agree with pretty much everything you said.

Slavery discredits the heroism or greatness or integrity of the founding fathers, not their ideas or Constitution itself. I didn't intend to imply otherwise. However, I make no excuse for slavery in any time, just because it was rampant. Anymore than I excuse rape or murder when they happened during more socially acceptable eras. My morals are absolute and slavery is absolutely wrong, tolerance of slavery is likewise inexcusable. Therefore, all founding fathers were horrendous, despicable people. Aztecs and Egyptians too, most hierarchical, violent civilizations throughout history were run by giant assholes, America is no different. This doesn't mean everything the founding fathers did or said is worthless, as I said Jefferson is one of the world's foremost thinkers on the subject of human liberty and some of his writing is profound and stirring on its own merit, but one should also recognize what kind of an insincere, immoral hypocrite it came from. It's like if Roman Polanski, an immensely talented filmmaker, made a great movie about the evils of pedophilia. Doesn't make the movie itself bad, but you also shouldn't ignore the source.

The context of the Constitution's creation is not meant to discredit it either, but to understand it more realistically. The commonly held idea is basically that these glorious men, in their altruism, wanted to bestow liberty upon the people and make the country a free land. The reality is that most of them were primarily concerned with assuring legal protection to keep land that wasn't very legitimately theirs from the masses of hard-working poor people who wanted to claim some land for themselves. Shays Rebellion, and growing and serious threats of similar widespread rebellion among the People, was the inciting incident that led to the Philadelphia Convention. That context basically just provides motive, which is important in understanding the document's primary purpose, its language, what it includes, what it leaves out. But in the compromise necessary to appease the people, which was significant, these men who though all immoral did count many great minds among them, forged a document that assured a great many more protections and rights to the white men (not the people mind you) than nearly any previous nation. Personally, despite all these misgivings I consider myself a fairly strict Constitutionalist, because once government openly violates the Constitution, there is little assuring us of any of the other so-called "inalienable" rights found within, the first amendment chief among them. Practically of course, it's broken thousands of times a day by law enforcement, political leaders, and government officials around the country, and I think far more harm comes from straying from the document than adhering to it. The Constitution itself is intended as a living document, that's abundantly clear from its own text, and is true regardless of who's in office. But the document can only be amended via the legal means established, passing and applying other laws that contradict the document is of course itself illegal, despite the common practice. Democrats on the whole are slightly better on this issue than Republicans on the whole, but only marginally, the politicians representing either party are primarily concerned with politics and power-wielding, they're unconcerned with citizen's rights or the sanctity of the Constitution. I would seriously warn against using the left/Democrats interchangeably though as you have. What you are decrying when referring to "the left" is almost exclusively, certainly in terms of changing the Constitution, the action of Democrats which as a national political party have less then 20 leftists in their ranks of hundreds and are opposed to the vast majority of any leftist platform. Democrats ≠ leftists, not even remotely.

[Cbenz]

I agree with pretty much everything you said.

Slavery discredits the heroism or greatness or integrity of the founding fathers, not their ideas or Constitution itself. I didn't intend to imply otherwise. However, I make no excuse for slavery in any time, just because it was rampant. Anymore than I excuse rape or murder when they happened during more socially acceptable eras. My morals are absolute and slavery is absolutely wrong, tolerance of slavery is likewise inexcusable. Therefore, all founding fathers were horrendous, despicable people. Aztecs and Egyptians too, most hierarchical, violent civilizations throughout history were run by giant assholes, America is no different. This doesn't mean everything the founding fathers did or said is worthless, as I said Jefferson is one of the world's foremost thinkers on the subject of human liberty and some of his writing is profound and stirring on its own merit, but one should also recognize what kind of an insincere, immoral hypocrite it came from. It's like if Roman Polanski, an immensely talented filmmaker, made a great movie about the evils of pedophilia. Doesn't make the movie itself bad, but you also shouldn't ignore the source.

The context of the Constitution's creation is not meant to discredit it either, but to understand it more realistically. The commonly held idea is basically that these glorious men, in their altruism, wanted to bestow liberty upon the people and make the country a free land. The reality is that most of them were primarily concerned with assuring legal protection to keep land that wasn't very legitimately theirs from the masses of hard-working poor people who wanted to claim some land for themselves. Shays Rebellion, and growing and serious threats of similar widespread rebellion among the People, was the inciting incident that led to the Philadelphia Convention. That context basically just provides motive, which is important in understanding the document's primary purpose, its language, what it includes, what it leaves out. But in the compromise necessary to appease the people, which was significant, these men who though all immoral did count many great minds among them, forged a document that assured a great many more protections and rights to the white men (not the people mind you) than nearly any previous nation. Personally, despite all these misgivings I consider myself a fairly strict Constitutionalist, because once government openly violates the Constitution, there is little assuring us of any of the other so-called "inalienable" rights found within, the first amendment chief among them. Practically of course, it's broken thousands of times a day by law enforcement, political leaders, and government officials around the country, and I think far more harm comes from straying from the document than adhering to it. The Constitution itself is intended as a living document, that's abundantly clear from its own text, and is true regardless of who's in office. But the document can only be amended via the legal means established, passing and applying other laws that contradict the document is of course itself illegal, despite the common practice. Democrats on the whole are slightly better on this issue than Republicans on the whole, but both only slightly, the politicians representing either party are primary concerned with politics and power-wielding, they're unconcerned with citizen's rights or the sanctity of the Constitution. I would seriously warn against using the left/Democrats interchangeably though as you have. What you are decrying when referring to "the left" is almost exclusively, certainly in terms of changing the Constitution, the action of Democrats which as a national political party have less then 20 leftists in their ranks of hundreds and are opposed to the vast majority of any leftist platform. Democrats ≠ leftists, not even remotely.

I likewise agree with most of your statement Quentin. I am glad to hear that you hold consistent beliefs on slavery. It angers me when people rant about American slavery, while glossing over the similar and more sinister actions taken by other countries. The only thing worse about American slavery when compared to other forms of enslavement throughout history is the hypocrisy and racism that accompanied it; even that isn’t exclusive to American society. The “your slavery was worse than my slavery” argument is pointless. It was all wrong.

As far as my lumping of Democrats and leftists goes, you’re right. They are fundamentally different. However, I don’t think leftists are any better. I just can’t get over the leftist idea that if we elect “the right” people and give the government more of our money and power, our government institutions will suddenly become benevolent and the power will belong to the people. It always seems to end in Statism (case in point: Hugo Chavez). A leftist is usually a statist in populist clothing.

I come from the barbaric school of thought that people deserve both personal and economic freedom. Imagine that. Republican/Democrat, Fascist/Leftist, they all want you to choose one type of freedom over the other. In my view, a good government works to preserve those things for all people. Ultimately, I trust myself, my neighbor, and my employer more than I trust the government. I recognize the faults of capitalism, but prefer it over the alternative.

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

"Michael Moore is propaganda, Marilyn Manson is the true reason behind the Columbine Shootings, any religion besides Christianity is witchcraft/satanic, and here in America we speak American."-Stereotypical American peep

This is exactly how I believe America and Christianity have brainwashed people into thinking. Now before I go on, I do support any religion and think it (religion) is an essential element of life, and also support America...on some things. They have our people (these Americanese) that you have to be close-minded, and what you are told by the t.v. is the absolute truth, and you should believe nothing else. It truly is pathetic that people let their nation and their religion do all the thinking for them, whatever happened to individuality?

(Sorry if this Post seems a tad off-topic.)

[The Heart Collector]

There is nothing wrong with reforming a Constitution, or scrapping it. My home country and where I currently reside, Colombia, did it in 1991, and the country did not descent into existential despair immediately afterwards. In fact, you could say it was a pretty decent improvement.

American view of The Constitution goes way beyond 'trust' in a system, it becomes a strange crutch and an obstacle to almost anything. It is very common for people to argue that x/y/z thing that is absolutely the morally appropriate thing to do shouldn't be done because "The Constitution doesn't say anything about x/y/z". To anyone outside of America, that is a strange argument. It seems to indicate that I am supposed to actually like, think about that really hard and stuff, like "whoooaaaaa... he's got a point", rather than "yeah. the Constitution is wrong. so the fuck what."

Constitution worship is no different than most authority worship; for a people that prides itself on being "individualistic", Americans sure like to defer to authority a lot.


As for what my ideal country would be, one that's honest. I'd like that. I don't particularly expect America to change or become "good" or anything, I'd just like it if America was actually honest about it instead of trying to feed the rest of the world this mythical horseshit.

[Abbie Normal]

There is nothing wrong with reforming a Constitution, or scrapping it. My home country and where I currently reside, Colombia, did it in 1991, and the country did not descent into existential despair immediately afterwards. In fact, you could say it was a pretty decent improvement..

Colombia! That explains a lot. jk

Will you be visiting Pablo's Park?

http://www.scpr.org/news/2009/07/22/colombia-tourists-flock-drug-kingpins-ranch/

[Digifruitella]

And we sing, we sing, we sing
And we fight, we fight, we fight
And we cry, we cry, we cry
And we slide, we slide, we slide into the light

[Shinigami]

you already posted this?

hahahahahahahahahaha

[hoojib127]

As far as my lumping of Democrats and leftists goes, you’re right. They are fundamentally different. However, I don’t think leftists are any better. I just can’t get over the leftist idea that if we elect “the right” people and give the government more of our money and power, our government institutions will suddenly become benevolent and the power will belong to the people. It always seems to end in Statism (case in point: Hugo Chavez). A leftist is usually a statist in populist clothing.

Well, I know if I HAD to pick an extreme under which to live, I'd go with communism over fascism any day of the week. : ?

This is exactly how I believe America and Christianity have brainwashed people into thinking. Now before I go on, I do support any religion and think it (religion) is an essential element of life, and also support America...on some things. They have our people (these Americanese) that you have to be close-minded, and what you are told by the t.v. is the absolute truth, and you should believe nothing else. It truly is pathetic that people let their nation and their religion do all the thinking for them, whatever happened to individuality?

But thinking for yourself (not to mention thinking in general) is HAAARRRRRD!!! :p Not thinking unless you absolutely have to has become an American way. It's easier to have others do most (if not all) of the mental legwork for you. Why do you think so many more people went to see "Transformers" instead of, say, "Snow Angels"? Honestly, it's almost come to the point where we might as well change our species name from 'humans' to 'talking hairless apes.' I mean, if we're going to reject the main thing that elevates us over the rest of the species on this planet, then what's the point? :rolleyes:

[The Heart Collector]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwlsDN-Ilkc
michael moore owns.

[Prismatic Sphere]

Well, I know if I HAD to pick an extreme under which to live, I'd go with communism over fascism any day of the week. : ?


That is such a horrible choice, indeed. But communism? No fucking way. I would rather pick fascism over communism on the off chance that I could convince or fool whoever was in charge that I was one of their natural blooded brethren. At least the despots in the world of fascism treat their own countrymen with some respect.

[MightyCelestial]

I like propaganda.
I don't care what it's based on, politically, spiritually or philosophically.
As long as it's propaganda,
I'm in.

[Prismatic Sphere]

Here is a good early article on the new Moore film:


Capitalism: A Love Story - Close, But No Cigar

In a recent Huffington Post article, film critic Marshall Fine veritably gushes over Michael Moore’s latest diatribe, Capitalism: A Love Story, calling it “an urgently important piece of work.” The film’s grievances are legitimate and even admirable. Its conclusions and central premise however, are critically flawed.

Michael Moore pinpoints the problem as “two Americas - and most of us are living in the one that routinely gets the short end of the stick. Why? Because that other America - the one in which the bulk of the country’s wealth is owned by the richest one percent of Americans - is so firmly committed to hanging on to what they’ve got and getting more.”

On this point, few Americans would disagree, including myself and certainly including the oft-derided “tea party” movement, which turned out in droves to protest the transfer of billions of dollars of wealth from ordinary citizens in the “short-end-of-the-stick America” to wealthy corporate interests in the “richest-one-percent America.”

But Michael Moore’s analysis of this problem’s root causes is shallow, unsophisticated, and inaccurate. Why are there two such Americas? Because, Moore argues, the Reagan and Bush Administrations “did so much to deregulate and destabilize our economy in the name of the free market.”

Capitalism, as the film’s title suggests, is the culprit and the target of Michael Moore’s misguided polemics. The free market is the problem and more government regulation is the solution. This common line of thought and rhetoric is so tragic not merely because it is mistaken, but because the mistake is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism itself.

Let’s look again at the picture of the two Americas. Let’s call the bad guys Corporate America and their victims Middle America, because they are middle-to-lower class and often caught in the middle between special corporate interests and a corrupt government that rewards and aids those interests in their fleecing of Middle Americans.

How does Corporate America exercise its power and tyranny over Middle America? Moore points it out himself. One of his biggest grievances against corporate America in Capitalism: A Love Story is the seven hundred billion dollar bailout Wall Street received from the government.

Indeed, Moore’s distributor, Overture Films says that Capitalism: A Love Story chronicles what Moore considers “the biggest robbery in the history of this country the massive transfer of U.S. taxpayer money to private financial institutions.” Watch the trailer yourself and see how central the billion dollar corporate bailout is to Moore’s outrage and criticism.

Then remember that capitalism and free markets are based on no interference from the government. In a system of perfect capitalism, the bailouts would not have occurred. Indeed their very occurrence immediately precludes our system of economics from being considered capitalistic. It is not because our economy was so free and unregulated that this occurred, but because our government is allowed to become so involved in our economy.

In a free market, businesses succeed and fail on the basis of their ideas, on their merit in creating value for society. This is determined by the free and voluntary activity of individuals who exchange with others- again, on the basis of what improves and adds value to their lives. In this model, businesses that don’t create value for others… fail.

But in a controlled economy, the government decides who the winners and losers are irrespective of the value they create. In this case, failing businesses which should lose, get propped up as “winners” by the government, with money that is taken by the government, from taxpayers in Middle America, without their free and voluntary consent.

See who the culprit really is? Yes: the government. If the government were restricted to its Constitutionally enumerated powers (minus two centuries of a lot of case law and its many bizarre interpretations thereof), the bailouts would never have occurred. If America were a truly capitalist country, then the government would not be allowed to intervene by taking your wealth and transferring it to businesses that did not merit it.

If you can clearly and emotionally explain to others what I have written above, while vehemently agreeing with them as you should, that the corporations in America are way out of hand in their scope of power and influence, then we may be able to resolve a deep episode of polarization in American history that should never have happened.

For Michael Moore’s fans on “the left” to so deeply resent and abhor the government’s intrusive corporate bailouts, is an encouraging sign and a bright opportunity to clarify what the nature of capitalism and the proper role of government really are. With a little encouragement and clarity from free market proponents, we may yet see the rise of reason in 21st century American politics.

http://blog.riseofreason.com/capitalism-a-love-story-close-but-no-cigar/633/

[The Heart Collector]

"we need more capitalism"

- the idiot who wrote that

[The Heart Collector]

capitalists, much like communists, defend every abominable thing that happens under their shitty system by saying the system just wasn't applied purely enough

[Bourne101]

http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc321/the_ipol/team-america-michael-moore.jpg
"Time to feed my ego."

[screamer581]

Team America was awful.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Team America was awfully funny!

[LordSimen]

Team America > Michael Moore movies. That's for sure.

[Bourne101]

Team America is much funnier and sharper than any film that Michael Moore has made this decade.

The funny thing is, Michael Moore was completely pro-Matt Stone and Trey Parker and used them as an example in Bowling for Columbine. Unfortunately for Moore, he completely missed the point of South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut and didn't realize that Matt Stone and Trey Parker completely loathe liberals.

[Prismatic Sphere]

capitalists, much like communists, defend every abominable thing that happens under their shitty system by saying the system just wasn't applied purely enough

Except that one can always opt out of capitalism. Under communism, you have no choice in the matter; other than to kill yourself.

[screamer581]

Team America is much funnier and sharper than any film that Michael Moore has made this decade.

The funny thing is, Michael Moore was completely pro-Matt Stone and Trey Parker and used them as an example in Bowling for Columbine. Unfortunately for Moore, he completely missed the point of South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut and didn't realize that Matt Stone and Trey Parker completely loathe liberals.

Sicko, Roger and Me, Bowling>>>>> Team America.



Parker and Stone hate conservatives as well.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Parker and Stone hate everyone equally.

[The Postmaster General]

Parker and Stone find ridicule in everyone. I wouldn't say they hate anyone in general, nor do I think Moore included them in Bowling because he thought he was cozying up to other liberals.

[Reigh Kaufman]

They hate you. Matt especially. Said you had the flittiest little pencil-moustache he had ever seen on anyone not being arrested in a trailer park on Cops.

[Bourne101]

Sicko, Roger and Me, Bowling>>>>> Team America.

Moore's films and Parker's/Stone's films are very different. Not only are they structurally different in that one is a documentary and one is a satire, but their content approaches are also very different. Moore's films try to look at both wings, but he always just ends up taking pot shots at Republicans and right leaning people which ends up overshadowing important information Moore may be trying to convey to his audience. He has a lot of good messages to convey, don't get me wrong, but his approach just completely turns me off. Parker's and Stone's films on the other hand are successful in criticizing and addressing both wings equally. I much prefer the unbiased approach of Parker and Stone rather than the biased and egotistical approach of Moore. Moore is also a media whore and looooves to feed his own ego. This alone makes watching Moore's documentaries often painful and annoying to sit through.

Parker and Stone hate conservatives as well.

True, and I never said otherwise, although their hatred toward both parties is not equal. Stone is a registered Republican and Parker is a registered Libertarian. And when asked about their political views in an interview Stone replied with, "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals." The term "South Park Republican", as outdated and pointless as it may be, didn't come about without reason.

I wouldn't say they hate anyone in general, nor do I think Moore included them in Bowling because he thought he was cozying up to other liberals.

It may seem like I implied that, but I didn't mean to. My point was that Michael Moore did not understand the style and approach that Parker and Stone were taking with South Park when he made Bowling for Columbine. They also aren't media whores like Moore, so when Moore incorporated them and their film in Bowling for Columbine they got pissed off. In short, Michael Moore and Parker/Stone are VERY different individuals with very different approaches and agendas. I happen to appreciate and agree with the Parker/Stone approach much more than Moore's approach. Enough said.

[screamer581]

Moore's films and Parker's/Stone's films are very different. Not only are they structurally different in that one is a documentary and one is a satire, but their content approaches are also very different. Moore's films try to look at both wings, but he always just ends up taking pot shots at Republicans and right leaning people which ends up overshadowing important information Moore may be trying to convey to his audience. He has a lot of good messages to convey, don't get me wrong, but his approach just completely turns me off. Parker's and Stone's films on the other hand are successful in criticizing and addressing both wings equally. I much prefer the unbiased approach of Parker and Stone rather than the biased and egotistical approach of Moore. Moore is also a media whore and looooves to feed his own ego. This alone makes watching Moore's documentaries often painful and annoying to sit through.





I don't necessarily disagree with you, and understand what you are saying. My post was more of a response to Lord Simen. Obviously it's silly to compare Trey Parker and Matt Stone's flick to Michael Moore's.


I'm still looking forward to "Love Story".

[Bourne101]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, and understand what you are saying. My post was more of a response to Lord Simen. Obviously it's silly to compare Trey Parker and Matt Stone's flick to Michael Moore's.


I'm still looking forward to "Love Story".

:cool:

[Dr.Frankenstein]

Michael Moore is a "God send" and a voice, for all oppressed & depressed Americans. IMO

[Servo]

Moore is also a media whore and looooves to feed his own ego. This alone makes watching Moore's documentaries often painful and annoying to sit through.

Tell me about it. That part in Sicko where he talked about giving one of his critics an anonymous check for 10 grand to help with his wife's medical bills reminded me of Xerxes' "I am kind" speech from 300.

[ericdraven]

The funny thing is, Michael Moore was completely pro-Matt Stone and Trey Parker and used them as an example in Bowling for Columbine. Unfortunately for Moore, he completely missed the point of South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut and didn't realize that Matt Stone and Trey Parker completely loathe liberals.

What? He randomly talked to Matt Stone because he was from the same area the shooters were. that's how it came off to me.

[Bourne101]

What? He randomly talked to Matt Stone because he was from the same area the shooters were. that's how it came off to me.

Stone was under the impression the interview would simply be about growing up in Colorado, his views on guns, etc. but Moore went on a big spiel about why Stone and Parker made South Park. He also inserted some South Park-type animation that wasn't made by Parker and Stone without first getting consent from them.

Here is the rather blunt interview where the details were revealed:

Conan: Michael Moore is depicted in this film (Team America) along with a lot of other celebrities. And I talked about it with one of our producers after we saw the movie because you guys sort of go after Michael Moore. And it thought, “That’s surprising,” because Michael Moore was in Bowling for Columbine, it’s his movie, he interviewed you (points to Matt) on Bowling for Columbine and I remember thinking I thought those guys were friends with Michael Moore. Did you have a falling out?

Matt: It wasn’t so much a falling out. He asked me to do the interview for Bowling for Columbine because I grew up in Littleton, Colorado. So I thought, okay, I’ll talk about growing up in Littleton, Colorado. What he did that made us a little angry is he put an animation in right after my piece in Bowling in Columbine that is very South Park-esque in its look. And I think 99% of the people who saw Bowling for Columbine think Trey and I did that animation.

Conan: I thought it was yours until my producer told me that he talked to you guys. I thought that you had done that animation.

Trey: No no. He asked us if we would do an animated thing for him, and we’re like, “You know, we grew up in Colorado, our parents have guns, it’s just, you know, whatever.”

Conan: I’m wearing a gun right now. It’s just accepted. (Audience laughs)

Trey: Yeah exactly. We strongly believe in guns. So then he kind of did it anyway. So then later when he did Fahrenheit 911, people were like, well, Michael Moore kind of lies and manipulates to make people think certain things. We’re, like, personal victims of that. So we basically decided to make him into a puppet and blow him up. (Referring to Team America movie)

Matt: I mean, he didn't explicitly say, “Matt and Trey did this animation.” But he made it look like it. And that’s what he does in his movies. He uses two images together and creates meaning where there isn’t none.

Trey: And he’s fat.

[echo_bravo]

The thing I love about Team America and Trey and Matt especially is they have no limits. No one goes untouched.

A lot of these celebs think their shit doesnt stink so its great to see them put in their place.
In Team America, where all the actors have gathered around some huge roundtable forming a plan to take down Team America was hilarious.
Sean Penn couldnt take a joke and sent them a letter bitching at them which goes to show how much of a douchebag he is.

[QUENTIN]

The thing I love about Team America and Trey and Matt especially is they have no limits. No one goes untouched.

A lot of these celebs think their shit doesnt stink so its great to see them put in their place.
In Team America, where all the actors have gathered around some huge roundtable forming a plan to take down Team America was hilarious.
Sean Penn couldnt take a joke and sent them a letter bitching at them which goes to show how much of a douchebag he is.

Yeah, because before Team America, people like Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Danny Glover, and Jane Fonda weren't major targets from practically EVERYONE in comedy, punditry, or just normal Americans from right, center, and left for anger, derision, and mocking for being loudmouth anti-American Hollywood dipshits for expressing their political views. That was really risque comedy going after liberal celebrities from Hollywood, before that they were just untouchable. Their work finding humor in farts is equally taboo and groundbreaking, they should be applauded for their massive balls going where no one else dared.

:confused:

[echo_bravo]

Yeah, because before Team America, people like Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Danny Glover, and Jane Fonda weren't major targets from practically EVERYONE in comedy, punditry, or just normal Americans from right, center, and left for anger, derision, and mocking for being loudmouth anti-American Hollywood dipshits for expressing their political views. That was really risque comedy going after liberal celebrities from Hollywood, before that they were just untouchable. Their work finding humor in farts is equally taboo and groundbreaking, they should be applauded for their massive balls going where no one else dared.

:confused:

Ah sarcasm:rolleyes:

I'll give you Jane Fonda but I have never seen any other film or comedian take shots at Tim Robbins, Susan Surandon or Danny Glover. And I never claimed Team America was "groundbreaking" . I found the whole concept of Team America to be hilarious. Actors teaming up with Kim Jong Il...thats funny to me. Not everyones cup of tea I suppose.

It is rare to see films with a conservative slant.