> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of jon louis mann > Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 3:49 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Michael Moore > > Well, if you look at what I wrote, I said: > > "I would place Moore's story telling with the 'young buck buying steak > with food stamps story.' > > This example of the misuse of food stamps was factually based. But, I > didn't consider it helpful in a discussion of whether food stamps > should be eliminated. > > The reference to Birth of a Nation was a strong example that showed it > was possible to tell a simple story that was not at all helpful. Even > if > one selectively chose facts (e.g. showed only good actions by whites > and > only bad actions by blacks) and told no lies, one could have gotten > something that would have close to the racist appeal of that film. > > I'll be happy to agree that Moore is not at the level of "Birth of a > Nation." But, he's not telling the Rosa Parks story as a straight > documentary either. It's advocacy journalism...the truth is known a > priori and the facts that fit it are assembled as needed. I don't care > much > when Lou Dobbs bashes undocumented aliens/illegal immigrants with it, > and I don't care much for it when Moore does it. Neither helps. > > Dan M. > > Maybe a person should see a movie before comparing it to Birth of a > Nation? > Doug > > if you look at what i said dan, moore's latest film "is not yet out for > general release", so all of us are basing our comments on the reviews.
Well, I'm basing my comments on a "review" (actually an interview) with Moore. He clearly pointed at corporate greed as _the_ cause for the problem in the interview. He stated the only problem with the Canadian health care system that he knows of is that its underfunded. I get the impression that he believes that National Health Insurance will lower costs and improve services pretty well all by itself if the corporations are pushed out of it. But, there are some data that tends to point against this. For example, as part of Medicare, patients can chose the standard government program or one of many managed care programs. If the managed care programs are really that much worse, no-one would chose them. Second, most good sized companies are self-insured. They pay a company to manage it for them. I cannot imagine HR staffs not making sure that they don't pay too much. Otherwise, it would pay for them to manage it themselves. I think we can count on big companies to look to their own profits. :-) > that is enough (along with knowledge of his past films) for me to > assert comparing "sicko" to "birth of a nation" is like apples and > zebras. > > you are absolutely correct that moore is selective with what facts he > uses, and many advocacy journalists do the same. lou dobbs, however, > used highly exaggerated statistics on the numbers of undocumented > workers. Well, I'm not sure what the right statistics are. He does tell the truth about the statistics....but in a way that gives a clear indication of what "the truth" is. >i much prefer moore's fact checking say to that of bill > o'reilley or anne coulter. I'd place Moore with Ann and Bill. I'm not fussing at them here, because no-one has praised them. In the Woodlands, I argue against Bill and Ann and say next to nothing about Moore. > no one is suggesting that we eliminate health care because there is > wide spread abuse, but certainly you would agree that massive reform is > needed. Sure. I outlined what I think the challenges are. >part of that reform is to expose inequities, corruption, > incompetence and mismanagement, etc. that is what moore is doing and > he is performing a public service. But, the idea he is pointing to as the solution...nationalizing health...is not going to be the solution the way he says it is. Now, I think that some mix of requiring employers to provide a level of health insurance to employees (including pro-rated by hours for non full-time workers to stop the 39 hour phenomenon) and governmental insurance will be needed as part of the plan. But, this has to be balanced with an attack on rising costs. Now, it is possible that Moore's discussion of the ideas of his film do not represent the film. But, going to Gitmo and then Castro for health care treatment should be seen as a stunt that has no meaning. The same type of evidence was used to support Latrile treatments. So, admitting that I haven't seen the movie, I think it is fair for me to say that, insofar as a significant fraction of people agree with the message he gave while discussing the movie, we will be further from agreeing upon a real solution. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
