"Michael Moore is finally being vindicated. He hasn’t changed his tune. The political culture’s just catching up with him."

I exceedingly appreciate the spirit in which the morning paper referred to me today. Several years ago, they did not write so well of me. I presume I have grown more respectable. I suppose they see that my tribe is increasing. When the masses agree with a man, then he ceases to be an object of ridicule and abuse. After a while, some of these people who have abused us will be the ones who will be saying, “I told you so.”
-- Eugene Debs speaking in Knoxville, Tennessee (1905)

It's hard to imagine 30 years have passed since Michael Moore's Roger and Me. Although I didn't see the documentary until the following summer, it made a lasting impression on me.

Michael Moore Was Right, by Meagan Day (Jacobin)

Mocked and derided for his impassioned defense of poor and working people, Michael Moore is finally being vindicated. He hasn’t changed his tune. The political culture’s just catching up with him.

... I was thinking about the vindication of Michael Moore when I decided to watch his debut film Roger & Me, which turns thirty this year and which I’d never seen before. The film is an early exploration of the domino effect of deindustrialization and a premonition about the unraveling of the American dream — and it stands the test of time.

Roger & Me was personal for Moore. He grew up in Flint, Michigan, the town General Motors (GM) built, and his family worked for the corporate giant. They were also members of the United Automobile Workers (UAW), which was forged in the furnace of struggle — Moore’s uncle had been one of the sit-down strikers who famously occupied factories in 1936–7, giving rise to the union.

By the middle of the twentieth century, UAW had been able to secure a remarkable degree of stability and security for GM workers and their families. Roger & Me features archival footage showing mid-century Flint as a kind of middle-class utopia, the living embodiment of capitalism’s promise. “We enjoyed a prosperity that working people around the world had never seen before,” says Moore in a voice-over, “and the city was grateful to the company.”

But the company felt no allegiance to the people of Flint. Hungry for profit and regarding the union as a pest and a hindrance, GM began searching for ways to lower labor costs. In the early 1980s, it began laying off workers in its unionized plants and opening new operations elsewhere, across borders and beyond the union’s grasp.

The film’s title refers to Roger Smith, chairman of General Motors, who came up with the plan to close eleven factories in the United States and open eleven in Mexico, where the company could pay the workers seventy cents an hour. The company would then use the money saved by underpaying workers to expand its operations into new industries, like weapons manufacturing.

“Maybe I’ve got this wrong,” says Moore in the film, “but I thought companies lay off people when they’ve hit hard times. GM was the richest company in the world, and it was closing factories when it was making profits in the billions.”

The film chronicles Moore’s efforts to secure a meeting with Roger Smith to discuss the unfolding devastation of Flint. Along the way, he introduces us to dozens of Flint residents whose lives have been upended by the layoffs and plant closings. The closest Moore gets to Smith is an ambush at a Christmas press conference, which in the film is cut with footage of Flint families being evicted from their homes just in time for the holidays.

Moore asks Smith about the evictions. “I’m sorry for those people, but I don’t know anything about it,” Smith retorts before giving Moore the cold shoulder.

The film ends with an ominous forecast. “As we neared the end of the twentieth century, the rich were richer, the poor poorer,” Moore narrates over footage of a dismantled factory in the former boomtown. “It was truly the dawn of a new era.”

Translation: it’s obvious what’s coming. The writing’s on the wall. And it won’t be good ...

Michael Moore interview: "The director’s latest film, Fahrenheit 11/9, is a broadside against both the president and the Democratic establishment that failed to defeat him."

Moore's documentary film didn't last long locally.

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 11/9: "The film is as much about how the left and the media have failed us as it is about the dangers of Trump."

My guess is it will have greater success abroad, where people tend to understand realities that we can't, or won't, face here in Merica.

Interview: Michael Moore: 'We have the power to crush Trump', by Owen Jones (The Guardian)

The director’s latest film, Fahrenheit 11/9, is a broadside against both the president and the Democratic establishment that failed to defeat him. He explains why a leftwing comeback is on the cards

 ... For young leftists, myself included, Moore’s work was something of a political life-raft back in an era when the traditional left was all but sunk. Fahrenheit 9/11 – his indictment of George W Bush’s so-called war on terror – courageously advanced otherwise marginalised ideas: it suggested that a proposed gas pipeline through Afghanistan may have played a role in the war, and noted links between the Bush administration and the Saudi regime. Moore has called for Bush administration officials to be put on trial. All this strays from the respectable centrist critique of the invasion, that it was simply the wrong war at the wrong time, or a “dumb war”, as Obama put it, rather than a crime.

His documentaries are designed not simply to inform, but to mobilise people. “Yeah, I was hoping to stop the Iraq war, hoping to end gun violence, to ensure every American has health insurance,” he explains. But he is keen to emphasise that his new film, Fahrenheit 11/9 (9 November 2016 being the day Donald Trump was declared US president-elect), is different. “It’s not some single issue, it’s not just about Donald Trump,” he says. “There’s nothing I can tell you about him that you don’t already know. You’d be wasting time and money to watch that.”

(snip)

For me, one of the strongest elements in the film was his J’accuse against the Democratic party establishment. He seethes with profane rage when he talks about their failures. He makes a parallel with his documentary – he’s down a rabbit hole again: if it’s a great film, if the critics like it, then he’s done his bit as a director, he hands his raw materials to Vertigo, the UK company in charge of distributing the film, it’s on them to make it a success.

It’s an allegory for the Democrats, he suggests. The polling shows that on the key issues, such as progressive taxation, or abortion rights, or healthcare, or gun control, most Americans side with the progressive side of the argument. In the past six out of seven presidential elections, he notes, the Democrats won the popular vote. “So the Democratic party are handed a population which agrees with their entire platform,” he says; they even have more voters. “Yet they’re still unable to put themselves and us in power.” If his film distributor kept doing that, it would go out of business. But here is what happens, his film posits, if the Democrats become too much like the Republicans, too in hock to a corporate agenda ...

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 11/9: "The film is as much about how the left and the media have failed us as it is about the dangers of Trump."

I'll pay to watch it.

Michael Moore’s terrifying “Fahrenheit 11/9″: Trump is the symptom, not the disease, by Sophia A. McClennen

“Fahrenheit 11/9″ takes an unflinching look at how Donald Trump rose to power and what we can do about it

This:

“Fahrenheit 11/9” draws on this rich legacy to offer viewers Moore’s most powerful movie yet. The film uses the story of the rise of Trump to document the failures, weaknesses and flaws in our democracy. For Moore, the story of Trump is not a story about a momentary breakdown in a system that allowed a dangerous, narcissist to come to power; it is a story about a system that has been careening towards this outcome for decades.

And this:

At the heart of the film is the message that abusive systems of power depend on a public that is complacent, compromising, passive and distracted. In order to draw out how we came to be a nation where so few people vote and even fewer feel like their voices matter, Moore takes aim across the political spectrum. One of the most powerful aspects of the film is the way that Moore pulls no punches as he outs the establishment left and faults them for their complicity with corporate capital. Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all come under fire as Moore reveals how they sold out the ideals of the Democratic Party to corporate backers.

Also at Salon, a follow-up. I've chosen one crucial excerpt.

Lessons from Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9″: Establishment Democrats sold out the voters, by Sophia A. McClennen

Moore’s film is as much about how the left and the media have failed us as it is about the dangers of Trump

 ... 4. The Democrats share a lot of blame for the rise of Trump.

Moore doesn’t just show Obama’s disturbing behavior in Flint; he also reminds viewers of how cozy he was with Wall Street. In a series of scenes that will likely disturb many viewers, he dives deep into the ways that establishment Democrats have sold out the party’s ideals and their voters. From Bill Clinton's pro-corporate policies to his ramping up of prison populations, Moore shows how party leaders since the Bill Clinton era have alienated voters and moved the party to the right.

Moore brings up the issue of super delegates and their role in the 2016 presidential race, but he does so as only part of a larger exposé of the ways that party leaders have suppressed progressive candidates. Rather than focus only on Bernie Sanders, Moore makes it clear that what happened to Sanders has happened down ticket as well. To drive home the point, “Fahrenheit 11/9” includes a taped conversation where Steny Hoyer (D-MD), who’s been in office since 1981, telling progressive Colorado candidate Levi Tillemann to drop out of the race and cede the spot to the more centrist candidate. When Tilleman questions Hoyer’s interference, Hoyer responds smugly that he has repeatedly chosen who gets to run for the party.

Taken together these scenes help paint a clear picture for why #DemExit grew in steam over the 2016 election, potentially paving the way for the Trump win.

Again at Salon, box office context.

How Donald Trump could help Michael Moore return as the king of documentary box office, by Tom Brueggemann

“Fahrenheit 11/9″ comes 14 years after “Fahrenheit 9/11″ smashed documentary records

... As always, Moore is his film’s marketing campaign; he’s gambling that he can recreate the appeal of “Bowling For Columbine” and “9/11″ after a decade of seeing his films face declining results. His biggest hits came in the early George W. Bush years, when he was positioned as part of the resistance. (His last two documentaries came while Obama was president.) His last film, “Where To Invade Next,” grossed just $3.8 million in February 2016 — but that was months before anyone took Donald Trump seriously.

This cycle works both ways. Moore’s right-wing doppelganger Dinesh D’Sousa made three anti-Obama and Clinton documentaries between 2012-2016: “Obama’s America,” “Hillary’s America,” and “America.” All grossed as well or better than Moore’s documentaries during the same period. But his most recent release, “Death of a Nation,” didn’t top $6 million despite a 1,000-theater opening.

"The only way this will work is if everyone commits, right now, to doing something, anything, in the coming year."

Moore's words appeared at Facebook. There are two key points (in bold below) amid the verbiage.

1. Tools to resist are available.
2. You must do something with them.

It's fairly simple to me, and I'll be returning to the point very often. In the words of Matthew d'Ancona at The Guardian: Get off the ground, you wusses. Put down your gingerbread lattes, and put up your dukes.

---

A Wish for December 25th by Michael Moore

Tonight it's Christmas Eve, it's Hanukkah, it's a month before the words "Muslim registry" will find their way into an actual law, and it's just another night for the "nonbelievers" (the only group who's probably going to save us because they believe in science, facts and humanity - the last one in spite of itself).
Many of us are with friends and family tonight. Many are alone. We seek peace and kindness and compassion for all - but we are not blind (at least, for some, not any longer).

We know the wall of hate in front of us is going to seem insurmountable. It is not. It is built on falsehoods and ignorance and the instilling of fear -- and these tricks, history has shown us, while they cause much damage in the short term, are in the long run met with defeat. Just ask The South, the Germans or Roger Ailes.

There's no way to sugarcoat the true breadth of the tsunami that's about to hit us. Although we don't control a single branch of our disappearing democracy, we ARE the majority (by nearly three million votes!) and we have MANY tools available to us (mass protest, civil disobedience, lawsuits, social media, old media, and just plain showing up) that we can use to grind the gears of this madness to a near-halt.

I and others will keep you informed and you and I and all of us will lead the charge. I will continue to post things you can do where you live. The only way this will work is if everyone commits, right now, to doing something, anything, in the coming year. 

That can be our Christmas/Hanukkah/Muslim registry gift to each other - I'm in, you're in, we're all in. Everybody in the pool! Share your real presents with each other tonight, tomorrow and in the coming year - the gifts of decency, love, caring, listening, living with less, doing for others, raising your voice and using the car pool lane because you and your four friends are on your way to disrupt the building of that wall.

Enjoy this weekend, be good to yourself and remember that "Celebrity Apprentice" returns to NBC on January 2nd, 9pm Eastern and Pacific, 8pm Central (so you can maybe figure out how we all ended up in this shitshow in the first place).

And thank you baby Jesus -- sorry for how it's all turned out.

Michael Moore

Affordable health care and the GOP's rampant moral failures, Part Two: Michael Moore.

Neither headed back to the days of Dickens characters, nor to those of Mitch McConnell.

More Than a Victory, the Decision Today Was a Mandate for Us to Act, by Michael Moore

... So, yes, the bill is highly flawed and somewhat wrong-headed – but what it IS is a huge step in the right direction. And today's court decision cements that. The right wing knows this and they are probably unraveling in some not-so-pretty ways right now. And that's why today is a great day. The Right has been smacked down by one of their own! They know what we all know — that the path of history has been, and will continue to move toward the basic human right that all people are entitled to see a doctor and NOT have to worry about losing their home because they can't afford to pay the medical bills. Those days are over, or will be soon, and that is where civilization is headed. It's not headed back to the days of Oliver Twist. Today's victory is momentum, it's forward motion, and we WILL have true universal health care in this country in the not too distant future.

So take some time tonight to celebrate; this is a victory for the people. Actually, more than a victory, it is a mandate that all of us must now make sure that a second-term Obama continues to move the ball down the field, toward a system like they have in every other First World country on the planet. He simply has to improve Medicare and then expand it to every citizen in the country. The countries that do this, their people live an average of two to four years longer than we do. Is there a reason anyone doesn't want an extra four years of their lives? Or that our babies would have a better chance of surviving their first year like they do in the 48 countries that have a better infant mortality rate than we do? Exactly who is opposed to this? You'd have to be a bit…crazy ...

Hoosiers for a Commonsense Health Plan will screen "Sicko" Thursday night at the Public House.

Earlier in the week, CM John Gonder previewed Thursday night's (April 3) film event at the Public House, and rather than write my own description, I’m taking the lazy way out and reprinting John’s in its entirety. Note that last summer, I mustered the energy to write about the movie: Moore's "Sicko" another must-watch.

---

Hoosiers for a Commonsense Health Plan will offer a free showing of Michael Moore's "Sicko" this Thursday at Rich O's Public House 3312 Plaza Drive.
The movie will be shown at 7:30 PM in the Prost room. Seating is limited, and is available on a first come, first served basis. It is suggested you arrive about 6:30.

Since the venue is being provided gratis by the proprietor of Rich O's, you can thank him by buying beer and pizza. Consider it your investment in bringing healthcare to the last major industrialized nation on earth lacking such a basic human right.

The group's purpose is to give political leaders the confidence that H.R. 676, a national single payer health plan, truly represents the will of the people. H.R. 676 is co-sponsored by Louisville's John Yarmuth and others but our representative, Baron Hill, has not signed on yet. You can help him find the strength. For more information about the single payer plan, check http://www.hchp.info/

Also, don't be fooled by last week's LEO. LEO's announcement of the movie said a showing of Roger Moore's "Sicko" would be shown. So far as I know, Roger Moore has retired, and Michael Moore as 007 just doesn't work for me.

Moore's "Sicko" another must-watch. Be prepared to examine your premises.

(Gone bikin': I'm taking a personal day with full pay --that's $0.00 -- on Sunday. See you Monday morning. Keep those lovely cards and letters coming.)

The last time I attended a public screening of a Michael Moore movie, it was in 2004 for Fahrenheit 9-11. The crowd was feisty, the derision palpable, and undisguised contempt for George W. Bush heavy in the air-conditioned confines of the theater.

I loved it.

Tonight we viewed Sicko, Moore’s latest polemic, and although the demographic in attendance was much the same as for documentary filmmaker’s previous effort, the atmosphere was quite different. Ostensibly, Sicko makes the case for publicly funded, universal health care, citing models in Canada, Great Britain, France and Cuba as examples. The crowd expressed indignation when challenged and laughed when prompted -- like Moore's other films, there are ample moments of mirth -- but the overall reaction was muted and somewhat somber, perhaps because the root questions inevitably run deeper than the film's broad topic.

Is the profit motive compatible with considerations of health – of life and death? Why do we permit health care to be controlled by for-profit insurance companies and pharmaceuticals manufacturers? How is this “better” than control by much loathed government bureaucrats? Moreover, what does it say about Americans as a people when so many are uninsured or underinsured, and even those who are fully insured are subject to degradation and humiliation at the whim of corporate shareholders who reward their own bureaucrats to enhance return by withholding care?

Wikipedia offers a balanced overview of the film’s themes and includes links to opinions on all sides of the critical spectrum, and you may consult it for a more expansive look at the film.

But when you watch the movie, pay close attention to the testimony submitted to Moore by Tony Benn, the legendary left-wing British Labour politician, and later, to comments made by one of the American expatriates in France. Benn muses that historically oppressed Americans are too frightened, ignorant and demoralized to vote, when voting (“the ballet”) is in the end more powerful than money (“the wallet”).

Conversely, the American expatriate suggests that life is good in France precisely because of fear, in this case the government’s healthy fear of the French people, who’ve not forgotten what it means to take to the streets to seek redress for slights. Of course, Moore’s film was completed before the recent French presidential election and the victory of conservative Nicolas Sarkozy, who vows that there’ll be less fun and more work, although it is likely that Benn is correct when he predicts revolution as the likely outcome of any attempt to do away with current European health care systems.

Can it really be that Americans, seemingly the world’s most macho patriots, are too afraid to demand necessary fixes? Too depressed and demoralized? It’s not something that we’re accustomed to discussing or admitting, and in broaching this topic, I find Moore at his most controversial in Sicko – even more so than in staging the “9-11 workers go to Cuba” stunt that so far has attracted the most media attention.

Perhaps there is another explanation for why the United States is the way it is when it comes to health care, insurance and related issues. In a brief examination of the failed health care program early in the first Clinton administration, the list of contributors to lobbying efforts against Hillary’s reform brief scrolls past, and while it is no surprise to see the names of insurance and pharmaceutical giants, sizeable monies donated by the Christian Coalition surely elicits a double take.

Have I missed something? Is there something about being Christian that argues against a concept like universal, publicly funded health care, and in favor of the contemporary approach? If so, then why do I dread that the answer is almost certain to have far more to do with capitalism than with Christianity?

In essence, are we the only western democracy without some form of national health insurance because too many of us continue to embrace the superstition of “God’s will” as applied to ultimate fate, and to a sort of “the ill must be guilty of something” Calvinism? The people from Canada, the UK and France interviewed by Moore appear to a diverse lot, all of whom seem to share an attitude of secular commitment on the part of haves to help have-nots, sans religious sanction, which a French doctor summarizes as (gasp) “from each according to his means, to each according to his needs.”

Yes, I understand fully that a mere two hours of agitprop isn’t enough to explicate the many sides of the story. I know it isn’t that simple.

So, why am I feeling sick?