Shooting Michael Moore - Trailer & Reviews

[Greg Bernhardt]

Anyone see this? What a nut ball!
http://shootingmichaelmoore.com/trailer/index.htm

 

[marlon]

Pathetic

marlon

 

[Evo]

I've never liked Michael Moore.

 

[slugcountry]

lol I am pretty sure he's guilty of all the editing he just accused moore of

 

[fourier jr]

Moore is ok but I think others like Bill Blum & Noam Chomsky are far more convincing. Moore is pretty gutless compared to those two. (btw Blum's most latest Anti-Empire Report is especially rabid for some reason) Right-wingers always seem to point out how these left(ish) people own stocks, etc and are "capitalist" & that's supposed to be hypocritical, as if socialists have to take an oath of poverty or something. I was actually a bit surprised that Chomsky was so open about how much he makes during a lecture (why not since that's publicly available) so I emailed him about it (not that I really think he's a hypocrite). He also mentioned Moore in the same message, here's his reply in its entirety (copy/pasted):

It's interesting to see how, and where, that question is raised. It's often raised by highly privileged Westerners, but never in my very substantial personal experience by refugees driven from their homes who are trying to survive in condemned buildings in Istanbul, people whose lives have been destroyed by US chemical warfare in southern Colombia, those who someone escaped US-backed genocide in East Timor, and on, and on. They couldn't care less what my salary is, or Moore's, or yours. What they care about is how you and I devote your efforts and energies to mitigating or ending their suffering, the afflictions of others like them, and the possible fate that Russell describes. [referring to my email signature at the time]

The distinction is very striking and, in my considerable experience, exceptionless. It perhaps tells us something important about the difference between those who bask in privilege and refuse to use the vast opportunities available to them apart from self-aggrandizement, and their victims around the world. I don't see anything else relevant.

The filmmaker guy also said that OBL liked Fahrenheit 911, as if that's supposed to mean it's bad. OBL LOVED (LOVED!) Bill Blum's book Rogue State, saying that if people want to understand why Al-Qaida, etc hate the US so much they should read it. I don't think that's such a bad thing at all!

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Straw man and ad hominem? Eh, the guy just has a chip on his shoulder.

 

[Monique]

Interesting, but that is all an attack on his person, does it mean his documentaries are bad? I just saw Sicko the other night and thought it was pretty shocking. Do you think he portrayed the US healthcare system in a way that is biased and that the system really is better than he liked us to believe?

 

[russ_watters]

Right-wingers always seem to point out how these left(ish) people own stocks, etc and are "capitalist" & that's supposed to be hypocritical, as if socialists have to take an oath of poverty or something.

It isn't hypocritical to own stock, it is hypocritical to own stock in a company you hate.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Interesting, but that is all an attack on his person, does it mean his documentaries are bad? I just saw Sicko the other night and thought it was pretty shocking. Do you think he portrayed the US healthcare system in a way that is biased and that the system really is better than he liked us to believe?

The US healthcare system is in crisis, but far too many think Canada, UK and France are problem free examples how we should be. I was watching Ice Road Truckers and one guy got hurt and had to pay $12k out of pocket in Canada.

 

[Smurf]

Interesting, but that is all an attack on his person, does it mean his documentaries are bad?

I haven't seen sicko but basically yeah, they're all a bunch of hippie crap.

 

[fourier jr]

I haven't seen sicko but basically yeah, they're all a bunch of hippie crap.

only hippies would care that little old ladies get dropped off by hospital staff on skid row, or that doctor's opt to not treat somebody when they could, just because it would save the insurance company?

 

[russ_watters]

No, only a *hippie would compare a worse than average hospital in the US to a better than average hospital in Canada and then make generalizations about the entire systems in both. (among other obviously biased and intentionally deceptive things in the movie)

The US healthcare system certainly has problems that need to be fixed, but deceptive "documentaries" are not helpful for that.

I didn't see the whole movie, but one part that I thought was pretty funny was how the Canadians he talked to bought health insurance for their trip to the US. He portrayed that as evidence of how bad the US's healthcare was instead of how it showed a gap in Canada's!

IIRC, he also implied that visitors from abroad are entitled to "free" health care in Canada and that simply isn't true: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/medi-assur/res/faq_e.html#2

*Caveat - though similarities exist, Moore's political stance really goes beyond just being a hippie. He's anti-America. If he weren't making so much money by fooling people into going to see his movies, I suspect he'd already be a Canadian citizen. That makes him the worst sort of hypocrite.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't know about Moore as I don't waste my time with propaganda films, but the US health care system is beyond the point of crisis. Recall the woman who died in the ER waiting room. No one would help her, but the janitor did clean up her vomit and blood as she layed there dying.

When my mother was critical, she nearly died because her three doctors couldn't talk to each other due to insurance and politics, so there was no continuity in her care. And it really did almost kill her.

One morning I even had to rush to the hospital because her neuro-stimulator wasn't working. No one at the hospital knew what to do or who to call, and she was just left lying there, writhing in pain.

As for Moore being a hippy, you all need to grow up. Of course life is much simpler if you can just put everyone in a little box and hate them all equally. It requires no thought, no effort, and it allows you to spout-off without saying anything. In short, it is cowardly.

I haven't even seen a real hippy in twenty years.

 

[moe darklight]

I think that guy's lost all credibility when he asked michael moore that bin laden question, and then with the "does he love america" segment... that's a manipulative cheap-shot worthy of Bill O'reilly.

I don't think anyone expects anything more than a clearly biassed, over-edited, sensationalized pseudo-documentary when they go see a MM film. I don't see what the problem is; he's a shock artist trying to make a buck while making a point. I think we have bigger hypocrites to worry about

The US healthcare system certainly has problems that need to be fixed, but deceptive "documentaries" are not helpful for that.

The fact that the issue is being discussed so much more, is helpful.

I thought was pretty funny was how the Canadians he talked to bought health insurance for their trip to the US. He portrayed that as evidence of how bad the US's healthcare was instead of how it showed a gap in Canada's!

I don't understand what you mean...? ... we need to get health care when we travel to the u.s because, if something happens, and we need to go to an american hospital, we don't want to end up with a huge bill.

I will agree that the health care system in Canada is less than perfect. One of the main problems is a lack of doctors. We have such few doctors, that they have to go through patients assembly line style; and the fact that, health care being free, people will show up at the hospital for the stupidest thing, doesn't help traffic.

Another problem is the quality of the actual doctors: their diagnostic skills are HORRID. I don't think people realize that here, but having lived in Israel and Argentina where I had really good doctors, I know the difference.
Most doctors are so terrible here that, if you don't go pretty much already having done some research on your own and knowing what tests you need to get done, good luck getting the help you need before some big symptoms start to appear.

*Caveat - though similarities exist, Moore's political stance really goes beyond just being a hippie. He's anti-America.

I think that's a little extreme. I tend to strongly disagree with people who think that criticizing one's country or government equals anti-whatever country.

In fact, I don't think there is a better example of a true patriot in a democratic country, than one who works hard to keep the government in check by pointing out their hypocrisies, and speaks against their countries faults and imperfections (not that michael moore falls in this category I doubt he sincerely cares about any of these issues).

I think that people often forget that the government is our employee; they work for us; hell, we pay their salary we should be making sure we get our money's worth.

"stand by your government" is a fine motto for a dictatorship. In a democracy we should never be satisfied with our government's performance; we should always demand better. That's at least the way I see it.

 

[russ_watters]

As for Moore being a hippy, you all need to grow up. Of course life is much simpler if you can just put everyone in a little box and hate them all equally. It requires no thought, no effort, and it allows you to spout-off without saying anything. In short, it is cowardly.

I haven't even seen a real hippy in twenty years.

It is meant half* tongue in cheek** and the flip side is that you love seeing it because it allows you to ignore the real content of peoples' arguments. Grow up!? You too! - and get a sense of humor!

*Clearly, true hippies don't exist anymore, because the culture has evolved past it, but an awful lot of that ideology still exists in the direct decendents of that culture. But if it makes you feel better, I'll start saying "neo-hippie" instead...

**If you were a South Park fan, you'd probably get the joke better.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't understand what you mean...? ... we need to get health care when we travel to the u.s because, if something happens, and we need to go to an american hospital, we don't want to end up with a huge bill.

Yes. That's a gap in your coverage that does not exist for most Americans with health insurance. If I go abroad, I do not need to buy extra insurance to be covered.

I think that's a little extreme. I tend to strongly disagree with people who think that criticizing one's country or government equals anti-whatever country.

Have you watched Bowling for Columbine? I really believe that he dislikes this country.

 

[moe darklight]

Have you watched Bowling for Columbine? I really believe that he dislikes this country.

I'm not Michael Moore, so I can't say if he loves America or hates America, nor do I really care. He makes movies, not policies. I think a more important question is how many american senators and politicians love america and care about their people. As a Canadian, I don't care if Jim Carey or Mike Myers love Canada, I only care if our PM and the people who directly influence the government do. I can say this:

- I hate the fact that in Canada, as I said, the health care system is pathetic.
- I hate that the government sees the rising of violence and gang activity in our big cities, plays their little political slogan game of acting concerned, but really does nothing. And how they so often ignore the real issues, opt to play it safe, and fail at coming up with imaginative solutions.
- I hate our educational system, we have a drop-out rate of like 40% in Ontario. It's pitiful. The problem is that kids don't feel connected to society, the system works in a ways that makes them feel alienated and insignificant, which is part of why so many of my friends spend their day doing drugs and don't even have a high-school diploma.
- I could go on and on and on. It used to be ranked the country with the highest quality of living, and now that quality of living is on a noticeable decline.

I love Canada, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else in the world. Having lived in three other countries, I've never felt quite as at home as I feel here.— I wouldn't be so concerned about all these issues if I didn't care about this country. I feel like it's my duty as a citizen to raise these issues and do something about them, not just take it and hope they fix themselves.

 

[billiards]

You do realize that mostly the whole world hates America? I'm sorry to say it but even the average "best friend" Brit on the street would probably, at the least, express a certain dislike towards your government and their international bumbling bulldozer tact.

 

[Smurf]

only hippies would care that little old ladies get dropped off by hospital staff on skid row, or that doctor's opt to not treat somebody when they could, just because it would save the insurance company?

i JUST said I hadn't seen sicko. It would follow from that that I'm judging Moore on his past documentaries.

 

[Evo]

You do realize that mostly the whole world hates America? I'm sorry to say it but even the average "best friend" Brit on the street would probably, at the least, express a certain dislike towards your government and their international bumbling bulldozer tact.

And Michael Moore makes his money off just that, not only does he make money off of it, he creates more hatred. IMHO, he's an opportunistic scumbag.

How much money from his mockumentories has he put into helping society? None? Oh that's right, he's not into helping, he's just into making money off of people.

 

[ranger]

And Michael Moore makes his money off just that, not only does he make money off of it, he creates more hatred. IMHO, he's an opportunistic scumbag.

How much money from his mockumentories has he put into helping society? None? Oh that's right, he's not into helping, he's just into making money off of people.

MM is exploiting the minds of the inept for money and his personal gain. So what? He sees an opportunity and exploits it to the fullest extent. Hes not obligated to reinvest any of his riches into the community. How does this make him a scumbag or anti-america? I prefer the term opportunistic businessman.

If you can't beat em, join em, and when the opportunity comes - crush em.

The general populace are the idiots that allow themselves to be exploited.

 

[Evo]

MM is exploiting the minds of the inept for money and his personal gain. So what? He sees an opportunity and exploits it to the fullest extent. Hes not obligated to reinvest any of his riches into the community. How does this make him a scumbag or anti-america? I prefer the term opportunistic businessman.

If you can't beat em, join em, and when the opportunity comes - crush em.

The general populace are the idiots that allow themselves to be exploited.

You're right, what's the saying? "There's a sucker born every minute"?

 

[Smurf]

wait a minute... wasn't someone saying something about hatred? if only I could remember...

 

[DeadWolfe]

I have no respect whatsoever for Moore's films, nor his political positions, though I don't know as any of the people here know enough to be competent to judge his motivations. But his films are just preposterous. For example, the one that annoyed me the most was Fahrenheit 9/11.

Supposedly it was a harsh critique of the Bush administration, but I could not find in the whole film one legitimate complaint of the form "Bush did X, but should have done Y, because Z". Moore spent much of the movie giving a recount of the connections between the Bin Laden family and the Bushes, but what is his point? Is he insinuating that Bush is behind the 9/11 attacks?

Likewise, with the clip shown in the trailer of Bush saying "We'll get the terrorists, now watch me hit this drive" Yes it makes him look like a buffoon, and a guy who doesn't have much political sensitivity, but what of it. That's not a valid complaint about the administrations policies.

Even when discussing the war in Iraq, Moore spends plenty of time asking questions about the motivation, but I do not recall ever hearing him say that America should not have invaded Iraq, and Kerry, whom Moore openly advocated said he was for the war, but simply felt that the UN should be shown more respect than it was. Likewise Moore claims that Bush used 9/11 to created an atmosphere of fear, but on the Tonight Show he said that (quoting from memory) "The bottom line is that we are in a war against the terrorists and I would rather have Kerry next to me in the trenches".

I want to say that the film consisted almost entirely of personal attacks, but it doesn't even have real specific attacks on character, just vague innuendos. The statements which could really be construed as actual complaints are often preposterous, for instance when he claims that American torture of prisoners is a result of the dishonesty about the cause of the war. I find it puzzling that any remotely scientifically minded person could enjoy such a film.

Whilst Moore claims that the Bush administration is a total failure, he fails to point out any remotely reasonable complaints with the decisions and policies. In short, in a movie made solely to criticize Bush, he goes out of his way to make sure he does not make any decisive political statements.

 

[wildman]

I quit watching MM after seeing the 9/11 film because it was so poorly done. So I can't judge his other films.

However, I have to laugh that what he blamed Bush for at the beginning of the 9/11 film (ignoring Osama and terrorism in general) is the very same thing that Conservative Talk Radio now blames Clinton for. The real fact is that 9/11 changed the political climate of the country. As such, you really can't blame either Bush (as MM does) or Clinton (as Talk Radio does) for ignoring what was basically a non-issue at that time.

The fact that the people in Talk Radio and MM both do blame their respective hobgoblins shows that they are both scumballs.

 

[mathwonk]

The main problem I have experienced in health care here is that it is job related. If you use your health insurance you can be fired afterwards and lose it. If you have a serious illness you have a "precondition" and then cannot get another health policy. This has happened to us.

It is clear to me that anyone at all can go bankrupt from just one serious illness in our system. Young healthy people have trouble believing this, but I guarantee you it is true. Just tell your congress person you want the same healthcare and retirement plan he has.

Another problematic aspect is aged care for physically fit but senile parents. i know middle class people who are spending around 75,000 dollars a year just to have one aged relative looked after physically. This does not include their psychological needs for real attention, just food, meds, making sure they don't fall down most of the time. A that rate it can cost easily a half million dollars to die. These are people who have essentially no serious illness. In some cases they might be happier if they did have.

The point is that in our system, even one serious ilness, or one long lived but infirm relative, can easily impoverish a middle class family. Questions like how long do you have to wait at the local hospital to get a broken arm set are relatively unimportant in this topic.

Another problem is over subsidization of "emergency" room care in locally funded public hospitals. This is the opposite problem. Here people who decline to pay even a $5 copay at a doctors office take up valuable time and space getting care for colds and other non emergency needs at enormous cost to the tax payer. The metro hospital in Atlanta is essentially bankrupt for partly these reasons. Offering essentially free "emergency care" it also draws patients from widely surrounding counties whose taxes do not support the hospital. I have personally seen the collections envelope for the whole ER containing less than $2, after a busy nights treatment.

these problems seem to me to require some way of spreading out the cost of health care more widely, and also konitoring its use. I.e. the local county cannot support the metro hospital alone, the individual family of a sick individual cannot support their care alone. But the public cannot afford to subsidize ER level care for sniffles and fever.

Attacking Michael Moore is beside the point. He may be unbalanced and ludicrous, but his points should be made public and responded to. He is just the messenger. Attacks on him seem to take on the flavor of patriotic defense of "our way of life".

 

[Astronuc]

It looks like Moore got a dose of his own medicine. It certainly seems that Moore is an opportunist, and that he takes advantage of a bad situation without trying to find a way to improve it. Very tabloid.

I saw 'Roger and Me', but I can't make myself see the other movies. I thought that Moore's style was too confrontational and counter-productive. I don't remember Moore saying 'how could we make this better for everyone'.


I like Medved's point at the end. What does it mean to love America or someone because of what it/they could be?

As for the health care situation in the US, it desparately needs improvement. Too many people suffer, or even die, needlessly.

My siblings are doctors and my mother a nurse, and they have worked in the health care system for decades. It's actually a mixed bag. If one has good insurance or a lot of money, the system is mostly fine, unless someone makes a serious mistake (which happens too frequently IMO). If one is poor or without insurance, the medical care is most likely poor, if one receives care at all.

 

[Chi Meson]

I suppose things would be different if MM, instead of making a hyper-spin movie every few years, ran a daily "news"program and declared over and over that he was "fair and balanced" and created a "no spin zone."

He could wear a fake objective demeanor, and have other guests shout down the guests he disagrees with (always with louder mics, I've noticed). That would make him a "pundit" instead of a scumbag, wouldn't it? He could get away with performing his over-the-top political propaganda, but people would be so used to it on a daily basis, that they wouldn't feel the same outrage. Maybe they'd come closer and closer to feeling that it was actually news. And with the slant so fiercely one-sided, the net effect would be to make the political center feel like a radical fringe.

I'm not a fan of MM's style (I do not like propaganda) and I'm not in line with all of his politics either, but he has shed light on problems that do exist in this country. The problems are so deep and socially bound to our way of life, any solution that could be crammed into a feature movie would be so superficially simplistic as to be useless.

But now people are talking about our health-care problems. It will be a feature of the upcoming election. I think the worst result of the movie is that about 30% of the country will oppose any change to the current situation simply as a knee-jerk anti-Moore reaction (since health-care reform is now fully branded as a "liberal cause").

 

[cronxeh]

Well this 6 minute attacks Michael Moore personally but who among you can say you haven't done what he has done at one point in your life? Those are basic flaws of human kind. I'm not saying Michael Moore is in stage 6 of moral development, albeit far from it, but at least his documentaries have shined a light on important issues, even if he benefited from it. In history there would be a gradual change catalyzed by people like Michael Moore, Ron Paul, and if you go back there were Davy Crockett, Ben Franklin, and the like.

 

[Chi Meson]

Well this 6 minute attacks Michael Moore personally but who among you can say you haven't done what he has done at one point in your life? Those are basic flaws of human kind. I'm not saying Michael Moore is in stage 6 of moral development, albeit far from it, but at least his documentaries have shined a light on important issues, even if he benefited from it. In history there would be a gradual change catalyzed by people like Michael Moore, Ron Paul, and if you go back there were Davy Crockett, Ben Franklin, and the like.

Some of Sam Adams' muckraking makes O'Reily sound like Warren Olney.