For someone who wants to speak out on the issues of the day, there is something profoundly depressing (not to mention disturbing) about all the publicity Michael Moore is getting. This dishonest filmmaker has recently been featured on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America while some CNN reporter or movie critic seemed absolutely giddy that the propagandist had agreed to an on-camera interview with him. Meanwhile, my state senator (the woman formerly known as Zelda Gilroy), chair of the California Senate’s Health Committee, invited the rotund radical as the featured guest at a special legislative briefing.
Amazing that a man who twists the truth so often is accorded so much respect.
But, then again, the various media outlets can’t seem to find enough reporters to cover Paris Hilton.
The very premise of the film which catapulted this mean-spirited publicity hound to fame was premised on a lie. You see, that film documents his failed attempts to “secure an interview” with then-General Motors’ (GM) CEO Roger Smith to discuss the closure of a GM plant in Flint, Michigan. But, actually, that executive sit down and take questions from the obese propagandist.
And that wasn’t the only lie in Mr. Moore’s films. Kyle Smith (to whose New York Post column Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff alerted me) notes that the “central idea” of Moore’s Bowling for Columbine was “not only conceptually insane but literally untrue.” The deceptions in his movie on President Bush and 9/11 have been well documented.
For those of who want to speak out on politics, movies and whatever, it’s sad to see the success of someone who has based his entire career on distorting the facts, pulling quotes out of context and otherwise misrepresenting his adversaries. But, then again, what he does is little different from what many left-wing bloggers (and even some on the right) do every day. Indeed, we see it frequently in the comments section of this blog, coming from both sides, but more often from our critics than our supporters.
If the MSM were truly devoted to portraying things as they are, instead of heralding Michael Moore, they would treat him as they do right-wing propagandists. They would note his many deceptions and wonder at his success.
It’s a sad sign for our country that such a hateful and dishonest man has achieved such prominence. But, then again, his success gives his critics the opportunity to take issue with his lies and address the real issues at hand.
UPDATE: In a piece noting how the media are gushing over Mr. Moore’s new film, Amy Menefee of the Business & Media Institute writes:
Michael Moore is a documented liar who uses “omission, exaggeration and cinematic sleight of hand” to make his political points. But that doesn’t seem to matter to the media who cover his movies.
That pretty much sums it up.
I’ve always liked Christopher Hitchens’ quip about Moore in his review of Fahrenheit 911: Moore has the filmic standards of Leni Riefenstahl or Sergei Eisenstadt without the filmic skills. Isn’t that the truth!
it’s sad to see the success of someone who has based his entirely career on distorting the facts, pulling quotes out of context and otherwise misrepresenting his adversaries.
What’s sadder than that is the fact that liberals count on the stupid and ignorant as their base for votes and cash. Why should an individual care about facts and reality when they’re being lavished with gifts from Uncle Sugar?
Besides, truth is an absolute. Many times a moral absolute and you know how liberals despise absolutes, especially moral. Nah. They like a nice shade of gray.
What’s sadder than that is the fact that liberals count on the stupid and ignorant as their base for votes and cash. Thus completely distinguishing themselves from conservative politicians. (eyeroll)
That said, ye gods is Moore bad news. Not only does he lie (and lie a lot, and lie baldly), he glorifies in the misrepresentations and platitudes which he throws up as “speaking truth to power.” There are so many things wrong with health care in this country, and nary a cure can be found in Sicko. What’s worse, this is the first time many people will step back and “see” the big picture of health care and understand it as a problem, and their tour guide is… Michael Moore. Disaster.
“What’s sadder than that is the fact that liberals count on the stupid and ignorant as their base for votes and cash.”
Really? Republicans have counted on the same thing for decades. Hot button topics and lies have helped to get them to power. They’ve relied on an un-educated voting public to keep power. Was it the desire to have Bush stay in the White House that brought out voters in ’04? Not completely; it was the large number of anti-gay marriage initiatives that brought out voters and the many votes for Bush were simply by-products of that issue.
#5 – “Was it the desire to have Bush stay in the White House that brought out voters in ‘04? Not completely; it was the large number of anti-gay marriage initiatives that brought out voters and the many votes for Bush were simply by-products of that issue.”
Kevin, either you are very stupid or you have a long-term loss of short-term memory.
People voted in 2004 for Bush for one big reason – SECURITY. There was such a thing as 9/11 – remember that? Nobody trusted John F-ing Kerry on guiding the USA through a War on Terror.
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
#1 – Kurt, that pretty much says it all. Great quote.
Regards,
Peter H.
“… If the MSM were truly devoted to portraying things as they are, instead of [promoting a purely liberal agenda], they would treat [liberal crackpots] as they do right-wing propagandists. They would note [their] many deceptions and wonder at [their] success. …”
… At least, that’s how I read that statement. Michael, Cindy, Rosie, Al, etc., all get a free pass, if not downright worship, from the MSM, don’t they?
But there’s no bias in the MSM, just ask them.
Outright lies masquerading as truth in the “marketplace of ideas” do not concern liberals in the least because in their view, fabrications are not morally wrong if they are made in the course of advancing the liberal agenda. Nothing is more important to them than the “issues.” They see their promotion of the liberal agenda as a moral imperative that immunizes their corruption.
This should come as no surprise. Liberals’ indignant defense of Bill Clinton made it clear that they believe human morality is defined not by one’s conduct or the choices we make every day, but rather by one’s “stand on the issues.”
The most recent example of how destructive this repugnant mentality can be is the false accusations of rape made against the three Duke students (I am careful not to call it the “Duke rape case,” as others still seem to). Ann Coulter wrote a great column in January of this year titled, “Stripper Lied, White Boys Fried,” in which she exposes just how acutely Duke faculty members are infected with this disease. Even after it was clear to everyone on the planet that the boys were innocent, Duke English professor Cathy N. Davidson wrote an opinion piece noting that she remained “dismayed by the glaring social disparities implicit in what we know happened” and that the incident “underscores the appalling power dynamics of the situation.”
So, liberals are fine with false accusations that white, privileged males gang-raped a desperate, poverty-stricken woman of color because it brought attention to the important issue of how rich, white males victimize under-privileged minority women. Fueling outrage over the rape was more important than the fact that the rape did not occur (or the fact that the boys were facing 30 year prison terms). Or as Ann put it, “liberal professors believe that crying wolf is valuable for calling attention to the societal problem of wolves, even though there’s never a wolf in any particular case.”
#6 – Peter, I recall that in 2004, Bush actually did worse – i.e., Kerry actually did better – in the states that had anti-gay-marriage initiatives. Not in every case – but on average, I think.
Thus, the idea that Bush’s 2004 was due to anti-SSM is, let’s say, counter-factual. And I know my own reluctant vote for Bush was indeed based on Kerry’s radical lack of fitness to lead America in the War on Terror. (Making Bush, whom I do not like, the lesser evil.)
#9 – Well put, Sean A.
Regards,
Peter H.
I’ve now had the chance to see an advance screening of this movie – how many of you commenting here have done so? For all you can say about Moore’s tactics, music, editing, etc, there is one undeniable thing: In the countries he filmed in (Canada, England, France, Cuba) – when people walk into a hospital or health clinic, the first concern of the staff is to find what’s wrong with you so they can carry out their job to attend to your medical needs. In America, the first concern from the staff is usually “how are you going to pay?”. Right there is a big problem in American that needs fixing.
It was pretty funny, because when Moore asked doctors and hospital staff about insurance forms, paying for are, etc, they pretty much thought it was a ludicrous idea. Even though they were laughing, the were also clearly apalled to even think that the ability to pay was more important than providing health care services.
Kevin, I do agree with you that there are problems with our health care that need fixing. Unfortunately, Moore’s solution is based on systems which have even more problems than we do.
My doctor friends agree that there is too much paperwork, but none of them favor a government-run solution.
Too bad, Mr. Moore doesn’t explore some free market alternatives. And please tell me if he addresses any of the problems of European health care systems, such as waiting lines for “emergency” surgeries, etc.
In my career I’ve dealt with many a hospital, especially emergency rooms. I have been to every ER in the Houston area from Huntsville to Cleveland to Conroe. From Houston Northwest to Cy-Fair to Hermann to Methodist to UTMB-Galveston and even the county hospitals of LBJ and Ben Taub. I have been in ERs in Mississippi and been a patient in two Florida hospitals (one which I worked in). Not ONCE have I ever known any nurse, triage or otherwise, who cared about how the patient was going to pay. The FIRST thing asked by the triage nurse is “what’s wrong?”
Further, I would ask which of the hospitals that are agressive in billing, have a high level of getting stiffed? As far as insurance companies go, how much do they get scammed and screwed over? I used to know several people who almost lived off of scamming insurance companies and Medicare. Not to mention the frivilous lawsuits. Folks keep gaming the system and suing everybody who looks at them funny and then can’t figure out why insurance is so high.
Finally, Kevin, I’d like to know where exactly nurses demand to know how you’re going to pay.
Indeed. U.S. law requires emergency rooms to focus on treatment first, and they do.
Meanwhile, in 2005, Canada’s supreme court declared the vaunted Canadian system “deadly” and “dangerous” and ordered Canada to return to partial privatization. (Don’t believe me? Click here. For a CBC article, click here.)
Hi Kevin,
No, I have not seen Sicko and have no plans to do so for several reasons. First, I simply can’t stomach the idea of paying money to see a film knowing that even a fraction of the ticket price will end up in Michael “Kill The Rich” Moore’s pocket. Second, I have no interest in paying money to be confined in a dark room heavily populated with…eeww… Michael Moore fans. Third, I don’t need to see it simply to ensure that I am fully informed of Moore’s position on the healthcare issue. I know where it’s going: U.S. healthcare = criminally bad and corrupted by insurance company greed. Socialized healthcare = curing cancer in children for pennies a day (thanks to that big ol’ teddy bear, Fidel Castro). I get it. America sucks, Cuba rules. The big ship hits an iceberg and sinks. Shocker. Fourth, I simply can’t bear to see that ugly mug of Moore’s for even three seconds. He literally disgusts me on every level even when his mouth is shut (which is rare). I find that his snide contempt for this country and his hypocritical willingness to loot its spoils is literally built into the structure of his bloated face. The sight of him angers me and I prefer to feel happy.
Finally, the most significant reason I have no interest in seeing the film is because even if I could endure Moore for two hours, it is still a waste of my time. There are simply no circumstances whatsoever that Moore could present in Sicko that would EVER convince me that it is a good idea to just hand our healthcare system over to the government. And it’s not stubborn or closed-minded of me. I’ve been to the DMV. It’s a bad idea. Period.
And it’s no surprise that Moore shared a hearty chuckle with foreign hospital staff at the “appalling” notion that a patient would ever be asked to provide insurance information or give some indication of how they would pay for the medical services. Yes, how utterly barbaric of us Americans to have the temerity to bring up such an “appalling” topic. I feel so ashamed that hospital staff in CUBA has found out about this shameful secret “that needs fixing.” Of course, I believe there are a few minor things in Cuba that “need fixing” as well, but I’m too polite to mention them. Also, I’d like to finish this comment before next Spring.
One last thing–anyone interested in this issue should check out an article discussed by Mary Katherine Ham yesterday at townhall.com. Ham’s post is titled, “UK Surprised to Find That Socializing Health Care Doesn’t Make the Supply of Health Care Unlimited,” and links to a news story in scotsman.com titled, “NHS rationing is ‘necessary evil’, say doctors.”
http://townhall.com/blog/g/abce429d-adfa-4156-9e1a-a092dd831c8c
Hmmmm……..rationing. That doesn’t sound very good. Did Michael Moore happen to mention anything about “rationing” in Sicko? Maybe it’s one of those things that “needs fixing.”
Help me out here, Kevin.
Who was it that promissed that if Bush was elected, the draft would be reinstated?
Who was it that promissed that if Bush was elected, black men would be chained to pickup trucks and dragged to death?
Who was it that promissed that if Bush was elected, black churches would be burned?
Who was it that promissed that Bush was going to steal money from our 401(K)s?
Who was it that promissed that Bush was going to destroy Socialist Stupidity?
Who was it that promissed that Republicans want to make the elderly starve to death?
Who was it that promissed that Republicans (Reagan especially) was going to go into schools and steal little Billy’s lunch?
Who was it that told us that Bush controls hurricanes, wildfires, tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes etc.?
Who was it that told us that Bush personally blew up the New Shithole levees to kill all the blacks (nevermind the fact that most who died were WHITE)?
Shall I go on? Who was it that promissed all this and who are the mindless dipshits who bought into it hook, line and sinker.
OH YEAH! Liberals.
Look that one up in your Funk &Wagnall’s, then cram it up & left.
13: I have a friend who is a very successful ob-gyn. he gets bogged down though because a substantial amount of his time is spent on making sure he gets paid via insurance for the patients he sees. Funny thing is, he is a Republican and was initially a supporter of Bush, but I think the “doctors loving their patients” comment was the last straw for him. People who leave their practices do not do so primarily because of the high cost of insurance; they do so because they have become fed up with financial systems involved with getting paid for providing services and they feel they should be able to provide someone without the threat of not being paid for their services. he would gladly welcome a government run solution that streamlined the process of getting paid for his services and the beaurocracy of denial that exists in for-profit HMOs (actually, this is already true to some extent since some of his patients are part of state coverage plans and he has the least trouble getting paid by that plan)
14: You’re right, a nurse doesn’t ask those questions, but how about the administrative staff you encounter who do? I have yet to ever enter a medical facility where, at some point early in the process, you have to talk to someone to do an “intake” that involves finding out about the ability to pay. Or, how about the nurse or doctor who may not express it to the patient, but feels the pressure to provide less than fully adequatte care becasue they’re under pressure from HMOs to not provide services?
Free market alternatives? sorry, but idea of providing health care to me is to provide services that help people get cured, pure and simple. The end result of health care is make sure people are taken care of medically, not to prop up a corrupt system of insurance companies and HMOs that are in business simply to make lots of money by not providing the services they provide. As for the rest, see the movie to see what issues are addressed.
15: Interesting, because it clearly shows that there are problems that can exist on both sides of the coin. the articles you note here state that people aren’t getting care. in the hip replacement case, it’s noted that service are unavialble because lack of funds in the government. Here with insurance companies/HMOs, the major complaint is not due to lack of funds, but because the HMOs could not profit if they actually provided the services they claim to provide. By the way, if he wants to get private care, then why not come across the border and purchase private insurance in the US? Of course he can’t because that’s a pre-existing condition.
It’s pretty clear that no system is perfect and they all have their problems, but frankly, I would prefer whose main concern is trying to provide health care for its members, not the profits and dividends for its shareholders.
#17 TGC, were you born an asshole or are you just well practiced? While I completely agree with every point you wrote regarding MM, your remarks disparaging New Orleans, this time as a shithole, are becoming tiresome. Is it really necessary? Did something happen bad happen to you here? As a 5th generation New Orleanian, I’m feeling some resentment.
Kevin,
Your statement that “no system is perfect” is actually not consistent with the liberals’ approach when arguing in favor of socialized healthcare. Their entire argument for chucking the medical private sector is based upon (1) true anecdotal nightmares that some Americans have had to face when dealing with their HMOs (depicted as highly emotional stories in the MSM and in films like Sicko); and (2) that the anecdote is irrefutably true for thousands of other Americans. Therefore, the government should step in and take over the entire system.
The problem with their argument is that point # 2 is a complete and utter fabrication. Michael Medved raised the crucial issue on his radio program that when this topic is debated, liberals treat point # 2 as a foregone conclusion. Thus, they want to skip right to the part where we can debate how socialized healthcare can be implemented in the U.S. as soon as possible. Liberals expect us to simply accept as true the premise that there are scores of American citizens with significant health problems having doors slammed in their faces by HMOs denying them essential services and treatment that should be covered by their policies. The question Medved legitimately proposed was this: where are all of these people? Where are all of these wretched casualties of the greedy HMOs? Medved’s salient point was that Liberals robotically bitch about the dismal state of the U.S. healthcare system because they have been conditioned to do so by their party. It’s a liberal mantra that our healthcare system is fatally flawed, but just because liberals say it over and over again doesn’t make it true (just like everything else they say).
The MSM handles point # 1. They find ONE PERSON whose HMO has denied him a hip replacement and they show a news segment of the “victim” hobbling around in horrible pain. At least the journalists bother to find an actual victim. Democrat politicians are responsible for handling point #2, but they figure their job is done just by making firey speeches claiming that our healthcare system is irrevocably damaged and beyond repair and greedy Republicans are responsible. Their supporters cheer and become outraged and indignant about the issue in spite of the fact that they are perfectly happy with their own HMOs and don’t know a single person that has ever been denied an essential service or cast off into the hospital parking lot. They say it’s true, so IT IS TRUE. And anyone who questions point # 2 is an evil, uncaring Republican.
So where are all of these people Kevin? According to liberals, there are thousands of people being screwed by their HMOs and languishing on deathbeds without proper care or essential treatment. Where are they? How about you Kevin? Have you ever been denied an essential service by your HMO? Do you know anyone who has? I don’t know anyone that has had to go to war with their HMO and I’m perfectly happy with the service and treatment I have received. The real story is that the majority of Americans are fine with their provider and the treatment they have received. The system isn’t imploding they way liberals insist it is, but of course, they have to convince us that there is a crisis if they can ever hope to assume government control over one-seventh of the U.S. economy.
Are there such people that have been victimized by their HMOs? OF COURSE! Because we don’t live in a perfect, utopian world where there is no possibility that some individuals will fall through the cracks. Liberals self-righteously think they can fix this–no, correction: Liberals tell the public that they are THE ONLY ONES that can fix this. In their view, only government can resolve this problem. And to them I say: FIX WHAT?!
P.S. “I would prefer whose main concern is trying to provide health care for its members, not the profits and dividends for its shareholders.”
Kevin, contrary to what you have been compelled to believe by liberal propaganda about “evil corporations,” these two things are not mutually exclusive. The healthcare providers in this country manage to do both of these things quite well every day. And BTW, just because an HMO makes a profit, doesn’t conclusively prove that there are people dying in the streets. The liberals that have been screaming this fallacy into your impressionable ears are really just filling your head with lies.
I would prefer – strongly – a system or provider whose main concern is providing health care to its members PRECISELY BECAUSE it is a private concern, that can create profits for its shareholders only by striving for the public’s trust and confidence.
The problem with HMOs, if there is one, is that they’re not subject to nearly enough competition. Our medical system is, in fact, far too tightly controlled by the government.
For profit = Human relations in their proper moral context. Voluntary actions, taken by mutual consent and for mutual gain between doctor, manager/hospital, and patient. With practical consequences (if allowed to flourish) of efficiency and innovation.
Non profit, i.e., governmental organization = Death. The patient is turned into a baby – after being taxed to death, if he is a taxpayer. The doctor and the manager/hospital alike, work for the government. Soviet-style bureaucracy. Long waits for substandard care – as seen in Canada, the UK, Cuba, and every other country that has tried it.
Sean A – you’ve hit the nail on the head. With left-liberals, it’s all about expanding government power. Every minute of the day, no matter small the problem is in scope (or number of people affected): always, always, always, their answer is to expand government. Their blind faith in all-beneficent Government has a quality of religious mania that would put Jim Jones, Heaven’s Gate or any other kooky cult to shame.
As for Michael Moore: Fine, let’s all talk about health care again. Let him make a silly, mendacious movie that will be debunked as a fraud, as his other movies have been. The process of debunking will ultimately advance the conversation.
Amen, ILoveCapitalism! Government organization DOES equal death (to efficiency, fiscal responsibility, customer service, excellence of any kind, etc.). However, you left out one thing (and since I’m a labor lawyer, it’s my personal favorite): YOU CAN’T FIRE ANYBODY!
And I agree with you 100% that if anything needs to be changed it’s the need for greater competition which will lead to greater choices for selecting the right HMO that the policyholder can really count on. Because, in fairness to Kevin, the one decent point he makes is that healthcare is not a service like dry cleaning or a carwash. If you’re not happy with the service of your HMO, or worse, you are arbitrarily denied some treatment option that could help a debilitating condition or save your life, you can’t just “take your business elsewhere” and go to another HMO across town. Pre-existing conditions may not be covered, etc.
So, I agree, HMOs (like all private industries) would benefit from more competition. Of course, Kevin’s solution is that we go the opposite direction and make one GREAT, BIG, GIANT HMO. It reminds me of a kid making cookies with frozen cookie dough and having the seemingly brilliant idea of making one giant cookie instead of many, smaller individual cookies. Well, the lesson learned from that exercise is that it doesn’t work. You don’t end up with a big, delicious wagon-wheel of cookie. It comes out of the oven as a scorched, steaming blob of raw cookie dough muck. Which is, afterall, a perfect metaphor for socialized healthcare. Got milk?!
22: Seriously, do you work for the Press office of an HMO? How do you contradict people who have come from these companies and have openly admitted that their actions, in the name of profit, have directly resulted in people not receiving health care and, in some cases, they’ve admitted that their actions caused people’s deaths? That’s already happened under the insurance/HMO system in this country. Im not even talking about the people who have not health insurance at all; I’m talking about those of us out there who have health plans that in all appearances should cover illness and injury
I just think that the only real profit to be gained in any health care system is the health of the patient. Making huge monetary profit comes from pretty simple recipes – 1) Charge an exceedingly high price for the goods/service you provide. 2) Make sure that any outgoing expenses are are far below the amount of money you took in form your customers. In the case of Medical insurance in this country, just routinely deny services to your customers.
21: Exactly who is out there compelling me to believe this? Perhaps you’re the one who’s been brainwashed by big corporations and conservatives.
It comes down this folks: When you have a loved one who is sick, injured, in need of urgent medical care – are you going to give a pat on the back to your medical insurance carrier when they refuse to provide the services that your loved one (or yourself) should be getting under their plan? Will you be glad that they maximized their profits by not spending the money for the procedure that could have alleviated their pain, cured their illness? Keep in mind that at some point either you or someone in your life is most likely going to face a critical medical condition or injury. Jsut better hope you get the insurance you pay for.
your remarks disparaging New Orleans, this time as a shithole, are becoming tiresome.
I think I said it once.
Oops! Gotta watch what I think and say. Especially regarding such a large victim city. Can’t talk bad about New Orleans. They were brushed by a large hurricane after all.
Can you confer sainthood on an entire city despite the mob and liberal ties?
#25 You really don’t get it, do you.
#26 – Well, TGC, you know what we Texans like to say about our neighbors to the east:
Half of Louisiana is under water. The other half is under investigation.
Regards,
Peter H.
Okay, Peter. There is now a light misting of Mountain Dew all over my monitor thanks to you. I had just taken a big swig and was not prepared for that joke as I was scrolling down. That is awesome. I had not heard that one before. Cheers!
[Post deleted for violating community terms of conduct.]
#28 – Sorry, Sean. Next time I’ll post a “spew alert” prior to the joke-telling.
Regards,
Peter H.
#20 – And David, while we’re on the subject of New Orleans, I find it rather hypocritical that a large segment of the newly-arrived population that School Bus Nagin dissed during the initial clean-up efforts are now doing just that – cleaning up in terms of $$$ earned, much to the consternation of the segment of the population that Nagin coined as “the chocolate city.”
Doing the jobs New Orleanians won’t do, I see…
Regards,
Peter H.
Though I believe theres a tremendous ammount of wrong in terms of the Iraq war, Moore deoes absolutely no good for the anti-war movement by using out and out manipulation to make a point. Ive only seen bowling for Columbine and after seeing him herras Charleton Heston and manipulate heston’s speeches with film editing and misleading questions, I have absolutely no respect for the guy. He allowed Heston to be painted as a racist by leaving out important facts for his interview, which is absolutely no way anybody should remember a man who marched with MLK on several occasions. I guess he thinks the ends justify the means when it comes to banning guns, but if the ends cant justify theirselves, then hes probably got a bad argument. I mean he acted like gun related homicide is worse then any other kind of murder. Homicide is slightly higher in the US then in European countries, when it comes to overall murder. In the end, it doesnt matter what you get killed with. IIf someone wants someone dead, theyll find a way, gun or no gun. As for the antiwar movie he made, I dont even want to watch it. Im pro gun but anti war. Well, someobody might say, “if ure pro guns, theres plenty of guns in war”. I believe in guns for protection from the government first and foremost. If u bann guns, its only going to be a prohibition for its citezens, not from the government itself. Aside from that, I dont want to hear anything he has to say about the war, because I already know hes a manipulative liar. When debating things lies get you know where, (except lots of press and notoriety). His lies do absolutely nothing in validating anti-war positions. Either war is wrong or its nott, and theres plenty of evidence to support the latter argument without Micheal Moore.
War is wrong? I dont understand.. are you speaking on an abstract level or something more specific?