The End of Michael Moore

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • SeattleUte
    Faith crisis consultant
    • Nov 2008
    • 20837

    #1

    The End of Michael Moore

    I heard on NPR that Michael Moore's new film is about how capitalism is all bad, i.e., to borrow the phrase applied by Chris Hitchins to religion, it "poisons everything." I've never seen one of his films and intend to skip this one, but the NPR reviewer explicitly said that this time his focus is not so narrow as to attack GM, George W. Bush, or health insurance. He's literally assailing capitalism as a bad thing. In the understatement of the year, the NPR reviewer said, "a weakness of this film is that Moore has abanded the narrow focous of prior works. . . ."

    Michael Moore has officially gone the way of Bill O'Reilly, Chris Hitchins, etc. If ever he was a reputable professional, in his declining years he's sold himself to the World Wrestling Federation of discourse, the talking head shows. He's now a freaky circus act that no one who matters will take seriously again.

    I am on record here excoriating investment bankers and other Wall Street fat cats. But for me, the choice is easy: Given the choice, I'd reather have capitalism than not. A simple truth: Liberty, representative government, is inseparable from capitalism. You can't have civil liberties absent economic liberty. Moreover, captialism, which disolves boundaries and racial barriers in the interest of filthy lucre, ineluctably serves to secularize and humanize populations, psychologically orienting them toward a predisposition toward civil liberties. Finally, capitalism generates the bounty that defeats the nihilistic zero sum game menatality that was the rationaliztion for the Holocaust. (Just look at the differing paths taken by the UK and Holland and Germany until 1945. Which of these nations were world traders?)

    So, taking the dimest view possible of human nature, here's the choice: Occasional period of excess, e.g., S&L failures, junk bond oversupply, Wall Street hedonism vs. 100 million+ murdered in the 20th century alone, untold tens of millions silenced and imprisoned. Which is worse?

    The problem that professional trolls like Hitchins and Moore have in making such extravagant claims is that they, needless to say, live pretty good lives, as most people who consume their works do. They are attacking as a bad thing soemthing that has been stuffing thier mouths with goodies. Like condemning all religion as poisonous, outright rejecting capitalism as a bad thing is a form of self-loathing. Religious history is our history. Likewise, the history of capitalism is the history of freedom and free societies. It begs the question, what kind of a world would we live in without it? A fair minded person must acknowledge that these phonomena are but for causes of the world we live in, for better or worse.
    Last edited by SeattleUte; 09-25-2009, 02:08 PM.
    When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

    --Jonathan Swift
  • JohnnyLingo
    La Naranja
    • Nov 2008
    • 3976

    #2
    Originally posted by SeattleUte View Post

    The problem that professional trolls like Hitchins and Moore have in making such extravagant claims is that they, needless to say, live pretty good lives, as most people who consume their works do. They are attackign as a bad thing soemthing that has been stuffing thier mouths with goodies.
    It's funny considering Hitchens doesn't like Moore.

    Maybe they need to hug it out.

    Comment

    • TripletDaddy
      sweet triple
      • Nov 2008
      • 58186

      #3
      Originally posted by SeattleUte View Post
      I heard on NPR that Michael Moore's new film is about how capitalism is all bad, i.e., to borrow the phrase applied by Chris Hitchins to religion, it "poisons everything." I've never seen one of his films and intend to skip this one, but the NPR reviewer explicitly said that this time his focus is not so narrow as to attack GM, George W. Bush, or health insurance. He's literally assailing capitalism as a bad thing. In the understatement of the year, the NPR reviewer said, "a weakness of this film is that Moore has abanded the narrow focous of prior works. . . ."

      Michael Moore has officially gone the way of Bill O'Reilly, Chris Hitchins, etc. If ever he was a reputable professional, in his declining years he's sold himself to the World Wrestling Federation of discourse, the talking head shows. He's now a freaky circus act that no one who matters will take seriously again.

      I am on record here excoriating investment bankers and other Wall Street fat cats. But for me, the choice is easy: Given the choice, I'd reather have capitalism than not. A simple truth: Liberty, representative government, is inseparable from capitalism. You can't have civil liberties absent economic liberty. Moreover, captialism, which disolves boundaries and racial barriers in the interest of filthy lucre, ineluctably serves to secularize and humanize populations, psychologically orienting them toward a predisposition toward civil liberties. Finally, capitalism generates the bounty that defeats the nihilistic zero sum game menatality that was the rationaliztion for the Holocaust. (Just look at the differing paths taken by the UK and Holland and Germany until 1045. Which of these nations were world traders?)

      So, taking the dimest view possible of human nature, here's the choice: Occasional period of excess, e.g., S&L failures, junk bond oversupply, Wall Street hedonism vs. 100 million+ murdered in the 20th century alone, untold tens of millions silenced and imprisoned. Which is worse?

      The problem that professional trolls like Hitchins and Moore have in making such extravagant claims is that they, needless to say, live pretty good lives, as most people who consume their works do. They are attackign as a bad thing soemthing that has been stuffing thier mouths with goodies. Like condemning all religion as poisonous, outright rejecting capitalism as a bad thing is a form of self-loathing. Religious history is our history. Likewise, the history of capitalism is the history of freedom and free societies. It begs the question, what kind of a world would we live in without it? A fair minded person must acknowledge that these phonomena are but for causes of the world we live in, for better or worse.
      thanks, knucklehead.

      FAIL.
      Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

      sigpic

      Comment

      • SeattleUte
        Faith crisis consultant
        • Nov 2008
        • 20837

        #4
        Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post
        thanks, knucklehead.

        FAIL.
        Tell me what it's about? Do I have it wrong?
        When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

        --Jonathan Swift

        Comment

        • Commando
          Explosivo
          • Feb 2009
          • 20748

          #5
          I agree.. however, I found Michael Moore to be a doofus independant of his movies-- I went to that hoopla at UVU a few years ago where he showed up to address the student body. Dude had nothing to say in particular, and, while charming, only struck me as a guy wanting to make a buck by raising the banner and becoming the pied piper of pseudo political activism for the intellectual lowest common denominator.
          "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

          Comment

          • TripletDaddy
            sweet triple
            • Nov 2008
            • 58186

            #6
            Originally posted by SeattleUte View Post
            Tell me what it's about? Do I have it wrong?
            If you don't know whether you are accurately describing the movie, you probably shouldn't be reviewing the movie. I haven't seen it yet, so I can't comment one way or the other. I do plan on watching it, as I usually find his docs to be entertaining.

            I look forward to your Amazon review of Joseph Smith Papers, Vol 1.
            Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

            sigpic

            Comment

            • SeattleUte
              Faith crisis consultant
              • Nov 2008
              • 20837

              #7
              Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post
              If you don't know whether you are accurately describing the movie, you probably shouldn't be reviewing the movie. I haven't seen it yet, so I can't comment one way or the other. I do plan on watching it, as I usually find his docs to be entertaining.

              I look forward to your Amazon review of Joseph Smith Papers, Vol 1.
              I was attacking the premise of the movie, that's all. On the other hand, if you haven't seen Downfall you have no business judging any parody of it.

              I don't read books about mormonims anymore.
              When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

              --Jonathan Swift

              Comment

              • statman
                Rabblerouser
                • Aug 2009
                • 2799

                #8
                Originally posted by Commando View Post
                ... a guy wanting to make a buck...
                Just about sums it up...

                Comment

                • BoylenOver
                  Junior Member
                  • Nov 2008
                  • 9146

                  #9
                  In my more politically rambunctious days, I thought Moore was entertaining, but not informative.

                  Now that I'm completely apathetic, I regard him with the same disinterest as I do Ann Coulter, Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck, etc.
                  "I don't know the origin of said bitch booming."-Art Vandelay
                  "Hot Lunch posted awhile back on this. He knows more than anyone except for maybe BO."-Seattle Ute

                  Comment

                  • TripletDaddy
                    sweet triple
                    • Nov 2008
                    • 58186

                    #10
                    Originally posted by SeattleUte View Post
                    I was attacking the premise of the movie, that's all. On the other hand, if you haven't seen Downfall you have no business judging any parody of it.

                    I don't read books about mormonims anymore.
                    Apparently my seeing Downfall is no prerequisite to anything. I might take this opportunity to attack the very premise of the movie.
                    Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

                    sigpic

                    Comment

                    • SeattleUte
                      Faith crisis consultant
                      • Nov 2008
                      • 20837

                      #11
                      Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post
                      Apparently my seeing Downfall is no prerequisite to anything. I might take this opportunity to attack the very premise of the movie.
                      I attacked the premise; on the other hand, you were evaluating a parody as worthy of a good laugh. How do you know if the parody is funny without seeing the real version? LOL.
                      When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

                      --Jonathan Swift

                      Comment

                      • TripletDaddy
                        sweet triple
                        • Nov 2008
                        • 58186

                        #12
                        Originally posted by SeattleUte View Post
                        I attacked the premise; on the other hand, you were evaluating a parody as worthy of a good laugh. How do you know if the parody is funny without seeing the real version? LOL.
                        the premise as told to you by NPR.

                        I am starting to wonder if you have really read The Kindly Ones or if you have just been giving us all dust-jacket wisdom these past few years.
                        Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

                        sigpic

                        Comment

                        • Katy Lied
                          Senior Member
                          • Dec 2008
                          • 9435

                          #13
                          Originally posted by SeattleUte View Post
                          But for me, the choice is easy: Given the choice, I'd reather have capitalism than not. A simple truth: Liberty, representative government, is inseparable from capitalism. You can't have civil liberties absent economic liberty. Moreover, captialism, which disolves boundaries and racial barriers in the interest of filthy lucre, ineluctably serves to secularize and humanize populations, psychologically orienting them toward a predisposition toward civil liberties. Finally, capitalism generates the bounty that defeats the nihilistic zero sum game menatality that was the rationaliztion for the Holocaust.
                          Capitalism is extraordinarily stable, and once a country moves to it, it is very rare for that country to give it up. Marx claimed that movement from capitalism would only come through class warfare and revolution, and the very fabric of sciety would need to be rent in order to escape the pull of capitalism. Lenin thought you could skip capitalism and move directly to communism, but the communist economic model seemed to give out at about 70 years, with relatively little cost or bloodshed.

                          A communist model is theoretically more efficient than a capitalist one, but the decision makers in communism have to have near perfect information, and absolute discipline and control over the means of production and the labor force. There are so many assymetries of information, no human could achieve this much perfect information and discipline.

                          We studied a case of the wily plant manager of a soviet factory that produced nails. He was given a 5-year plan quota of a certain amount of nails. He blew his quota out of the water and produced many times more nails than he needed to. What he did was produce a nail that was tiny and useless, similar to a pin.

                          The soviet planners changed the criteria. Instead of bonusing plant managers by beating quantity quotas, they changed the benchmark to the weight of the nails produced. In response, this plant manager fabricated a single nail of immense size, and picked up his bonus at the end of the year.

                          By the way, I am not convinced capitalism requires liberty, but I'm not sure. I'm watching China closely.

                          Comment

                          • SeattleUte
                            Faith crisis consultant
                            • Nov 2008
                            • 20837

                            #14
                            Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post
                            the premise as told to you by NPR.

                            I am starting to wonder if you have really read The Kindly Ones or if you have just been giving us all dust-jacket wisdom these past few years.
                            I have read every word of it, my friend. It's a hugely entertaining book, which is why many think it's objectionable. I thought it was best up through Stalingrad. After that, it turned into kind of a huge and crazy crime novel. I thought the weakest parts were the dream sequences, which besides being less than spectacluar and dervative went on way too long. The final scene as Dr. Aue escapes the Russians by cutting through the Berlin zoo with all the animals maimed and screaming and/or set free from bent and twisted cages is darkly comical. Also, you need to slog through long long dialoge and analysis of the economics and cost-benefit of murdering millions of people vs. feeding them, etc.

                            I recommend it but it's pronographic and very violent.
                            Last edited by SeattleUte; 09-25-2009, 03:23 PM.
                            When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

                            --Jonathan Swift

                            Comment

                            • SeattleUte
                              Faith crisis consultant
                              • Nov 2008
                              • 20837

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Katy Lied View Post
                              By the way, I am not convinced capitalism requires liberty, but I'm not sure. I'm watching China closely.
                              I said that liberty requires capitalism. That I'm more sure of.
                              When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

                              --Jonathan Swift

                              Comment

                              Working...