The Real Reason I Won’t See Michael Moore’s Newest Movie

[Timshel]

http://www.burg.com/2009/10/the-real-reason-i-won’t-see-michael-moore’s-newest-movie/

No, I won’t see Michael Moore’s newest movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story” but not for the reason one would think…that is, assuming one cared enough to think about the movies I see, which I doubt one does. Heck, I almost don’t, and I’m me. But, since this is a blog, and I’m the publisher, this beginning seems appropriate.

One might think the obvious: “Because, Burg; you are an unabashed Capitalist who would be truly offended watching someone like Moore bash the economic system you so love.”

Well, I probably would be offended, but that’s not the reason I won’t go. Actually, since I enjoy learning from everyone, including those with opposing viewpoints, I would have gone just to see exactly how he would have made his case against Capitalism; the one economic system in the history of the world that has improved the standard of living for everyone (yes, everyone, including the poor) under its umbrella.

But, that’s not what he’s doing. I have seen him interviewed about the movie, and I saw a movie clip. Both times there was something very obvious:

He was not talking about Capitalism!!

That’s right. He was displaying disgust at the obvious collusion between our 535 legislators and the corporations and special interests (represented by lobbyists) to which they’ve sold their law-making influence.

And, I’m just as disgusted by that as Moore is. However, that is not Capitalism…it is Corporatism (i.e., “corporate welfare” or special laws, rules and regulations intended to benefit those footing the bill).

Yes, it’s bad. It’s very bad. But, again, it’s not Capitalism.

Yet, the movie claims to display the evils of Capitalism. And Michael Moore has millions of followers who – when he says something is…something – they accept it.

Here’s my very quick open letter to Michael Moore. And, while he’ll probably never see it, I’ll feel a lot better for having written it:

Dear Mr. Moore, please understand that government colluding with and rewarding special interests who contribute to their re-election campaigns is NOT Capitalism. With all respect, your entire premise is false. Unfortunately, most of America is going to accept your conclusion without even questioning the very false premise upon which it was based. You have a right to your opinion. But, when you have as much influence as you have, you also have a responsibility to understand what is and what isn’t, and to get your premises straight. Remember, by the very nature of having a false premise you can not reach a correct conclusion. Please check your premises.

MainBob O’Connor wrote: “Perhaps the movie should be called ‘Corporatism: A Love Story.’ There is a corruption of power going on with companies lobbying for ‘company welfare’ and handouts from the government to Banks and big companies.”

I agree with MaineBob. Any chance, Mr. Moore, that you’ll change the title or at least admit your mistake? Or is there more money to be made by using a sexy – albeit false – title?

Of course, Mr. Moore, maybe you’d call that Capitalism.

I don’t call it that. I call it fibbing.

 

[Timshel]

Perhaps, if Moore were really making documentaries, he'd hit on some of these points. Instead Moore makes fictional jeremiads which ignore all opposing viewpoints and attempt to bash the viewer over the head with Moore's own. It's not that he pushes his own view, that's fine. But he never offers anything but a strawman representation of any other view.

If Michael Moore is making actual documentaries then Fox News is more than "Fair and Balanced."

 

[WinterBorn]

Perhaps, if Moore were really making documentaries, he'd hit on some of these points. Instead Moore makes fictional jeremiads which ignore all opposing viewpoints and attempt to bash the viewer over the head with Moore's own. It's not that he pushes his own view, that's fine. But he never offers anything but a strawman representation of any other view.

If Michael Moore is making actual documentaries then Fox News is more than "Fair and Balanced."

Moore uses the genre of "Documentary" to create hit pieces and then claims he just presented the facts.

Ever since Bowling for Columbine is have not seen any of his works.

 

[blackascoal]

Perhaps, if Moore were really making documentaries, he'd hit on some of these points. Instead Moore makes fictional jeremiads which ignore all opposing viewpoints and attempt to bash the viewer over the head with Moore's own. It's not that he pushes his own view, that's fine. But he never offers anything but a strawman representation of any other view.

If Michael Moore is making actual documentaries then Fox News is more than "Fair and Balanced."

Documentaries are not meant to please everyone. So the right doesn't like Moore's documentaries .. who cares? Surely not the mass of people who go to see them. Surely not Moore. Surely not me.

Who cares about "opposing points of view" that are usually ridiculous and amount to nothing more than the usual propaganda mindfuck that has driven republicans out of office and underground? For my money, leave that bullshit out, screw "bi-partisanship", and just deal with the facts.

If the right has an opposing view, make your own documentary .. which will NO DOUBT not consider opposing points of view, not speak truthfully about out condition, and not be watched by me or the throngs of people who enjoy Moore's films.

In your defense of capitialism you forgot that you don't get to dictate what's in his films and you can make your own documentary to tell your own story.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Perhaps, if Moore were really making documentaries, he'd hit on some of these points. Instead Moore makes fictional jeremiads which ignore all opposing viewpoints and attempt to bash the viewer over the head with Moore's own. It's not that he pushes his own view, that's fine. But he never offers anything but a strawman representation of any other view.

If Michael Moore is making actual documentaries then Fox News is more than "Fair and Balanced."

agreed

 

[blackascoal]

The film's in limited release, going to a sh-t-ton more screens next weekend, but in it's limited release (it opened Wednesday) it's managed to pull in over $306,000. This doesn't sound all that impressive until you know that "limited release" actually means "four screens". So, roughly, the film was earning $60,000 per screen. That's a record-setting number for the year, the highest per-screen average of 2009 (and, I suspect, the highest per screen average in many years).
http://www.examiner.com/x-15166-Dal...apitalism-A-Love-Story-sets-box-office-record

Don't go .. you won't be missed.

 

[Onceler]

Couldn't an argument be made that unrestrained (or almost unrestrained) capitalism inevitably LEADS to corporatism? That this is the end result of a small few having most of the wealth and being able to draw on it to influence more legislation & politics than anyone could hope to with something as quaint as a vote?

 

[Timshel]

Who cares about "opposing points of view" that are usually ridiculous and amount to nothing more than the usual propaganda mindfuck that has driven republicans out of office and underground? For my money, leave that bullshit out, screw "bi-partisanship", and just deal with the facts.

He does not do that. He presents a heavy dose of his own views on the "facts" that he chooses to present and pretend there is no reasonable opposition.

If the right has an opposing view, make your own documentary .. which will NO DOUBT not consider opposing points of view, not speak truthfully about out condition, and not be watched by me or the throngs of people who enjoy Moore's films.

You are starting to see that and they're just as crappy. I won't bother watching either.

 

[WinterBorn]

Documentaries are not meant to please everyone. So the right doesn't like Moore's documentaries .. who cares? Surely not the mass of people who go to see them. Surely not Moore. Surely not me.

Who cares about "opposing points of view" that are usually ridiculous and amount to nothing more than the usual propaganda mindfuck that has driven republicans out of office and underground? For my money, leave that bullshit out, screw "bi-partisanship", and just deal with the facts.

If the right has an opposing view, make your own documentary .. which will NO DOUBT not consider opposing points of view, not speak truthfully about out condition, and not be watched by me or the throngs of people who enjoy Moore's films.

In your defense of capitialism you forgot that you don't get to dictate what's in his films and you can make your own documentary to tell your own story.

I have no problem with an actual documentary. But Moore's history tells me that he isn't going to be any more accurate in this one than in previous releases.

No, he is not required to please everyone. But the very nature of a documentary is to present facts without bias and slant.

 

[belme1201]

Perhaps, if Moore were really making documentaries, he'd hit on some of these points. Instead Moore makes fictional jeremiads which ignore all opposing viewpoints and attempt to bash the viewer over the head with Moore's own. It's not that he pushes his own view, that's fine. But he never offers anything but a strawman representation of any other view.

If Michael Moore is making actual documentaries then Fox News is more than "Fair and Balanced."

Since, in your opinion, it's Moore's responsibility to present other viewpoints counter to his own, I would assume you support the return of the
Fairness Doctrine.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Couldn't an argument be made that unrestrained (or almost unrestrained) capitalism inevitably LEADS to corporatism? That this is the end result of a small few having most of the wealth and being able to draw on it to influence more legislation & politics than anyone could hope to with something as quaint as a vote?

I would disagree. It is not capitalism that leads to corporatism. It is the treatment of cash as "free speech" that leads to corporatism. I would also point out that it is not just the corporations that bribe the politicians. It is also the unions and the trial lawyers and the NRA and every other special interest group.

Until we change the "lobbying" rules... we will continue to see the "corporatism".

Bottom line... BRIBES should not be allowed. Campaign contributions should be limited to individuals. If individuals want to contribute more money to particular issues or parties, then by all means... create the PACs. But those PACs should not be allowed to coordinate with a party or candidate. We need to get the money OUT of politics as much as possible.

As long as bribes are legal.... we will continue to end up with monstrosities like the 68,000 pages of the tax code.

 

[blackascoal]

Couldn't an argument be made that unrestrained (or almost unrestrained) capitalism inevitably LEADS to corporatism? That this is the end result of a small few having most of the wealth and being able to draw on it to influence more legislation & politics than anyone could hope to with something as quaint as a vote?

It appears that you get it.

 

[Timshel]

Couldn't an argument be made that unrestrained (or almost unrestrained) capitalism inevitably LEADS to corporatism? That this is the end result of a small few having most of the wealth and being able to draw on it to influence more legislation & politics than anyone could hope to with something as quaint as a vote?

The wealthy have rarely been able to enact legislation on their own. Usually, they employ some reformers or "useful idiots" to pass the legislation, wait for the idiots to move on to some other grand cause and then capture the regulatory system. For instance, the ICC or the Federal Reserve.

I'd say the biggest problem with the influence of the wealthy is not legislative, but in the judicial area where they don't need to collude with big government reformers. The judiciary has some of the same negative features that are inherent in bureaucratic agencies.

 

[Cypress]

But, that’s not what he’s doing. I have seen him interviewed about the movie, and I saw a movie clip. Both times there was something very obvious:

He was not talking about Capitalism!!

That’s right. He was displaying disgust at the obvious collusion between our 535 legislators and the corporations and special interests (represented by lobbyists) to which they’ve sold their law-making influence.

And, I’m just as disgusted by that as Moore is. However, that is not Capitalism…it is Corporatism (i.e., “corporate welfare” or special laws, rules and regulations intended to benefit those footing the bill).

Yes, it’s bad. It’s very bad. But, again, it’s not Capitalism.

Please name one single, major developed democratic country on the planet that employs this mythical version of "capitalism" that free marketeers and libertarians are always musing about.

If it doesn't exist, then it's nothing more than a theoretical exercise in the minds of ideological free marketeers....something that has never existed in the modern world, and remains a fanciful and mythical nirvana for which there is no real evidence actually works in the real world....much like creation science.


More is obviously talking about capitalism as it actually exists and operates in the real world. The version of capitalism that everyone in every single developed country has exposure to every single day of the year.


Who's going to make a movie about a mythical economic system that exists only in the minds of ideological libertarians, and for which there is no evidence exists, or would even work, in the real world?

 

[blackascoal]

I have no problem with an actual documentary. But Moore's history tells me that he isn't going to be any more accurate in this one than in previous releases.

No, he is not required to please everyone. But the very nature of a documentary is to present facts without bias and slant.

The nature of a documentary is to tell a real life story .. period.

It's not possible to please everyone and any such consideration is an excersise in folly.

Because he's Micheal Moore, NOTHING he creates would please the right.

It's not his objective to please the right .. he doesn't care what they think .. which is exactly why his films are so popular. Those of us who see his films don't want to hear what the right has to say or what they think.

Irrespective of what you call it, documentary or film, the right can go off and make it's own "documentary" about death panels, muslims, ACORN, or any other bullshit the American people don't want to see.

But what you don't get to do is control the creativity of others who are not yoiu.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The nature of a documentary is to tell a real life story .. period.

.

The above is correct. But when you deliberately misrepresent something, that is not "real life"... it is fiction.

He has every right to create said pieces and as you stated, everyone else has the same right. Just stop pretending they are documentaries.

 

[blackascoal]

The wealthy have rarely been able to enact legislation on their own. Usually, they employ some reformers or "useful idiots" to pass the legislation, wait for the idiots to move on to some other grand cause and then capture the regulatory system. For instance, the ICC or the Federal Reserve.

I'd say the biggest problem with the influence of the wealthy is not legislative, but in the judicial area where they don't need to collude with big government reformers. The judiciary has some of the same negative features that are inherent in bureaucratic agencies.

Then you'd be wrong and perhaps you should go see the movie and learn something .. no offense intended.

LOBBYISTS are a scurge on the American legislative body. THEY dictate what gets passed and what does not.

Additionally, even the American electoral system is privately-owned.

We exist in a plutocracy with the trappings of a democracy.

 

[blackascoal]

The above is correct. But when you deliberately misrepresent something, that is not "real life"... it is fiction.

He has every right to create said pieces and as you stated, everyone else has the same right. Just stop pretending they are documentaries.

Neither Moore nor anyone else has to pretend anything.

If you don't like his films, don't go see them. You won't be missed .. but neither you nor anyone else on the right has the authority to determine what is real life or factual .. especially given its monumental failures and insane behavior.

 

[belme1201]

Perhaps, if Moore were really making documentaries, he'd hit on some of these points. Instead Moore makes fictional jeremiads which ignore all opposing viewpoints and attempt to bash the viewer over the head with Moore's own. It's not that he pushes his own view, that's fine. But he never offers anything but a strawman representation of any other view.

If Michael Moore is making actual documentaries then Fox News is more than "Fair and Balanced."

I see nobody of importance from the Right calling the system we have anything other than Capitalism, sometime adding 'Free Market' to the term. Why is it Moore's resposibility to correct the term modern Capitalists use for themselves? Perish the thought that Moore should present opinions and facts that makes the RW uncomfortable. They always have the opportunity to correct what they feel are innaccuracies or merely opinions contrary to their own. I suspect rhe RW tabloid "media" has already begun the attack without bothering to focus on perceived innaccuracies. There could be a reason. $?

 

[Cypress]

I see nobody of importance from the Right calling the system we have anything other than Capitolism, sometime adding 'Free Market' to the term. Why is it Moore's resposibility to correct the term modern Capitolists use for themselves? Perish the thought that Moore should present opinions and facts that makes the RW uncomfortable. They always have the opportunity to correct what they feel are innaccuracies or merely opinions contrary to their own. I suspect rhe RW tabloid "media" has already begun the attack without bothering to focus on perceived innaccuracies. There could be a reason. $?

Exactly.

Everyone on the planet calls our system capitalism.

The fact that the last 18 months has embarrassed ideological free marketeers, demonstrated the neccessity of regulation, and conclusively proved that self-policing and rational self interest doesn't work, is not a reason to pretend that the system of economics we've had since Reagan is simply a fluke because we didn't do deregulation "the right way".


I agree with RS on the term corporatism. But, this is just semantics. Hardly anybody excect ideological leftys ever use that term. Micheal Moore is simply using the everday-lexicon that our entire society uses.