Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
"Tea Bag Nation Ends Today"
Capitalism' Opens Today at a Theater Near You!
...an invitation from
Michael Moore
Friends,
For two months, we've sat and watched the rabid right achieve the unimaginable: Derail universal health care and send the Democrats in Congress running for cover. Many have asked, "How did this happen? How could a small minority of angry people control the public agenda? Where is the majority's response? Why the silence?"
I don't have the answers to all these questions. But I do know this: I've
had enough. As far as I'm concerned, Tea Bag Nation ends today -- at noon to
be precise. For that's when I set loose, on a thousand screens across this
great land, a movie I've made that's so relentless, so dangerous, so damning
in its humor, that it will -- I can only hope -- do what no movie has done
before: Take them down, take them all down, once and for all.
The days of the majority of Americans being ignored and played for chumps are over as of right now. This weekend, consider your local cinema the REAL town hall meetings! Come and spend two hours with hundreds of other people who are fed up and in need of a bit of inspiration -- and a good hearty laugh at the expense of all the S.O.B.s who've wrecked our economy and laid ruin to our democracy.
I'm personally inviting you to come see what many critics are saying is my best film yet: "Capitalism: A Love Story." You will not be disappointed. I will show you things and tell you things about how the captains of corporate America have stolen our country from us. No one on the nightly news is bringing these truths to you. Beginning at noon today, I pull back the curtain and reveal who's responsible for the calamity we're in. That's right -- I name names and I explain why this economic system we have is nothing more than legalized greed, and Wall Street is nothing more than a crime syndicate in suits. You will be blown away by what you see, but you will not leave the theater in a pit of despair. I'm counting on your response to be one of exhilaration and determination. I've watched this movie in sneak previews with audiences from Pittsburgh to L.A. and I've never seen more hooting and hollering during a documentary in my life. There are actually standing O's during the movie! Weird. Cool. Down in front!
Please see "Capitalism: A Love Story" this weekend. Take a bunch of friends and make it an event. Last weekend in New York and L.A. many shows sold out (making "Capitalism" the biggest per screen average at the box office for 2009), so get your tickets early. And if you get a chance, send me a photo of what opening night looks like in your city and I'll post it on my website.
C'mon, friends -- RISE UP! This is our moment. And it comes with popcorn! Not bad!
Thank you so very much for all your support and encouragement over the years.
Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com
P.S. For a list of theaters and to find the nearest one to you showing "Capitalism: A Love Story," click here.
104 Comments so far
Show AllI'm shocked at Moore's lack of knowledge regarding Obama and the Democrats healthcare reform. It is NOT "univerasal healthcare" nor was it ever intended to be. It was and is becoming more so, a reform to enlarge the overstuffed coffers of HMO's and big pharma. How dissapointing that even Moore has been bamboozled by the criminals in the WH.
In fairness, it can be argued that it was the right that led the useless Democrats to take real universal healthcare off the table early on. So, Moore is essentially correct.
From the beginning of the so-called health care reform debates, single-payer advocates were ignored and were not invited to sit at the table. Very quickly, we learned that Obama had set the stage for "health insurance reform," not "health care reform." In addition, Obama, himself, not the other useless Democrats, met behind closed doors and made back-door deals with Billy Tauzin, Big PhRMA, to NOT negotiate the price of prescription drugs. These actions were deliberate. I will not let Obama off the hook, or make apologies for him.
Yes, but you should take Moore off the hook. We are talking long term here. The democrats, could not have sold out to the right if there was no corporate right.
I'm tired of this narcissistic lafter-than-thou bitching in the US left. Give Moore some fucking credit!
Moore needs no "credit". Trust me. He has PLENTY of CAPITAL. Forked tongue bastard.
When people try to out-left Michael Moore, I find myself wondering how small a coalition you plan to create, and just how, in practice, you plan to implement any change at all. Or maybe it isn't about real change, it's about how holy you are.
Exactly!
Seems the left thinks it can do everything alone.
Grabbing points for being "pure" hasn't gotten us very far, has it?
Absolutely correct. The left can do absolutely nothing by itself.
I also agree -- the left cannot do this alone! Did anyone try to claim that we could?
What is the "Left" anyway?. I'm a socialist, which at least narrows down what I believe in. The "Left" or what people like to believe is the "Left" in the United States is a far cry from what the "Left" is, say in France, or Spain, or Venezuela. People in this country call Democrats "Left". How ridiculous!
I guess at this (low) point, we'll take what we can get!
Then, hope that we can organize with some (though small) effectiveness.
I'm trying not to despair at how things are right now.
In the context of original comment, I would say the "left" is what your fellow Americans see it as. The point is that if you are so far to the left that you are anti-Michael Moore, then you are never going to make any real progress, and perhaps you don't care to.
True, Moore has plenty of Capital, most of which he uses to make more movies. Does he live in a mansion, one of many? Does he have a yacht? Does he fly in a private jet? I just don't get those who put Michael Moore down simply because what he does he does well and has made a fortune out of it. Could it be jealousy?
George Markley: I Agree! Michael Moore is buying into the dirty rotten system in order to gain the resourses to change the system. This guy has not only a great imagination but he also has balls! How can anyone be so negative about that? At least he is not making his money finacially screwing other Americans!
Michael Moore is making up for what our bought and paid for churches and univerities are failed to do, to educate and raise human consciousness. These institutions have failed the U.S. in more ways than any other institutions.
Michael Moore also makes up for all these self rightious liberals who do nothing but wine. Americans need to get off their asses and hit the streets. Live free or die!
It is not "narcissistic lefter-than-thou bitching" to point out that Moore's basic frame is incorrect. "Universal health care" was NEVER on the table.
The Democratic Party since Clinton and even more so under Obama is plainly corporate. Both Clinton and Obama put "health care" proposals on the table that were expressly written to NOT reduce the power and profit of corporate parasites.
You are free to agree with Moore's straightforward assertion that, in "two months," "the rabid right" derailed "universal health care." It is only pointing out an obvious truth to point out that this is an absurd frame.
You are oh so right.
Right on!!
Micheal Moore spent his time making a movie filled with facts that condemns capitalism- laying it all out with utter contempt for the filthy rich robber-led corporations.
What did the rest of you do on YOUR summer vacation?
Good grief, we need more Micheal Moores in the world.
The rest of us had better get out from behind these keyboards!!
First of all, in my post, I didn't say one word about Michael Moore, or his film. In fact, I have a great respect for his work and I have seen all of his films. Therefore, I don't understand your anger toward me, and I have no intention of calling you any names in return.
However, I do think that Michael Moore has a blind spot when it comes to the Democratic Party, and seems to think that they will come around, so to speak. But, we have no hard evidence of that -- at this moment. Will his film influence the debate? Time will tell! Will Michael Moore lead a march down Broadway to Wall Street? Will he march and protest the "health insurance reform" that is currently being debated? If he did, I'm sure people would come out in droves -- and that could make a big difference in how the Democrats choose to vote, corporate intests or in the public interest, on the side of "we the people."
As for the Democrats selling out to the corporate right -- there are as many corporatists who are Democrats as there are corporatists who are Republicans, and that's been true for decades -- going way back to the days of Nixon. After all, it was President Carter who deregulated trucking and the airlines. In addition, it was during the Carter administration that the usury laws were dismantled -- and he had a Democratic congress. Therefore, I can't let the Democrats off the hook, nor can I apologize for them.
"As for the Democrats selling out to the corporate right -- there are as many corporatists who are Democrats as there are corporatists who are Republicans, and that's been true for decades -- going way back to the days of Nixon."
--------------------------------------
It goes back long before Nixon, Kay. Read Alan Brinkley's (he's a chaired history prof at Columbia and a fairly conventional liberal) books on the FDR era.
Even FDR, that icon of liberalism, only made pro-populo changes when he had no other visible choice. His most important changes -Soc. Sec. and the WPA- were attempts to 'steal [Huey] Long's thunder', and the much-ballyhoo'd "tax reform" of '35 was essentially cosmetic rather than substantive. On the downside, his Treas. Sec., Morganthau, gradually shifted the income tax off the backs of the wealthiest 5% down onto our backs between '35 and '44, and FDR signed off both on putting Japanese-Americans into concentration camps, and making marijuana illegal. Not a very good record. And he was the *best* of the Dems til LBJ!
Irony: the only time the Supreme Court was ever on our side (which is the complete basis for the myth that SCOTUS is our last line of defence against tyranny!) was during Earl Warren's tenure, a man appointed to the high bench by a *Republican* (Eisenhower).
Mainread: I actually know most of what you wrote in your post -- but, I have not read Alan Brinkley's books, so I will put his name on my "to read" list. And, thanks!
For me, the best parts of FDR were Francis Perkins and Eleanor. Still, FDR, with his administation, did pass some important legislation -- e.g. The Glass-Steagall Act -- and the WPA did create a lot of jobs in a lot of different fields, including the arts. Some people forged important and successful careers that carried them through to the end of their lives. So far, we still have Social Security, but I have heard Geithner make some comments that are cause for serious concern.
Having lived through the 1960s and 1970s, I am so aware of the disintegration of unions, stagnant wages, outsourcing of jobs -- blue collar and white collar -- and so many other debilitating legislative policies that have helped to destroy so many lives in this country. For those reasons, I have never entertained any illusions about the American Dream, and all that the idea is supposed to encompass.
Thanks for your post!
Sorry, Kay, I should have made clear that only my first sentence was addressed to you particularly. The rest was really meant for others since, as you know, most people are totally unaware of how much of the FDR hagiography is pure myth.
FDR indeed deserves credit for Frances Perkins, and Eleanor was a prize. It's not really surprising to me (now!) that she and FDR were estranged--she seemed to genuinely care for others in ways it's now clear he didn't.
I was born during FDR's third term, and grew up with his mythology ringing in my ears. It came as a real shock to find out how little substance there was behind it, and especially how successfully his nemesis Huey Long was demonised and framed-up by both claques of ruling-class sockpuppets.
So if FDR was mostly a phony, why did the industry giants try to overthrow him?
For a little historical context, it was Truman who made the most serious effort for a single payer health syatem in 1949, but ultimately caved under the red-baiting right.
Remember that they went after Clinton, too, even though he did everything for them and nothing for us.
If there were a way to be sure about 'why', sure enough that people could make 'bar bets' on it, I'd bet my money on a mix of two reasons:
a) They're a bunch of pathologically greedy creatures (I won't say 'people') whose motto is everywhere and always, as Adam Smith told us, 'all for ourselves and nothing for other people'. And it really, truly IS 'all' vs 'nothing' in the world they want; even a dollar going to some pocket besides theirs causes them anger. They feel they have the right to own and control everything. I.e., they're crazy, and in a world where the loonies don't run the asylum, they'd be on the inside looking out.
b) Often the main skill such creatures have is in manipulating real humans like us. So one way for them to keep the goodies flowing in is to make sure that we rally around Clinton or FDR or Obama instead of attacking him ourselves for selling us out. It worked like a charm for Clinton: Move On came into being because of the rightwing 'attack' on Clinton, and it's served the DLC ever since. Similarly, NOW took Clinton's part even though he behaved completely unethically toward Monica; they did it reflexively, the way a non-human would, and just as the 'Obamabots' do.
So I would think the question is, do we rally behind someone in power and try to influence or change them, or abandon the idea of working through the political party system and challenge corporate and wealthy interests another way? Because it's pretty obvious that someone who already agrees with us will not be able to ascend to real power.
pjd412, Please, a little more civility. Not like you at all.
My wife and I will be seeing this intriguing film tonight. Michael Moore inquires, "How could a small minority of angry people control the public agenda?" One suspects it is because a majority of people did not become angry enough to demand a single payer system in this country. As T.R. Reid points out in his extremely well written book The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper and Fairer Health Care:
"Everybody [in Switzerland] gets to vote, everybody gets a jury trial, everybody gets an old-age pension, everybody pays the same price for a ticket on the national railroads. And everybody has access to medical care. In Switzerland, the "right to medical care" is not a political argument advanced by left-wing parties but, rather, a basic truth of modern life."
As Reid notes in his book, the US is the only industrialized country in the world that can claim [as if it is proud of that fact] that it does not provide universal health care for its citizens. As the above quote from Reid's book should affirm, if there are things and rights that one takes for granted, then the obvious question should be why is health care for everyone not considered one of those rights? And why are not the progressive politicians and the people in this country outnumbering the conservative and libertarian Neanderthals who have dominated and taken over this important topic?
The Swiss system is a privatized system with mandatory insurance purchase, so I'm nor sure how much healthcare coverage is considered a right as it is a social responsiility - like the Swiss compulsory military service. However, the controls on the insurance companies (imposed by the individual cantons) are far, far for stringent than anything being considered here. I think of it being like state-regulated utilities here in the US. All fees and coverages are standarized and dictated by the government, the companies books are inspected by the government, profits, if allowed at all, are regulated etc.
This is the only kind privatized system that I would even consider. But, because the insurance companies would never accept this degree of regulation, the only thing that will work at this point is govenment-run single payer.
PJD412
Reid basically agrees with you as he quotes Pascal Couchepin, the president of the Swiss Federation, who notes that:
"A society cannot have complete equality, it is not possible. You can earn more money than your neighbor; that is not society's business. But a good railway system, a good school system, a good health system-the basic needs of the people-must be handled with a high degree of equality. To have a great sense of solidarity among the people, all must have an equal right-and particularly, a right to medical carer."
Reid believes that there are four types of health care systems in the world.
* The Bismarck Model, named after the Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismarck, which uses "private health insurance plans, usually financed by employers and employees through payroll deductions. Unlike the U.S. health insurance industry, though, Bismarck-type plans are usually charities." As Reid stresses, "they cover everybody, and they don't make a profit." Germany would be an example of this system.
* The Beveridge Model, named after the social reformer William Beveridge, who helped bring about England's National Health Service. As Reid states, "In this system, health care is provided and financed by the government, through tax payments. There are no medical bills; rather, medical treatment is a public service. In Beveridge systems, many [sometimes all] hospitals and clinics are owned by government employees, but there are also private doctors who collect their fees from the government. These systems tend to have low costs per capita, because the government, as the sole payer, controls what doctors can do and what they can charge."
* The National Health Insurance Model which incorporates elements of both Bismarck and Beveridge. In this system, "the providers of health care are private, but the payer is a government-run insurance program that every citizen pays into. The national, or provincial, insurance plan collects monthly premiums and pays medical bills. Since there's no need for marketing, no expensive underwriting offices to deny claims, and no profit, these universal programs tend to be cheaper and much simpler administratively than American-style private insurance. As a single payer covering everybody, the national insurance plan tends to have considerable market power to negotiate for lower prices." The best model of this system is Canada with Taiwan and South Korea adopting variations of this system.
* The last system is the one that is being used, for the most part, by the poorest countries in the world and that is the Out-Of-Pocket Model where "most medical are is paid for by the patient, out of pocket, with no insurance or government plan to help." The United States has more than 45 million Americans who are forced to participate in this system.
Reid also notes in his book that the United States employs all four examples in its snarled and labyrinthine system.
* "For most working people under sixty-five, we're Germany or France or Japan where, under a standard Bismarck system, the worker and the employer share the premiums for a health insurance policy. The insurer picks up m ost of the tab for treatment, with the patient either making a co-payment or paying a percentage."
* Native Americans, military personnel and veterans, like Britain or Cuba, use the Beveridge system. This system involves "doctors who are government employees working in government-owned clinics and hospitals. Americans and Native Americans "never get a medical bill" for their services.
* Americans over 65 incorporate Canada's health care plan in which "Medicare is essentially a National Health Insurance scheme, with the near-universal participation and the low administrative costs that characterize such systems."
* As Reid observes, "for the 45 million uninsured Americans, we're Cambodia or rural India" as these unfortunate wretches must pay their medical bills out-of-pocket.
Yet as Reid points out, "we're like no other country, because the United States maintains so many separate systems for separate classes of people [shades of Michael Moore's latest film as well as Sicko], and because it relies so heavily on for-profit private insurance plans to pay the bills."
And still out politicians insist that single payer must remain off the table because, according to Obama, a single payer system would be considered too "radical". As Shakespeare once noted, Ah, what fools these mortals be!.
"And still out politicians insist that single payer must remain off the table because, according to Obama, a single payer system would be considered too "radical"."
That is what so many people who voted for Obama find hard to comprehend. Obama was for single payer while he was running for president, he was for single payer before he ran for president, so why is single payer suddenly too radical after he became president? The Obama voters have a few answers to this question, the most popular being that Obama is a corrupt politician in the pocket of BIg Business (the corporate interests) who lied to the American people to get elected. I think many people feel like fools because once again they put their trust in a two party system and wasted their vote instead voting independent.
Excellent comment.
You are also correct that the only real answer to the problem here is Single Payer. The Swiss system is very good, but it is applied to a small and stable population.
Wrong. My Sister just had some guests from Switzerland,that stayed with her a few days and according to them their health system is good if you can afford it, but it is horribly expensive as they pay around $1200.00 per month for two people.
The small minority controls the propaganda media that misinforms & lies to the citizens of this country. Until that ends, we the people lose.
Earlier this week during an interview with Moore, Tavis Smiley questioned Moore's allegance to Obama by enumerating the Wall St. insiders Obama hired. Moore referenced his anology (included in the movie, I believe) of hiring a former bank robber to help the cops deal with bank robberies (a lame analogy since the former bank robber faces cooperation or jail, unlike the insiders).
Moore concluded that, if one year from now, Obama's alleged "strategy" of hiring insiders continues to benefit the 1% at the expense of the rest of us, Moore will make a movie chastizing Obama.
1 year from now MM will make a movie chastizing Obama. Hey MM you better start filming that movie now!! Obama is an abomination to our nation. What the hell is he doing in Copenhagen if not supporting the wealthy, elite? We are killing and maiming people every day in an egregious,war in Afghanistan that only benefits the 1% and have insurance companies that are murdering sick people for the benefit of the 1%; every day, and are actually the REAL DEATH PANELS and a perdition to our nations health care! And the olympic games are a higher priority? Yes, ABOMINATION is the right word!
BIGOT!!!
"Smoke in the wind'"-------------*
Only equal force will put the control that the Plutocratic Oligarchy has over the USA into the hands of the 'people'.
Anything else; is 'smoke in the wind'.
* "Smoke in the wind" refers to the imagery of 'smoke' that is dissipated by the wind'---looks good, but has no substance after the wind 'blows it away'.
"If the USA were another nation the USA would invade the USA to keep the world safe; and they would be justified."
Michael Moore's problem is that he is still a dyed in the wool democrat. He seems to believe the democrats are something other than the less right wing side of our essentially one party system. It is a terrible blind spot for him.
"Last weekend in New York and L.A. many shows sold out (making "Capitalism" the biggest per screen average at the box office for 2009)..."
Michael! YOU are a CAPITALIST.
He released Slacker Uprising online last year, just about everybody was able to see it for free. He also had theaters in "the hardest hit cities" have free screenings for poor people last night for his new movie.
Is the definition of the label of capitalist that someone makes a lot of money, or is it something else?
And what does "biggest per screen average" mean anyway? I saw that term earlier, but I don't understand it.
I would say that MM is a capitalist in the way that he earns his money and in how he spends it. Check and you will find out where he gets his medical coverage, where he lives and what the ethnic makeup of his community is, how he gets from place to place, etc.
But what if he is a capitalist? So what, it doesn't mean he doesn't believe in what he says or the direction he believes we should go. MM is exacly what an American should be. Doing what he wants to do, believing what he likes, saying it any way he wants or can.
I am free to say he, in my opinion is stuffed full of absolutely green bananas most of the time....but thats just my opinion, I can't look into the guys heart. But the best part is he's free to say it and I'm (or anyone else) is free to say hooey if I please.
What MM really is, is a real American.
EKATON, you really should stop smoking those tea bags. It's not good for your mental health.
I will never drink tea again if it represents GOP, unpatriotic ignorants...
Just say away from the Lipton crap and you're all good.
So Michael Moore is making money for speaking the truth. God bless him. If he is making money from extolling the truth. GREAT!
America desparately needs more Michael Moores.....
Long live Michael Moore.
Okay, so what can people do? One thing is to make sure we are self-sufficient enough so that we don't disappear when food chain disappears. Grow our own food and encourage all sorts of local training in practical skills. See our website http://www.cleanearth.net for a proposal we're working on putting into being in North Coastal Maine.
Thanks for the link. It's great when we share our actual projects with each other.
What else are Common Dreamers doing?
Here's a link about the SLICE workshop on co-ops we've organized this weekend in Seattle:
www.centralcoop.coop/
MM is the BEST reporter we have--if the tea bag peoples had seen his SICKO movie they would have felt differently about Obummer's insurance plan and opposed it on some real grounds--like it isn't really different--it's only insurance-friendly, not user friendly like single payer would be. If we are ever going to bring some reform to the health industry this would do it. Otherwise IT will continue to rip the users off. He gets at the truth on all the subjects he tackles--if we only had representatives with hie discernment on things that effect our country we would be ahead of the game instead of last in everything except causing trouble.
Michael Moor, please come to DC this week I would love to hear what you think about Obomber's war???
FOUR DAYS AND COUNTING...
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Thanks for reminding us of our very own Declaration. Of course, it is seditious and therefore likely to get one into grave trouble with the government authorities who probably have forgotten that it is really our founding document....